Skip to content

Digital Destiny

Jeff Chester Reports on Digital Media and the Public Interest

Category: Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act

Google and a “Solution” for the Newspaper Industry: Using Behavioral Data to Deliver “high-quality” news, but not sharing any revenues!

excerpt from Marketing Vox via Sharon Waxman in The Wrap: my bold:  At a Hollywood party last week, CEO Eric Schmidt of Google revealed the search giant’s intentions to provide a “solution” to the collapsing newsprint industry.

“Schmidt is distinctly aware of the newsprint meltdown going on in an information world dominated by his company, and that [the Google News] system only works as long as there is someone to report the news that his system delivers to readers,” wrote The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman, after speaking directly with Schmidt.

“In about six months, the company will roll out a system that will bring high-quality news content to users without them actively looking for it.”

Based on past purchases, search terms, sites visited and other criteria, users that visit Google’s homepage will automatically be served news that interests them. And because likelihood of interest — and thus, readership — is higher than with untargeted news, Google believes it will be able to sell premium ads against premium content provided in this manner.

Asked whether news organizations involved with the program would make more money or receive a higher revenue-share on premium content, Schmidt said no. But he pointed out papers would glean more traffic from their existing content, ultimately raising ad rates.

******

From Digital Destiny:  I think it’s time there was a serious discussion about a tax on companies that aggregate news content without payment, which could help support journalism.

Author jeffPosted on April 29, 2009Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Google, Web 2.0 & DemocracyLeave a comment on Google and a “Solution” for the Newspaper Industry: Using Behavioral Data to Deliver “high-quality” news, but not sharing any revenues!

Publishers Lobby Google on Search Results: Ad Age

Important Ad Age story this week.  We urge everyone to read it.  Here are excerpts:

“Major media companies are increasingly lobbying Google to elevate their expensive professional content within the search engine’s undifferentiated slush of results…But crumbling ad revenue is lending their push more urgency;…Last November John Kosner, ESPN’s digital-media senior VP, renewed the charge at a meeting of Google’s Publishers Advisory Council, a small, invitation-only group for professional publishers to pow-wow confidentially with the search giant. Members include BusinessWeek, ESPN, Hearst, Meredith, The New York Times, Time Inc. and The Wall Street Journal…

Then in January, Martin Nisenholtz, New York Times Co. senior VP-digital operations, got up at the annual Online Publishers Association summit in Florida, an event closed to the press, to blast both the algorithm and the results presentation on the screen…Publishers are nonetheless looking forward to the next closed-door meeting of Google’s Publishers Advisory Council on April 30…”

source:  Media Giants Want to Top Google Results:  Argue That Professional Sources Should Be More Recognized Than Blogs. Nat Ives.  Advertising Age.  March 23, 2009 [sub required].

Author jeffPosted on March 23, 2009Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, European Commission, FTC, Global Digital Marketing, Google, journalism, media criticism, media industry lobbyingLeave a comment on Publishers Lobby Google on Search Results: Ad Age

Google+Yahoo!=Further Newspaper Industry Consolidation (Att: FTC et al.)

The growing and ever-evolving corporate consolidation of the online advertising industry is a critical issue that should be addressed. Are there any responsible regulators and policymakers out there? We wonder, since so many are asleep at the digital switch. The intense, libidinal rivalry between Google and Microsoft almost knows no bounds. While an alliance with Google may save Yahoo from Microsoft, leasing out its search business all but ends Yahoo’s role as an independent competitor, as far as we are concerned.

One issue that requires analysis is what happens to newspapers if a Google and Yahoo merge or mingle its search business. Between the two companies, they have the majority of newspapers locked up. Yahoo’s newspaper consortium represents hundreds of dailies. Google also has its own newspaper network. Indeed, Google just ran a full-page ad in the March 31, 2008 issue of Advertising Age touting its “Google Print Ads” network. Google says it now “covers all but two of the top 50 media markets and reaches an aggregate audience of more than 40 million readers a day via more than 750 million newspapers, from major dailies like the New York Times to smaller community and college papers, Hispanic newspapers, alternative weeklies and business journals.”
With our nation’s newspaper industry in tatters–and journalism in dire straits–the role that a competitive online ad system plays to provide much needed revenues to newspapers is an important issue. Anti-trust regulators, and other policy makers, should examine the implications to newspaper diversity of any new deal further reducing the competitiveness of the online ad system. By the way, since newspapers are using these systems for behavioral and other targeting, both privacy and data collection issues should be part of the analysis.

Author jeffPosted on April 10, 2008April 10, 2008Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Department of Justice, Diversity of ownership, Doubleclick, FCC, FTC, Google, interactive advertising, interactive marketing, journalism, media criticism, media industry lobbying, media lobbying, Media Mergers, media ownership, Microsoft, MySpace, News Corp., privacy, Time Warner, Web 2.0 & Democracy, Yahoo!Leave a comment on Google+Yahoo!=Further Newspaper Industry Consolidation (Att: FTC et al.)

To help ensure a democratic digital future, Congress requires Lawrence Lessig. The Representative from the

Congress requires at least one Representative who will work to ensure that our digital communications ecology fosters democracy. If we are to see changes in health care, the environment, poverty, etc., the U.S. must have an interactive media system that supports such crucial causes. As Lawrence Lessig considers making a run for Congress, those who care about the future of the media should speak up and get involved. Lessig’s leadership role in the network neutrality and copyright debates, as well as his incredible achievement with the Creative Commons, is evidence of his commitment and powerful ability to advance the public welfare

erotic movie free clipsmovies free facialsclips free movie sex fatxxx movie free free clips gayfree download movie clips hardcore tohardcore free movie samplessucking and gagging hardcore movies freemovie hentai free gallery Map

Author jeffPosted on February 21, 2008April 27, 2008Categories Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Web 2.0 & DemocracyLeave a comment on To help ensure a democratic digital future, Congress requires Lawrence Lessig. The Representative from the

Keep Your Eye on Mobile Advertising, Marketing & Privacy, esp. Google, Microsoft and the Carriers

The online mobile space will be hugely important to civil society, communities, and the public. We have concerns about how the mobile marketing “ecosystem,” as its called by the industry, is shaping the new medium to promote a powerful pervasive presence for interactive advertising. It’s a subject this column will increasingly cover, including issues related to consumer privacy and autonomy in the mobile communications era. All the techniques and strategies we see with PC-based broadband online marketing–including the use of behavioral targeting and rich media, for example, have been migrated over to the mobile ad platform. So we think this article from ClickZ entitled “Could This Be the Year for Mobile Ad?” [Kevin Newcomb, 9/11/07] is worth examining. We all know the market will grow dramatically, here in the U.S. and elsewhere. This alone should alert policymakers and public interest advocates to begin better addressing the problems. Newcomb cites a study from the Kelsey Group which says that “the U.S. mobile ad market will grow from $33.2 million in 2007 to $1.4 billion in 2012, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 112 percent.” These forthcoming advertising dollars underscore why Google is so interested in open spectrum; it’s contested marketing territory (Google vs. Microsoft vs. the carriers, etc.).

Here are some telling excerpts from the article, including about Google’s future [my italics]: “One of the biggest drivers of the mobile market will be Google, which needs to find another outlet for its text ads. With the rapid growth of search slowing due to the sheer size of the market, Google will need to look elsewhere to keep investors happy. Mobile ads could be a natural extension of that, since the existing text ad format would also work for mobile, Booth said.

In addition, Google’s advertisers are looking to spend more money with Google, but Google doesn’t have the targeted inventory available for them to spend it on. Analysts estimate that between $1 billion and $2 billion in online ad budgets go unspent, so if Google can offer a way for advertisers to spend that money and get a good ROI, they will spend that much and more, he said.

Google has also made investments in audio ads, both in radio and its Voice Local Search,1- 800-GOOG-411. These ad-sponsored directory assistance (DA) applications are expected to grow from 270 million calls in 2007 to 2.1 billion calls in 2012, a CAGR of 50 percent.

By developing an audio ads platform that it can sell to its existing advertiser base, Google can both break into traditional media markets, like radio, and create inventory in new areas like podcasts and free DA applications, which will be largely a local-mobile space.

Besides Google, Microsoft is expected to make a big push into mobile advertising, in an attempt to beat Google to the punch. Microsoft has been investing heavily in mobile, including the acquisition of TellMe in March, and hopes to extend its adCenter platform to mobile ads as well.”

Author jeffPosted on September 12, 2007February 3, 2008Categories advertising & environment, Behavioral Targeting, Brandwashing, broadband video, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Diversity of ownership, elections & Internet, FTC, Google, interactive advertising, interactive marketing, journalism, media criticism, media industry lobbying, new media & campaigns, UncategorizedLeave a comment on Keep Your Eye on Mobile Advertising, Marketing & Privacy, esp. Google, Microsoft and the Carriers

Direct Marketing News raises some questions about

We believe it’s important to understand the business model underlying broadband communications, since it has a critical relationship to diversity of content in a democracy. So we think some of the questions raised in DM News regarding Google’s market power–and the economics of the search business–deserve attention. Here are key excerpts:
“3. Why doesn’t somebody investigate Google’s Adsense revenue split?
Because micro-payments failed, online publishers have long been caught between a rock (revenue from affiliates, which puts all the risk on the publisher) and a very hard place (Google AdSense and the other contextual networks). Most publishers have chosen AdSense because it’s the biggest network, which is fine by Google, which reaped 35 percent of its revenue from these publishers in Q2 2007.

But most of these publishers are barely eking out a living with AdSense (although there are plenty of AdSense spammers making big bucks by gaming the system). These publishers are doing Google a big favor by extending its empire, but Google won’t even tell them how much of a cut it’s taking from their click revenue. Is it 60 percent? 75 percent? Does Google favor the big guys (for example the big newspaper sites) with a more advantageous split to curry favor with them as it pitches its other products?

Nobody knows and there’s no way to know, because Google refuses to come clean on the cut it takes. I guess Google’s mission statement to “organize all the world’s information” doesn’t extend to providing its poor partners with the information they need to survive.

4. Why don’t online agencies demand an “agency discount” for search spend?
Agency discounts are a normal practice in the advertising world, but not in the world of search engines. Google claims that it denies agencies a discount to provide “a level playing field,” even though agencies do their utmost to evangelize the benefits of Paid Search Marketing and bring millions of dollars into Google’s coffers. The attitude of search engines toward agencies is “my way or the highway,” and the only reason they can get away with this is that everyone goes along with it (so far). If the search marketplace were more competitive, agencies would have a better chance of being treated as partners, not lackeys, but it may take the FTC to restore competition to this market, and it’s anybody’s guess when this will happen.

5. Why does Google run a “real-time” auction and charge users to change bids?
When you buy something at an auction house, you don’t have to pay a fee each time you raise your bid. But that’s exactly the way it works at Google, which charges agencies an API usage fee that effectively penalizes marketers for making their campaigns more efficient. While it’s true that there are certain SEM (search engine marketing) agencies out there that abuse Google’s API ( application programming interface) by making far more calls to it than is reasonable, the imposition of onerous fees on agencies who don’t abuse the API is deeply unfair. Google, if you’re serious about providing a “level playing field,” please don’t paint all agencies with the same broad brush. Just charge the offending agencies a higher API usage rate, and leave the rest of us alone.”

from: “Five Internet Questions that Keep Me Up at Night.” Dave Pasternack. DM News.  July 31, 2007.

porn amatuer moviesblogs amatuer pic pornporn seattle amatuerporn trailers amatuerporn clips video amatuervideos porn amatuer pornotubeamatuer websites pornyou porn amatuer tube Map

Author jeffPosted on July 31, 2007May 9, 2008Categories advergaming, Behavioral Targeting, Brandwashing, broadband, broadband video, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Diversity of ownership, Doubleclick, elections & Internet, Equitable Access, FTC, Google, interactive advertising, interactive marketing, media criticism, Microsoft, new media & campaigns, privacy, Web 2.0 & DemocracyLeave a comment on Direct Marketing News raises some questions about

Moveon versus MySpace and other “Community” Online Sites: A Very Important Fight

Cheers to Moveon.org for challenging the privatized non-public world of MySpace and so much of the commercially branded and shaped social network environment. As the WSJ’s Amy Schatz reported last Friday, “MoveOn.org launched a campaign against social networking sites, trying to pressure MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites to abide by a “bill of rights” for users that would lift some restrictions on how they can use the site. If candidates want to use social networking sites as virtual town halls, then new rules need to apply, Eli Pariser, MoveOn’s executive director said at the annual Personal Democracy Forum conference in New York this afternoon. “If this is a democratic platform it should be democratic”…

Please see Moveon’s page on its campaign. This is a crucial battle. Will the key online communities be primarily commercial fronts (serving the needs of major brand advertisers)? Or will they place public concerns first? We believe that since these online sites are primarily about marketing and advertising, they will fiercely resist becoming vehicles for serious political and social transformation. Over the next few weeks, we will be writing on this and related themes for our future of the Internet and the public interest project.

Author jeffPosted on May 22, 2007February 3, 2008Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, elections & Internet, Equitable Access, hypocrisy, media criticism, new media & campaigns, News Corp., Web 2.0 & DemocracyLeave a comment on Moveon versus MySpace and other “Community” Online Sites: A Very Important Fight

The Post-Imus Debate on Diversity of Media Ownership Should Be Focused on the New Digital Realities

We agree that there must be a serious debate and action to address the abysmal lack of media ownership by women and persons of color. But we urge advocates and others to develop a strategy based on the broadband world that is emerging. Soon, many people will receive their [interactive] video and radio programming over PC’s, mobile devices, and digital televisions. If we are to ensure that the new media landscape in the U.S. doesn’t repeat the same market models and homogeneous control we have with broadcasting, cable, and satellite, action is required—now. Powerful media behaviors are being developed that connect young people to the “always-on, always connected” online world. We must make sure that the public interest—especially diversity of ownership—is a fundamental part of this system. For it is the new media landscape—and its awesome power—that will soon help influence our consciousness. The outcome of elections and whether we are fooled into entering another war, for example, will be determined by how the digital media environment is structured. We shouldn’t assume that on its own, the new media will automatically promote a Just and civil society.

That’s why we hope that civil rights groups, media reform organizations and policymakers embrace a multi-faceted approach to bring meaningful change. What’s needed now is serious investment by funders/backers to develop a array of digital media services owned and controlled by women and persons of color. A variety of business models, including community and cooperative ownership, must be explored. These services must be given access for distribution over mobile devices and digital television, in addition to broadband-to-PC service. There should be a myriad of such services—including a new generation of public interest digital media outlets—in every community. Obviously, we require national networks as well.

It’s too late to fundamentally change how commercial broadcast radio, television and even cable are structured—both in terms of ownership and business models. But the “new” world emerging is still somewhat flexible to shape it early on and make a real difference. Certainly, the media industry must be challenged to hire many more diverse executives and journalists—as well as invest in truly representative programming ventures. The FCC and Congress should be a focus for such pressure. But it is only by looking ahead and understanding what the media world is going to look like—as Rupert Murdoch did with MySpace, Google did with YouTube, Viacom is doing with some of its MTV properties, CBS, NBC et al. etc.–that one can hope to make a significant change.

Author jeffPosted on April 13, 2007February 1, 2008Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Diversity of ownership, Equitable Access, FCC, journalism, media criticism, media lobbying, Media Mergers, media ownership, Public Interest Media, Web 2.0 & Democracy, wirelessLeave a comment on The Post-Imus Debate on Diversity of Media Ownership Should Be Focused on the New Digital Realities

A Pre-censored Broadband Wireless Net?

As the debate grows about the future of spectrum, we want to highlight a disturbing aspect from one proposal. A well-connected investor group (Kleiner Perkins, Charles River, etc) is pushing the FCC to give it spectrum; one of the quid pro quo’s they offer is, in effect, a censored Internet.

Here’s the excerpt from the M2Z Networks filing [available there], which I find chilling: “Mandatory Filtering of Indecent and Obscene Material. M2Z commits to mandatory filtering of indecent and obscene material for the National Broadband Radio Service. This will be accomplished through a compulsory setting on the service that will utilize state of the art filters, taking every reasonable and available step to block access to sites purveying pornographic, obscene or indecent material. Like the free service itself, M2Z’s content filtering will be “always on.” Moreover, National Broadband Radio Service customers will be unable to alter the filters as they constitute an essential element of that service. To accomplish these critical filtering functions, M2Z plans to route National Broadband Radio Service traffic through a set of servers that can examine the traffic flows for improper activity and restrict access as required. Thus, the nation’s children — and their parents — will have free access to broadband that is not only very affordable but also family-friendly and free from pornographic and other indecent material. Adults who wish to access otherwise lawful material that is restricted by M2Z’s National Broadband Radio Service may do so by enrolling in one of M2Z’s Premium Service offerings. Adult consumers providing M2Z with appropriate proof that they are of the age of majority, for example through the use of a credit card, can subscribe to a premium product.61 A more detailed explanation of the filtering mechanism to be employed by the company is provided in Appendix 3.”

Author jeffPosted on April 12, 2007April 13, 2007Categories broadband, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, FCC, Public Interest Media, public media, Web 2.0 & Democracy, wirelessLeave a comment on A Pre-censored Broadband Wireless Net?

CBS Cashes in Via Public Policy–[I Mean Lobbying Muscle]

As we’ve written, media congloms such as CBS, NBC, Fox, Sinclair, Disney, Scripps have made a bundle off of a special-interest provision Congress gave them. Called “retransmission consent,” it’s permitted the already too-powerful to become even more so. At a time when nothing is being done to expand the public interest in the digital programming age, old media broadband bandits are raking it in. But they are doing so via a noxious public policy that should be revoked.

CBS’s new windfall is a good example. According to Broadcasting & Cable magazine, the TV giant has “announced it has reached retransmission consent agreements with nine cable operators, covering over a million subscribers. The deals cover analog, digital, multicast and high-definition rights to CBS programming… CBS has sought 50 cents a subscriber in past dealings with cable operators and Verizon FiOS. A source familiar with the negotiations suggested that the new CBS deals are close to that figure.”

It’s time the public interest–and consumers–got a windfall. Media giants shouldn’t get government-sanctioned hand-outs (one that will be ultimately paid for by captive cable, phone and DBS subscribers). What’s needed is a new broadband policy that opens up the monopoly cable, phone and satellite giants to independent programmers. Let’s replace retranmission consent with the “Ensuring the Public Has Access to Independent, Diverse, Public Interest Digital Programming Act.”

Source:”CBS Gets Cash in Retrans Deal.” Michael Malone. B&C. 2/22/07

Author jeffPosted on February 22, 2007February 3, 2008Categories AT&T, broadband, cable TV, Comcast, Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act, Diversity of ownership, Equitable Access, media criticism, media industry lobbying, media lobbying, media ownership, News Corp., Public Interest Media, Time Warner, TV Industry, VerizonLeave a comment on CBS Cashes in Via Public Policy–[I Mean Lobbying Muscle]

Posts navigation

Page 1 Page 2 Next page

Archives

  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006

Categories

  • adolescent privacy
  • advergaming
  • advertising & environment
  • annals of behavioral targeting
  • Annals of Programming/Product Integration
  • AOL
  • AT&T
  • Behavioral Targeting
  • behavioral targeting watch
  • Brandwashing
  • broadband
  • broadband video
  • cable TV
  • Canoe Ventures
  • CBS
  • childhood and adolescent obesity epidemic
  • children online
  • Comcast
  • Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act
  • Congress
  • consumer protection
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Justice
  • Digital Banking
  • digital destiny
  • Digital Health Marketing
  • Digital Pharma Watch
  • Disney
  • Diversity of ownership
  • Doubleclick
  • elections & Internet
  • Equitable Access
  • European Commission
  • Facebook
  • FCC
  • FDA
  • FTC
  • Global Digital Marketing
  • Google
  • Havas Digital
  • health privacy
  • Hispanic Targeting
  • hypocrisy
  • in-game advertising
  • interactive advertising
  • Interactive Corp.
  • interactive marketing
  • Interactive TV
  • Interpublic
  • journalism
  • media criticism
  • media industry lobbying
  • media lobbying
  • Media Mergers
  • media ownership
  • medical privacy
  • Microsoft
  • mobile marketing
  • mobile privacy
  • Mobile Privacy Watch
  • multicultural marketing
  • MySpace
  • network neutrality
  • neuromarketing
  • neuroscience
  • new media & campaigns
  • News Corp.
  • Obama Administration
  • Online advertising
  • online financial marketing
  • online gaming
  • online lead generation
  • Online Mortgages
  • online video
  • out-of-home targeting
  • privacy
  • Private equity
  • public health
  • Public Interest Media
  • public media
  • Publicis
  • real-time targeting
  • Revolving Door
  • social media marketing
  • social networks
  • subprime crisis
  • The Art of the Front
  • Time Warner
  • TV Industry
  • Uncategorized
  • Verizon
  • Viacom
  • Web 2.0 & Democracy
  • widgets
  • wireless
  • WPP
  • Yahoo!
  • youth
  • YouTube
Digital Destiny Proudly powered by WordPress