Category: Web 2.0 & Democracy

Network Advertising Initiative Continues to Protect Online Marketers Interests Instead of Consumer Privacy

The Network Advertising Initiative’s (NAI) real role is to protect the ability of its members (Google, Yahoo!, AOL, etc.) to collect huge amounts of profiling and targeting data from each of us. NAI claims it’s promoting self-regulation on data privacy through its principles and guidelines. But NAI has long been a toothless group, and is basically a public relations vehicle helping to cover the data crime and more-than-misdemeanors of the industry.

So it’s not surprising that last week, the NAI announced that while it supported an “opt-in” for the kind of behavioral targeting planned by the phone and cable companies, it didn’t believe such a safeguard was required for its data-collected membership. In a statement, NAI Executive Director Trevor Hughes said that his group “believes that opt-out continues to be an appropriate choice mechanism for traditional web-based behavioral advertising and this is part of our sliding scale framework.” That’s the political position taken, of course, by his members. They are the biggest behavioral targeters on the planet.

The NAI is a weak group which reflects the cynical view of the online ad industry.  NAI members hope that they can fool policymakers into believing consumer privacy can be safeguarded by the data wolves running the privacy hen house. The battle lines for the next Congress, the FTC and FCC are being drawn. Opt-out is a feckless approach to digital ad privacy. Responsible companies should be in the lead calling for meaningful opt-in. Note to NAI members:  Deregulation and industry self-governance–how shall I put it–doesn’t seem to have worked that well so far!

Interactive Ad Bureau to Congress and Public: If Your Privacy is Protected, The Internet Will Fail Like Wall Street!

It’s too disquieting a time in the U.S. to dismiss what a lobbyist for the Interactive Advertising Bureau said as merely silly. The IAB lobbyist is quoted in today’s Washington Post saying: “If Congress required ‘opt in’ today, Congress would be back in tomorrow writing an Internet bailout bill. Every advertising platform and business model would be put at risk.” [reg. required]

Why is the IAB afraid of honest consumer disclosure and consumer control? If online ad leaders can’t imagine a world where the industry still makes lots of money–while simultaneously respecting consumer privacy–perhaps they should choose another profession (say investment banking!).

Seriously, online ad leaders need to acknowledge that reasonable federal rules are required that safeguard consumers (with meaningful policies especially protecting children and adolescents, as well as adult financial, health, and political data). The industry doesn’t need a bail-out. But its leaders should `opt-in’ to a responsible position for online consumer privacy protection.

Google Policy Blog Fails to Address Yahoo! Deal & Threat to Competition & Privacy

Google’s post today by Tim Armstrong on why its proposed deal with Yahoo! isn’t a competition problem attempts to weave and spin this critical issue. It’s very revealing as well about Google’s own failure to develop into a company which honestly engages in self-examination and reflection. As one can see from the current melt-down of the financial markets, making money shouldn’t be the sole motivation for behavior. Google should have been able to acknowledge that a major deal with its leading search competitor raises serious questions worthy of broad debate and critical analysis.

The failure of Google to respond to the concerns raised by the World Association of Newspapers this week is reflective of this. Newspapers and content publishers are rightly worried about ensuring a diversity of funding sources for the production of news and other information necessary for a democratic society. It’s not as simple as Google’s Tim Armstrong (who wrote today’s post) suggests, that this deal with give consumers “relevant ads” and help keep Yahoo afloat as a robust competitor. In fact, Armstrong and Google, we believe, aren’t being candid here. When an online ad company dismantles (or turns over) a core part of its search function to its leading competitor, it becomes fatally wounded. As Google knows all well, search and display (and online content) are all intertwined. Yahoo’s future, in my opinion, as a full service online ad company is endangered, as more businesses realize that its search ad business relies increasingly on Google.

There are many troubling privacy issues with this deal, something Mr. Armstrong tries to dismiss by saying that [our emphasis]: “[W]e have taken steps in the Yahoo! agreement to make sure that neither company has access to personally identifiable user information from the other company.” But that leaves open an array of personal data collection points, such as cookies, IP addresses, and other statistical analysis online related data. (The failure, by the way, for the privacy issues of the proposed deal to be investigated by the FTC and Congress, is also disturbing).

Mr. Armstrong is Google’s “President, Advertising and Commerce, North America.” He directs their online ad sales. In responding to concerns about competition in the online advertising market–given its links to broader societal concerns–more than just assurances from the sales department is required.

Behavioral Targeters Use Our Online Data to Track Our Actions and, They Say, to “Automate Serendipity.” Attention: FTC, Congress, EU, State AG’s, and Everyone Else Who Cares About Consumer Welfare (let alone issues related to public health and ethics!)

NPR’s On the Media co-host and Ad Age columnist Bob Garfield provides policymakers and advocates with an arsenal of new material that support the passage of digital age consumer protection laws. In his Ad Age essay [“Your Data With Destiny.” sub required], Garfield has this incredibly revealing–and disturbing–quote from behavioral targeting industry leader Dave Morgan (Tacoda) [our emphasis]:

“Now we have the ability to automate serendipity,” says Dave Morgan, founder of Tacoda, the behavioral-marketing firm sold to AOL in 2007 for a reported $275 million. “Consumers may know things they think they want, but they don’t know for sure what they might want.”

Garfield writes that “In 2006 Tacoda did a project for Panasonic in which it scrutinized the online behavior of millions of internet users — not a sample of 1,200 subjects to project a result against the whole population within a statistical margin of error; this was actual millions. Then it broke down that population’s surfing behavior according to 400-some criteria: media choices, last site visited, search terms, etc. It then ranked all of those behaviors according to correlation with flat-screen-TV purchase…“We no longer have to rely on old cultural prophecies as to who is the right consumer for the right message,” Morgan says. “It no longer has to be microsample-based [à la Nielsen or Simmons]. We now have [total-population] data, and that changes everything. With [those] data, you can know essentially everything. You can find out all the things that are nonintuitive or counterintuitive that are excellent predictors. … There’s a lot of power in that.”

There’s more in the piece, including what eBay is doing. As the annual Advertising Week fest begins in New York, we hope the leaders of the ad industry will take time to reflect on what they are creating. You cannot have a largely invisible system which tracks and analyzes our online and interactive behaviors and relationships, and then engages in all manner of stealth efforts to get individuals (including adolescents and kids) to act, think or feel in some desired way. Such a system requires rules which make the transaction entirely transparent and controlled by the individual. The ad industry must show some responsibility here.

Time for National Policy Providing Basic & Free Broadband for All: Metering and Ad-Supported Access Not the Answer

As Time Warner and the other broadband monopolists craft schemes to begin imposing pricing plans for broadband which limit and meter our online use, it’s time to push for a meaningful public interest “universal service” digital age policy. A 21st Century democracy should provide a reasonable amount of free access to every citizen in their home (along with more plentiful free access in schools, libraries, and community sites). Today’s New York Times has an non-analytical article on the Time Warner broadband metering trial [“Putting a Meter on the Computer for Internet Use.” Reg may be required].

Under Michael Powell’s FCC, the Bush Administration gave a broadband monopoly to the phone and cable giants–ending the hope for any serious competition. By rewarding the old monopolists (cable TV & phone) with a new digital domain to lord over, the Powell FCC ensured that consumers and citizens would eventually have to confront threats to both affordable service and content diversity online [that’s the network neutrality part of the story]. The plan by Google and others to free up extra spectrum isn’t a complete answer either. More bandwidth governed by an advertising-centric business model will foreground some kinds of content over others–leaving, we believe, digital content that illuminates democratic expression a hostage to commercial forces.

That’s why everyone must be guaranteed some form of free basic bandwidth so they can access news, information, and even entertainment without fear of running afoul of a cut-off (or huge bill) by their local cable or phone ISP. What that free access amount should be needs to be debated; but it should be generous enough so individuals can consume mighty multi-media amounts of educational, civic, and political content.

It will be a true test for the groups working on communications policies–as well as the leaders of our major political parties–to see if they have the vision and courage to call for what is right. If they merely confine themselves to be a part of the safe and narrow dimensions of what are the usual U.S. media policy debates, they will fail to address one of the critical public interest issues of our time.

World Association of Newspapers Tells DoJ What CDD Has Been Saying: Google/Yahoo Combo Deal Threat to Newspapers and Online Content Diversity

Last July, my CDD wrote to the Department of Justice Antitrust Division raising a number of concerns about the proposed consolidation between Google and Yahoo! In particular, we were concerned about the impact the deal melding together the two leading online ad companies for newspapers would have on that imperiled business. Now, the World Association of Newspapers has issued a statement opposing the deal, citing many of the same issues. Here’s a link and the first few graphs of their important communique:

For over 60 years, the World Association of Newspapers [W.A.N.] has vigorously defended the freedom of the press. From its beginning, W.A.N. has recognized that newspaper journalism can be truly free only if newspaper publishers are economically independent. This means having the freedom to decide what news to publish, where to publish it, and the ability to build sustainably profitable businesses around it. As newspaper publishers endeavor to adapt to the Internet, their independence increasingly hinges on their ability to monetize news through online advertising.

  

In this pursuit, one company – Google – has emerged as the significant market power in online advertising. Google has built a very impressive business in 10 years, generating billions of dollars by indexing and linking to online content, then profiting from it through Google’s own ads. However, of the very impressive $48 billion in online advertising revenue that Google has amassed since 2001, less than one third of that has been returned to online publishers (1), and a much tinier fraction has benefitted the news and content generation industries. As such, most publishers are acutely aware that Google’s ever-tightening grip on internet traffic, its unbridled use of online content, and its dominance in online advertising poses a very real threat to the continued viability of the independent content generation industry.

It should be pointed out that most of W.A.N.’s 18,000 newspaper title members are, in fact, regular customers of Google (and to a lesser extent, Yahoo). These publishers depend on Google (and Yahoo) for a significant portion of their online advertising revenue and rely on each company’s respective search engines (both their paid search ads and their natural search results) to drive traffic to their websites. To date, competition between both these two search companies has provided a necessary check to any potential market abuses, and has helped to ensure that publishers and content generators are capable of earning an equitable and fair return on their content.

It is in that context that W.A.N. believes that the competition that currently exists between Google and Yahoo is absolutely essential to ensuring that our member titles receive competitive returns for online advertising on their sites, and for obtaining competitive prices when they purchase paid search advertising. In our view, the proposed advertising deal between Google and Yahoo would seriously weaken that competition, resulting in less revenues and higher prices for our members. W.A.N. is also concerned that this deal would give Google unwarranted market power over important segments of online advertising.

While Google and Yahoo have stated that their proposed agreement is limited in scope to North America, W.A.N. believes it will have a significant and adverse effect on all newspaper publishers worldwide, as it could have the potential of reducing the incentive for Yahoo to vigorously compete against Google across the globe.

A Few Thoughts on Google, Data Collection, and Privacy: The Search Giant Blinks as Regulators Review

Google’s announcement today is a classic case study on how modern media companies deal with pressure from regulators and advocates. The company announced it would “anonymize IP addresses on our server logs after 9 months.” First, this would not have occurred without the extraordinary pressure brought by EU officials, especially data protection commissioners. [We should also thank numerous privacy and consumer advocates]. Nor would it have happened so readily if Google wasn’t trying to appease policymakers to ensure it can continue unfettered its online advertising shopping spree–such as DoubleClick and the pending joint venture with Yahoo! (and soon perhaps Verizon). Google blinks a bit on privacy when its corporate plans are under the regulatory cross-hairs (such as precisely this moment by the U.S. Department of Justice).

Google still needs to really limit its data collection practices, and become the global leader in privacy protection. It needs to become fully transparent about the myriad–and ever-growing–ways it collects, analyzes, and utilizes consumer data. It shouldn’t take regulatory review, policy pressure, or an attempt to blunt the outcome of a review from competition authorities, for Google to do the right thing. More coming.

Why We Require Rules Regulating Political Ads Online

We have long been calling for rules regulating political online and digital advertising. Beyond the privacy concerns, which are enormous, we fear that the same big-money driven politics will be played out online. The time to impose “free time” and campaign limits for digital political advertising is now (along with rules governing data collection and profiling). Here’s a quote about a new study on search and politics [our emphasis]

“With no restrictions on how much an individual or political action committee can spend buying search terms, and no record of who is buying the ads, the candidate with the most sound search strategy could end up swaying the remaining undecided voters and winning the 2008 election,” stated Kevin Lee, CEO and co-founder of Didit.”

Big money, I suggest, will change the way the Internet (and other digital media, inc. mobile web) as we know it operate.   We should be addressing this issue now, before–like our current corrupt system–it becomes a inextricable part our political culture.

Google’s YouTube: Home-Page to Feature More Brand-friendly Ads says trade story

That’s from a story written by Silicon Alley Insider. As YouTube further transforms into more of a deep-pocketed brand friendly online video service, it will be important to identify how it tries to better serve advertisers (via data collection, targeting, placement, etc.). Here’s an excerpt from the story [our emphasis]:

“Take a good, long look at YouTube’s homepage. You may not recognize it soon…Advertising sources say YouTube is revamping the homepage to accommodate a huge new banner ad that will span the entire width of the page. The ad will [sic] is roughly the same height as the current video ad unit on the upper right of the page, and designed to accommodate high-definition video… Sources who have seen the unit describe it having multiple tabs that activate when rolled over by a cursor.

YouTube is …offering inaugural sponsors a deal to buy the new unit for roughly the same price as the old, or about $200,000 a day… Industry observers think that News. Corp.’s MySpace is getting more than a $1 million for takeover ads on its homepage.”

source: “YouTube Finally Figures Out How To Make Money: Big Ads On Its Homepage.” Michael Learmonth. Silicon Alley Insider. August 28, 2008

Google/Verizon Deal: will increase “Google’s stranglehold on the mobile search market”

That quote in the headline comes from a new analyst note written by ad agency Avenue A/Razorfish. It explains [our emphasis] that: “[T]he deal will most certainly increase Google’s stranglehold on the mobile search market, and will be another blow to Yahoo and Microsoft, who are rapidly losing browser search share as well. Google currently owns 61% of the mobile search market, and already has deals in place with Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile. A deal with Verizon would give the search engine access to the current no. 2 wireless provider – but soon to be no. 1 once Verizon’s acquisition of Alltel closes.”

Regulators need to examine this deal on both competition and privacy grounds. The current review of the Google/Yahoo combination underway by the Department of Justice would be remiss if it didn’t address the mobile marketing issues. After all, Yahoo! mobile is a significant part of that company’s ad serving business. We still want to know whether Google will also be serving up mobile ads on Yahoo! as part of its forthcoming alliance.
source: Issue No 112 | August 27, 2008. SMTrends. Ave A/Razorfish.