Category: European Commission

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.

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.

More Google Ad Tag Targeting & Data Collection via DoubleClick’s new “DART Natural Search”

Google now does the hiring and firing over at DoubleClick. It’s also responsible, of course, for its business activities and privacy policies. Here’s an excerpt from a 2008 “beta programme” called DART Natural Search. We think the growing role of user tracking across a myriad of online content, which other companies are also doing, is a very disturbing practice:

“By working with DART Natural Search, the impact of the entire search experience and click history can provide directional and prescriptive insight for your business’ search strategies. The DART Natural Search solution empowers businesses to better understand consumer search activities, through a robust tool that leverages existing spotlight tags used in paid search management and a simple tag on landing pages. DART Natural Search reports on where your traffic originates via the following search engines properties. [they list Google, MSN, Yahoo, Windows Live, ASK & AOL]…Conversion data from both Paid Search and Display is de-duplicated. And you get full exposure-to-conversion pathway reporting, giving you a snapshot into what influences a customer purchase decision… DoubleClick implements a state-of-the-art, single tracking tag and system for both Paid Search and Natural Search… By understanding the complete picture of the online media mix, you gain insight into the visits and conversions attributable to natural searches. Specifically for Natural Search, you’ll be able to understand what country people search from, and the search engine property they use (images, video, news, etc). Lastly, learn what search terms and landing pages are most valuable to your business.”

source: “Gain Insight into Your Customers’ Natural Searches.” DoubleClick [UK]. 2008.

Behavioral Targeting: A “Guide” from Yahoo!

Here’s an excerpt from a Yahoo! description of its behavioural targeting capabilities,via its UK site:

“What is behavioural targeting? Online has always been able to offer varied targeting opportunities, such as demographic, geographic and interest targeting, based on a user’s claimed interest and activity at one specific point in time. However behaviourial targeting goes one step further. Behaviourial targeting is different in that it allows advertisers to deliver specific targeted ads to consumers interested in a product, when they are close to the point of purchase, by leveraging actual online user behaviour. Even better, because the ad is served to a person based upon relevancy, it can be on a page that’s not directly related to the product…

Behavioural targeting anonymously follows someone’s interests, patterns and behaviours so you can speak to them knowing they want to be spoken to, which means less campaign wastage. This can be done by monitoring a number of consumer actions including:

> Search terms entered
> Editorial content viewed
> Ads clicked on
> Channels or micro sites
…Yahoo! behavioural targeting gives each category a unique “product purchase cycle” to ensure it reaches consumers for the correct duration while they are in market for that product. These cycles are based on a rigorous investigation of a consumer’s actions in the buying process. The frequency and intensity of these actions change the closer the consumer gets towards the point of purchase, allowing distinct periods of brand consolidation and purchase intent to be identified. Behavioural targeting allows ads to be strategically delivered to these exact points of the process…

Yahoo! tracks historical behaviour – who clicked on ads in this category in the past and what actions led to this click? Each user is then scored on how likely they are to respond to ads in this category. The ads are then delivered through behavioural targeting, which will only reach those judged to be in market and ready to respond to that specific product category.

How does it work? Behavioural targeting anonymously follows someone’s interests, patterns and behaviours so you can speak to
them knowing they want to be spoken to, which means less campaign wastage. This can be done by monitoring
a number of consumer actions including:> Search terms entered
> Editorial content viewed
> Ads clicked on
> Channels or micro sites visitedYou can then weight each person according to their relevancy to a particular industry category and their exact position within the buying process. This can be worked out by the frequency and how recently they have shown an interest in a specific product. For example, if someone visits Yahoo! Travel and searches for flights or travel insurance this will increase their rating for the travel category. Naturally they will also fall into the finance and insurance category and their subsequent actions will determine how relevant they are to

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.

Annals of Digital Product Placement: Brand Integration Deals & Online Video

Eventually, both the FTC and FCC–and Congress–will need to address this (as will the EU, etc). As “brand integration” increasingly becomes a key business model for online video publishing, more than disclosure should be required. Here’s an excerpt from TV Week:

“Some market research firms forecasting the size of the online video ad economy aren’t counting money spent on brand integration and product placements…

That suggests the size of the Web video economy is being underestimated by the amount of ad dollars flowing into high-profile Web shows such as NBC-backed “Gemini Division,” EQAL-owned “LG15: The Resistance” and Revision3’s “Diggnation.”

That’s a problem because they generate most of their ad revenue from brand integration and host shoutouts, as do many Web studios including Next New Networks, Revision3, ManiaTV and For Your Imagination.

“The vast majority of revenue we derive for our shows are from brand integration,” said Greg Goodfried, one of the executive producers of “LonelyGirl15” and its spinoffs, which have inked deals with MSN, Disney, Paramount and Procter & Gamble…“Brand integration is one of the biggest segments of the online video ad market, maybe bigger than pre-rolls,” said Raj Amin, CEO of HealthiNation, the online video health information network…There are no current estimates on the size of product placement deals in Web video. But Web TV networks such as Revision3 and For Your Imagination said they charge $60 to $80 on a cost-per-thousand basis for such buys.”

source: “Problems Emerge Measuring Web Video Ads: Product Placements Left Out of Estimates.” Daisy Whitney. TV Week. August 31, 2008.

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?”

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.