Category: Web 2.0 & Democracy

FTC Filing today on GoogleClick First in a Series of Steps

Today, the Center for Digital Democracy joins with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) in a complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about new threats to privacy arising from the proposed takeover of Doubleclick by Google. A copy of the filing can be be found here.

It is critical that both U.S. and E.U. antitrust authorities investigate the impact of this deal on the growing consolidated online advertising marketplace. My group and allies are working on the competition and market structure issues, in addition to concerns about privacy (in the case of the online advertising market, of course, issues related to personal privacy are almost totally intertwined).

The merger between Google and Doubleclick, along with other interactive ad industry consolidation, has greater implications beyond concerns over advertising competition and privacy. Whomever controls the online ad market will determine the range and diversity of content creation and distribution online (through their ability to invest in content sources and services). Antitrust regulators must intervene to protect civil society, including ensuring the funding and availability of news and civic discourse for the digital realm.

Scott Cleland on Google-Doubleclick: `Competition Foreclosure’

We agree with much of Mr. Cleland’s analysis that the Google acquisition of Doubleclick raises serious concerns about the future of the digital marketplace. But, unlike Scott, we believe the deal has critical antitrust implications (and has nothing to do with net neutrality). Here are key excerpts from his longer piece:


“Just as Microsoft vertically-leveraged (bundled/tied) its operating system dominance to dominate the office applications market via the Windows platform, Google apparently looks to vertically-leverage (bundle/tie) its keyword search dominance with DoubleClick’s leadership in online banner/video display advertising, and with its Google-YouTubedominance in video search…This vertical combination reportedly could give Google-DoubleClick upwards of 80% of the overall market for advertisements provided to third-party websites. Just like Microsoft became the default office applications platformfor email, e-calendars, word processing, spreadsheets, and PowerPoint, for any user, Google has obvious designs on becoming the default Internet advertising broker/platform for: keywords, website display ads, and TV, radio, newspaper/magazine advertisingfor the average large advertiser… If Google can gain the first-mover advantages of offering advertisers the super- efficiencies of cross-media-platform advertising optimization, i.e. a vertically-integrated/tied advertising platform, individual advertising mediums and companies will largely be at their (anti-)competitive mercy going forward. Game. Set. Match…The DoubleClick acquisition, like Google’s acquisition of YouTube, is really all about achieving competitive foreclosure long term. Google’s “partnership’ strategy is also all about competitive foreclosure…”

Toyota Infiltrates Music `Scene’ and Network TV to Sell Scion

For years now we have said that “product placement” has been replaced by what we’ve termed “plot” placement. That means episodes of programs, entire series, and even TV networks created in support of a brand/sponsor (such as the new Bud.TV-reg required).

Toyota’s marketeers for its Scion line like to insert the brand in “hip” culture. Now, they are “ramping up its efforts within the independent and underground music world, with negotiations to launch a reality TV show called “Stomping Grounds,” starring hip-hop artists who cruise around (in Scion vehicles) the neighborhoods they grew up in.” One of Scion’s agencies told MediaPost that “Stomping Grounds” is now in “film festivals, but we are approaching networks about licensing the show and making a series out of it. That’s how we would approach it, as a Scion-branded show, with Scion cars in it.” This week Scion launched “a program using hip-hop producer Hi-Tec, who has produced for 50 Cent and Jay Z, among others. As part of the program, “The Prospect,” he will select a promising hip-hop artist, record his music and make a music video, while Inform Ventures develops a marketing program and a mini-tour for the artist. The winner of the program will be chosen in July, based on submissions to scionprospect.com.”

The Brand and Not-so Beautiful world that Toyota, Viacom’s MTV and Nickelodeon (see today’s Nick announcement), and so many, many others are creating ultimately makes everything in our world an extension of a brand message. Yes, I believe that hip-hop artists, video and online content producers, and journalists must be paid decently (and have the resources to do their work). But if music, childhood, and civic discourse are reduced to mere extensions of [perpetual] marketing campaigns, isn’t that a cynical and disturbing development? Yes, I believe so. Do we really want to develop a global culture where the public is forced to have never-ending relationships with brands and their messages?

New MIT Book Covers Children/Youth and Digital Culture/Politics

My wife Kathryn C. Montgomery has a new book about to be published. It’s titled “Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet.” The following is from the MIT Press catalog:

“Children and teens today have integrated digital culture seamlessly into their lives. For most, using the Internet, playing videogames, downloading music onto an iPod, or multitasking with a cell phone is no more complicated than setting the toaster oven to “bake” or turning on the TV. In Generation Digital, media expert and activist Kathryn C. Montgomery examines the ways in which the new media landscape is changing the nature of childhood and adolescence and analyzes recent political debates that have shaped both policy and practice in digital culture.

The media have pictured the so-called “digital generation” in contradictory ways: as bold trailblazers and innocent victims, as active creators of digital culture and passive targets of digital marketing. This, says Montgomery, reflects our ambivalent attitude toward both youth and technology. She charts a confluence of historical trends that made children and teens a particularly valuable target market during the early commercialization of the Internet and describes the consumer-group advocacy campaign that led to a law to protect children’s privacy on the Internet. Montgomery recounts–as a participant and as a media scholar–the highly publicized battles over indecency and pornography on the Internet. She shows how digital marketing taps into teenagers’ developmental needs and how three public service campaigns–about sexuality, smoking, and political involvement–borrowed their techniques from commercial digital marketers. Not all of today’s techno-savvy youth are politically disaffected; Generation Digital chronicles the ways that many have used the Internet as a political tool, mobilizing young voters in 2004 and waging battles with the music and media industries over control of cultural expression online.”

Congressional Internet Caucus—–Break Your Special Interest Ties

Today’s column by Washington Post reporter Jeffrey Birnbaum focusing on the sale of products and services at Congressional Internet Caucus events [“Soliciting for Good Citizens” reg. required] underscores why it’s time for the bi-partisan group to restructure its relationship with the Internet Education Foundation’s Advisory Committee.

This Congress is supposed to be breaking the ties between the powerful lobbying infrastructure and its political deliberations. Permitting the most powerful corporate media and telecom special interests to, in essence, determine the Caucus agenda is inappropriate (to say the least!). No group funded by the telecom and media industry should play a role as well in shaping the Caucus agenda. We hope the Net Caucus will clean house. Will Caucus co-chairs Senator Pat Leahy, Rep. Rick Boucher, and Rep. Robert Goodlatte do the right thing?

Congressional Internet Caucus: It’s For Sale!

Who really runs the U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus–Members of Congress or the companies and special interests with the deepest checkbook? Take a look at how a forthcoming Congressional Caucus meeting on wireless issues is, literally, for sale. At the NetCaucus website for the event, chaired by Congressman Mike Honda [Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus’ Wireless Task Force] is a pitch for “sponsorship.” Here’s how you can push your message before the Hill:

“Sponsorship Opportunities

We are seeking responsible industry players to help facilitate this important policy dialogue with a few key sponsorships. These promotional sponsorship options will help position your organization as a thought leader during the substantive discussions. Your assistance will help to bring together leading location-service providers, social networking sites, advertising service providers, wireless carriers, government officials and Congressional players will come together to start discussing the range of issues, policies and opportunities presented by this emerging marketplace.

Options include:
Dialogue pens: Distribute pens with your logo in conference bags and binders.
Dialogue breaks: We’ll announce your sponsorship of the morning continental breakfast or mid-morning coffee break and feature your logo or brand in the break area.
Dialogue Wi-Fi Hotspots: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor.
Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.’s finest restaurants. ICAC staff will work with you to craft the perfect guest list.

Contact us for details & pricing.”

It’s time that the Caucus break its ties with the Advisory Committee and become a truly independent forum. Take a look at the Advisors!

The [Growing & Never-Ending] Privatization of Online Space

As online viewership concentrates on key platforms and “community” services, the role which marketing and big money is playing to shape the digital media experience should be a focal point of debate. YouTube, for example, notes this week’s Advertising Age, “is doing custom campaigns for major brands that cost about $750,000 a pop; housing dedicated channels for marketers and, yes, some content players that can run up to $500,000; and front-and-center home-page positioning with its four “director’s placement” spots, which cost about $50,000.” [sub required. “Did Google Flush $1.6 b Down the YouTube?” Matthew Creamer. March 18, 2007].
We think the prevailing ideology that online communications must be thoroughly “monetized” is troubling, and raises key public interest concerns. What will the spiraling costs for effacious YouTube access mean for non-profit groups, issue campaigns, and independent political candidates? Will we repeat the same business model for political communications in the U.S. with digital media that we have for television? Will big, special interest money be required to really attract attention. I believe that the changing nature of the digital medium will eventually make the notion that a stand-alone “viral” video can be a major agent of social change an endangered species.