Category: Web 2.0 & Democracy

Google Behavioral Targeting Watch: Certifies Online Ad Targeter for its content network that “delivers unparalleled consumer insights”

Google’s growing number of “certified” third-party ad companies–many whom engage in behavioral targeting–which now operate over its “content Network” should raise questions from policymakers and privacy advocates around the world. Take Tumri, for example, which won such Google approval last month. Tumri is the “new player in the behavioral targeting space that promises seamless integration of highly targeted content with heightened consumer relevancy,” according to trade publication Clickz. Tumri says it combines “behavioral, contextual, geographic, demographic, and more” so advertisers can, for example, ensure that “the target audience take action rather than simply generating awareness…”

When it announced it had gained the Google seal of targeting approval last month, Tumri explained that [our emphasis]:

“We are excited to be included as one of the platforms certified on the Google content network,” said Calvin Lui, President & CEO of Tumri…Tumri’s participation in the Google content network combines the impact and effectiveness of today’s most dynamic and targeted ad delivery platform with Google’s broad reach. The combination of Tumri’s patent pending targeting and optimization platform with Google’s leading content network will deliver unmatched relevancy to consumers and performance for advertisers. As part of the certification, Tumri worked with Google to ensure that all Tumri ads meet Google’s policies, specifications, and performance requirements.

Attack of the AdPod People:

Tumri describes its service this way: “Dynamic and interactive by design, the Tumri AdPod enables publishers to deliver the right message to the right customer at the right time, yielding greater consumer relevancy, stronger click through and conversion metrics, strengthened monetization and heightened user satisfaction.” They explain that:
“Across traditional web sites, social networks, and the incredible amount of user-generated content that users interact with daily, consumers’ unique needs and personalities are reflected in the content of the pages they visit, the context of their visits, and the aggregated behavior pattern they demonstrate online. Given the power of the Internet, marketers and content developers can reach consumers using measurable dialogs across all online channels – web sites, advertisements, email, widgets, instant messaging, and many more….”

They also discuss the company’s tools, including its “matching engine,” which enables it to “match in real-time users with commercial content…
We utilize information from site visits, geographical location, browser context, search behavior, ISP/bandwidth characteristics, time of day, and past interactions which then become input to our classifiers who work in collaboration to determine:

  • Who is this user?
  • What is this user about?
  • What are they doing right now?
  • What are they in the market for?
  • What are they most likely to respond to NOW?”

Bravo to Free Press, Public Knowledge, other Consumer/Public Interest Groups on Net Neutrality Decision at FCC

Terrific legal, advocacy and organizing work–bolstered by FCC public interest-focused Commissioners Copps and Adelstein–had led to an important decision by the Commission on the Comcast case. These groups deserve praise and support for their critical efforts.

It was almost ten years ago that I came upon a cable industry blueprint which reflected its determination to control how the Internet evolved. Much occurred since then, including important work by the Media Access Project and Consumer Federation of America to keep the pressure on the phone and cable companies. Our plan all along was to put enough pressure on via legal, regulatory and news media that the cable and phone industry couldn’t really implement its plans. Yesterday’s FCC decision marks, in a way, one coda for that effort. But we all know it will need to be ongoing.

One thought. It’s ironic that GOP Chairman Martin played such an important role here. It was, after all, Clinton FCC Chairman William Kennard who refused our call for an “open access” framework for broadband. Mr. Kennard went to work for the Carlyle Group buying media properties. Today he is also a major fundraiser/bundler for Senator Barack Obama’s president campaign. Public Citizen says Kennard has raised more than $500,000.

All Tracking, All Predicting, All Targeting: Insights into how consumers are behaviorally targeted via the China digital ad market

We live in a world that is being increasingly shaped by the forces of digital advertising. It’s a largely global market after all, and there are very important developments in places such as China, India, and in the United Kingdom that have relevance for online privacy in the U.S. This description of the targeted online advertising model embraced by the China-based PinYou is very revealing of where behavioral targeting is today and headed [our emphasis]:

“The idea is really to understand consumers based on behaviors and profile them based on accumulated inputs. Instead of being reactive, we need to be predictive. Instead of indexing pages, or key words, we are indexing consumers Instead of creating preset segments, we understand multiple dimensions of consumers. As a result, we can deliver ads to the right consumers regardless where they are. We target a consumer not because he is now visiting a page, but rather because he has searched some key words, and he has visited certain sites, etc. As a result, different people see different ads when they log on the same page…The long term vision of PinYou is to allow advertisers to be able to come in and define the specific target consumers based on different dimensions for an advertising campaign. PinYou’s system will profile consumers based on multiple inputs, including demographics, psychographics, category interests, lifestyle and purchasing funnel. Through PinYou’s network of publishers, the ad will automatically appear whenever the target consumers visit the page. What Valueclick recently launched in the U.S “precision profiling” is similar to what we have in mind.”

Ms. Huang does say she is aware and concerned about the privacy issues (and refers to the current political debate in the U.S. over online behavioral tracking). You should read the interview. But to us, Ms. Huang primarily embraces a perspective echoed by online marketers in the U.S. that threatens consumer privacy.
source: “Interview with Grace Huang, Founder of Behavioral Targeting Startup PinYou.” Kaiser Koo. Ogilvy Digital Watch. Aug. 15, 2008

Behavioral Targeting Lawsuit Illuminates How Data is Collected From You

Look for a moment at an excerpt from a legal tangle between behavioral targeting companies Valueclick and Tacoda (the latter now owned by Time Warner). Valueclick filed suit on July 15 claiming patent infringements, including for one entitled “Method and Apparatus for Determining Behavioral Profile of a User.” Read the “Abstract” and part of the “Summary of the Invention” for this patent and think about your privacy (and that this is based on 1998 technology!):“Abstract: Computer network method and apparatus provides targeting of appropriate audience based on psychographic or behavioral profiles of end users. The psychographic profile is formed by recording computer activity and viewing habits of the end user. Content of categories of interest and display format in each category are revealed by the psychographic profile, based on user viewing of agate information. Using the profile (with or without additional user demographics), advertisements are displayed to appropriately selected users. Based on regression analysis of recorded responses of a first set of users viewing the advertisements, the target user profile is refined. Viewing by and regression analysis of recorded responses of subsequent sets of users continually auto-target and customizes ads for the optimal end user audience.”

Summary Of The Invention: …Over time, the tracking and profiling member holds a history and/or pattern of user activity which in turn is interpreted as a users habits and/or preferences. To that end, a psychographic profile is inferred from the recorded activities in the tracking and profiling member. Further, the tracking and profiling member records presentation (formal) preferences of the users based on user viewing activity. Preferences with respect to color schemes, text size, shapes, and the like are recorded as part of the psychographic profile of a user…The tracking and profiling member also records demographics of each user. As a result, the data assembly is able to transmit advertisements for display to users based on psychographic and demographic profiles of the user to provide targeted marketing.”
source: Complaint for Patent Infringement: Jury Trial Demanded. Valueclick, Inc. v, Tacoda, Inc. Case No. CV08-04619 DSF. U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western Division.

Google’s patent to target social media ads: monitoring online communities

Google has been assigned a patent which abstract says is: “[A] computer-implemented method for displaying advertisements to members of a network comprises identifying one or more communities of members, identifying one or more influencers in the one or more communities, and placing one or more advertisements at the profiles of one or more members in the identified one or more communities.” Google may be joining the rush to further monetize (and spy, as far as I’m concerned) on social network communities. Social media marketing is the latest boomlet in online advertising. Here’s an excerpt from the patent.  Btw, I don’t see the word privacy mentioned in the patent application! [my bold]:

As the Internet has become increasingly popular, online social networks are becoming an important and pervasive mechanism for communication, entertainment, and professional and social networking. Members of a network implicitly associate or explicitly link themselves with one or more members within the network based on factors such as common interests. Interaction and signaling between members either directly or through other members cause the formation of communities of common interests within the online social network. The members of such communities are connected by one or more common interests.

Factors such as member interactions, content on member profiles, dynamically changing size of the community, and the like establish a hierarchy within a community where certain members are more popular than others and, consequently, wield enhanced influence over other members in the community.

SUMMARY

The present inventors recognized that blanket advertising across the network tends not to be cost-efficient to advertisers, since the members of the network tend not to be interested in the products and services being advertised unless the advertisements are relevant to the members’ interest. Presenting to advertisers a community of members sharing a common interest provides advertisers with an opportunity to present products and services of interest to the members of the network, thereby maximizing the return on the investment made to advertising.

The present inventors also recognized that advertising to members of an online social network based solely on the content of their profile lacks targeted generation of advertisements. Members of a community may have content on their profile in addition to the common interest of the community, such as personal information, etc. Relying solely on the content of the profile of a member of a community decreases the specificity of advertisements to the community since the presence of additional information distorts the signal from the content related to the common interests.

In one implementation, a computer-implemented method for displaying advertisements to members of a network is described. The method includes identifying one or more communities within a network, wherein the community can include a plurality of members of the network, identifying one or more influencers in the one or more communities, and placing one or more advertisements at the profiles of one or more members in the one or more communities…

The systems and techniques described here may provide one or more of the following advantages. First, a system can identify communities of common interests within an online social network. This may allow advertisers to target the communities based on the common interest of the community, as opposed to the content of individual profiles. Second, a system can identify members who belong to overlapping communities as a result of more than one common interest. By blending advertisements relevant to the interests of each of the overlapping communities, advertisers may target the members common to these communities. Third, a system can identify the influencers from among the members of a community. This may provide advertisers with the option of targeting either all members in the community or advertising only on the profile of the influencer, thereby targeting the entire community.

In addition, the system encourages members of communities in online social networks to enrich the content on their profiles. The presence of high quality content relevant to shared interests on a member’s profile increases the popularity of the member in the community and improves a member’s chances of being an influencer. An influencer may receive financial incentives from advertisers in exchange for permission to display advertisements on the member’s profile.

The IAB (US) “mobilizes” to Fight Against Consumer Protections for Online Media

Watch this online video of Randall Rothenberg speaking before a June Federated Media Publishing event. In Mr. Rothenberg’s worldview, demon critics of advertising (such as myself) are deliberately trying to undermine democratic digital media. This would be absurd, if it wasn’t so sad. Mr. Rothenberg is using scare tactics to whip up his members into a frenzy-all so they can fight off laws and regulations designed to provide consumers real control over their data and information. Luckily, Mr. Rothenberg will be on the losing side of this battle to protect consumers in the digital era. Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic understand how the digital marketing ecosystem raises serious concerns about privacy and consumer welfare. We have to say we are disappointed in John Battelle, the CEO of Federated (who wrote a very good book entitled The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture). Mr. Battelle should know that the online marketing system requires a series of safeguards which protects citizens and consumers. There is a balance to be struck here. Online advertisers have unleashed some of the most powerful tools designed to track, analyze, and target individuals–whether on social networks, or watching broadband video, or using mobile devices. We have never said there shouldn’t be advertising. We understand the important role it must play, including for the underwriting of online content. But the online ad system should not be designed and controlled solely by ad networks, online publishers, trade groups and online ad lobbying groups. It must be structured in a way which promotes as much freedom for individuals.

Google/Yahoo deal and its impact on newspapers

One of the issues the Center for Digital Democracy has asked the Department of Justice to investigate is the impact of the proposed deal between Google and Yahoo and its impact on the already endangered newspaper business. Both Yahoo and Google provide online search ads or related services for the majority of the country’s newspapers. Analyzing how the pairing of Yahoo and Google may affect payments to newspaper publishers, and whether there may be the potential loss of competition, is necessary. Given the current financial pressure on newspapers, CDD urged ‘DoJ to examine the deal to address whether it will contribute to a loss in revenues necessary to ensure Americans have access to print-oriented news resources.” (It’s also interesting to note that Yahoo was reported in the trade press in February 2008 as seeing the potential of its newspaper ad platform to even compete with DoubleClick–which at the time was already acquired by Google

Google/YouTube/Viacom & Privacy: Everyone tracking our online video use

The stories on a judge’s order for Google to turn-over to Viacom data on YouTube users have largely ignored a key issue: why is Google–and almost every other leading broadband video provider tracking and analyzing our online viewing habits. It’s because–like with broadband generally and with television–the goal is to know exactly what we are viewing in order to better target us with advertising. In the case of broadband video, whether it is YouTube, Hulu, or Joost, for example, it’s about tracking our viewing so well we can be micro-targeted.

Google sees huge profits for YouTube doing this. They now call YouTube a “next-generation advertising platform,” something we think reflects how they really view the service. Google is pitching the branding and sellling of YouTube to advertisers. Google is now tracking YouTube views as it promotes to advertisers a scheme to take advantage of the “viral” marketing capabilities of YouTube. Finally, it’s also useful to consider how Google’s recently acquired DoubleClick also has a product tracking and analyzing broadband video. Users and policymakers should expect their online viewing will be private–and not to be spied upon. Whether by Viacom, the government, or Google itself.

Internet for Everyone: Broadband access should be a right, not just a feature of the “competitive” market

The new non-profit and corporate coalition has nice rhetoric, but fails to articulate a policy agenda that would really address the digital divide. Public interest media groups should be calling on government and industry to provide free access to broadband for those who can’t afford it (whose numbers must be increasing, given the current economic squeeze). Just having “access” doesn’t mean it would be really affordable. Universal service in the digital age should mean the right of everyone to have broadband service in their home–as well as eventually on the mobile network. Americans should also have a broadband system where privacy is protected and is not primarily focused on data collection and the delivery of interactive marketing messages. That principle is noticeably missing from the new group’s statement. But the kind of Internet Google and other online advertisers will bring us threatens our privacy. [Google is a member of this new group.] Yes, we should have real competition–and the Bush decision awarding cable and phone companies a monopoly over residential broadband service should be reversed. Yes, we need network neutrality. But we also need to address quickly how we can ensure low income Americans have the access they require. That should involve a call for the government to pass legislation requiring a build-out of digital infrastructure, foster for profit  and not-for-profit ISP competition, and provide subsidized access for all. Broadband access is a necessity, and should be an essential “Right” Americans have in the digital era.

Ad Biz Looks Critically at Google/Yahoo! Pairing

Just some excerpts from today’s coverage, to give policymakers and the public a sense of how the 10 year pact is viewed from inside the ad industry.

First, from Ad Age: “Yahoo is outsourcing search monetization to Google in a 10-year deal, the companies officially announced tonight. But advertisers see less competition and higher prices…But the agreement… doesn’t necessarily protect Yahoo from the possibilities that the deal will erode its search business in the long run or make Google an even more dominant player. When Google search ads are mixed in with Yahoo search ads for a particular search query, Google will almost always win the better placement… And if Google consistently wins, marketers may be less inclined to bother using the Yahoo system, instead choosing to put their optimization efforts toward a single system.”

Yahoo, Google Strike a Deal on Paid Search. Abbey Klaassen. Ad Age. June 12, 2008 [sub required]

Online Media Daily: “…some in the industry have questioned whether Yahoo brass thought about the repercussions of the deal in terms of competition and advertiser perception in the mid- to long-term.

“I think the financial rationale is pretty clear,” said Bryan Wiener, CEO of 360i. “But $450 million is a lot of money, so it can’t just be all tail terms that Google will be serving. I can’t imagine that there won’t be some very valuable commercial terms in that mix.” Wiener said that if advertisers no longer saw the value in buying keywords directly through Yahoo, then fewer companies would end up using (Yahoo’s Search Advertiser Platform) Panama in the long run.

According to Neeraj Kochhar, vice president/director of SMG Search, there are definite concerns among advertisers. “I don’t see this as a positive move in terms of competitive activity,” Kochhar said.”

Final Microsoft Rebuff Sends Yahoo into Google’s Arms. Tameka Kee. Online Media Daily. June 13, 2008 [reg. required]

Stephanie Clifford of the New York Times has a good blog post on advertising industry concerns about the deal.

From the Los Angeles Times, 6/14/08:  “The consolidation of everything under Google is not good,” said Aimee Reker, global director of search at digital agency MRM Worldwide. “It will aggregate so much power and control in one place that it no longer is an open marketplace.”