Category: wireless

As a brief companion piece to Ken Auletta’s article on Google in the current issue of The New Yorker magazine (The Search Party), this may be of interest. Google’s goal is ultimately to be of service to advertisers and marketers; that’s how it makes 99% of its revenue. There’s a disturbing lack of candor from Google about the conflicts they have. One the one hand, they are (getting PR for) promoting responsible practices such as energy sustainability. But on the other hand, they are using all the company’s incredible resources to push the interactive marketing and selling envelope, including the sales of automobiles. Here’s excerpts from Google advertising sales job openings related to the car and truck industry:

1. The role: Industry Head, Automotive – London

As a Google Automotive Industry Head, you’ll be working with those who produce, market or sell products or services related to cars, trucks, boats or other transportation vehicles. This includes original equipment manufactures, third-party websites, dealers and after-market parts and accessories companies. This is a highly consultative position that reports directly to the Automotive Industry Leader. You’ll be responsible for presenting the team’s strategy and managing a team of experts to increase sales on a national level. Focusing on building strong relationships at the highest possible level, your goal is to help your automotive clients get as many of their marketable assets online in an affordable and measurable way. You’ll combine exceptional Automotive knowledge, deep industry and marketing agency relationships, compelling communication/presentation skills and inspired prospecting/analytical abilities to develop and close new business as well as grow existing business.

Responsibilities:

  • Develop the vision and manage the sales/account strategies that will fully unlock the potential in the Automotive sector.
  • Build and maintain relationships with senior-level clients, industry-specific direct advertisers and relevant agency contacts.
  • Educate the Automotive industry and evangelise Google, particularly at targeted events, conferences and media opportunities.
  • Understand the roles of and manage a team consisting of Industry Managers, Account Managers, Account Strategists and Sales Planners – providing team development, guidance, feedback and motivation.
  • Develop a deep understanding of the business needs of Automotive advertisers and insights into consumer behaviour.

Requirements:

  • High-calibre BA/BSc degree (MBA preferred).
  • Proven record of strategic development of major Automotive manufacturers.
  • Substantial experience in advertising sales/marketing and sales management.
  • Established relationships and presence within the Automotive industry.
  • Broad knowledge of sales and management, and proven team management experience.
  • Ability to influence product development through interaction with relevant colleagues, peers and direct reports.
  • A deep understanding of the industry’s issues, a vision for its growth, and a commitment to advance Google’s forward-looking strategies within the marketplace..

    • 2. The role: Account Strategist, Automotive Vertical (Detroit)

    As a Google Automotive Account Strategist, you’ll work primarily with large automotive clients and agencies. Most of these companies operate multiple sales channels, work with several manufacturing partners and always look to increase sales volume and efficiency. This is a creative position that calls for a strong affinity for the craft of language and a fondness for consulting closely with the auto clients. You’ll distill the essence of our clients’ products and services into targeted keyword lists and text advertisements that connect our advertisers with customers. You will also collaborate with our Sales and Operations team to work closely with clients to maximize the performance of these highly targeted ads.

    3. [based in Santa Monica, CA]  The role: Account Strategist, Automotive Vertical.   As a Google Automotive Account Strategist, you’ll work primarily with large automotive clients and agencies. Most of these companies operate multiple sales channels, work with several manufacturing partners and always look to increase sales volume and efficiency. This is a creative position that calls for a strong affinity for the craft of language and a fondness for consulting closely with the auto clients. You’ll distill the essence of our clients’ products and services into targeted keyword lists and text advertisements that connect our advertisers with customers. You will also collaborate with our Sales and Operations team to work closely with clients to maximize the performance of these highly targeted ads…

loans 321500 loans cashloan payday 500loan 500 day paypayday 10 best loan 7 companyfast loan cash advance 20loan 6 payday cash link advanceservice cash payday advance 20 loan Map

IAB and its Proposed Privacy Guidelines: Will Fail to Effectively Protect the Public

So relieved where some in the interactive ad business when they read the FTC’s staff proposed privacy principles released last month that commentators described the reaction as the industry had “dodged a bullet” and “breathed a sigh of relief” [“FTC Online Ad Targeting Guidelines: Industry Breathes A Sigh Of Relief”].

Now Paidcontent describes plans underway by the IAB to offer “privacy standards,” via a “15-member working group,” that includes Time Warner, Microsoft, Yahoo! and others [“Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police”]. According to the January 4, 2008 article by David Kaplan “[T]he IAB task force will address issues of consumer notice and choice, in terms of deciding the context for selecting opt-in or opt-out.”

IAB lobbyist Mike Zaneis says in the article that “[T]he level of appropriate choice needs to be flexible…consumer regulation will prove to be more efficient and powerful than government regulation.” Zaneis considers the campaign against Facebook that resulted in some modest–and ineffective in my view–changes in its data collection system as an illustration of “consumer regulation.” It’s clear that the IAB is incapable of developing a policy that will protect consumers. Anyone who understands the contemporary dimensions of the interactive marketing industry–and has the public welfare in mind–should recognize what is required. The IAB will not be taken seriously if it can’t deliver the truth (it’s so far failed to protect the public from troubling online lead generation practices, for example. See our November 1, 2007 FTC filing). Yahoo!, Microsoft, Time Warner and others on the committee should lead–and not follow–advice from the IAB that will lead to prolonged political conflict–in Europe, in Congress, at the FTC and FCC, and with the incoming Administration.

Real governmental rules are required–including measures that effectively protect every consumer and also address vulnerable groups and sensitive marketing issues. The IAB’s old school Beltway mentality will likely give online advertisers a bad name. Where are the ad industry’s thoughtful leaders who can help steer the IAB in an honorable direction?

The Interactive Ad Bureau: Its Political Posture is a Liability for the Advertising Industry

On December 14, the head of the U.S. Interactive Advertising Bureau–Randall Rothenberg–wrote a commentary for the Wall Street Journal (“Facebook’s Flop” sub. required) that will be used by graduate students someday as an example of what shouldn’t be done to help an industry address a political crisis. Using old cliches, scare tactics, name-calling, the piece reflects a real failure on the part of the IAB to address an important policy issue that affects everyone–including families. It also shows an inability to recognize concerns about online privacy in an historic context. Such an approach may be useful for rallying some of the old guard. But more sophisticated advertisers and marketers will recognize that the online ad industry doesn’t benefit from embracing such an approach.

So instead of saying that there has long been a concern about online privacy, including for children, we are called “anti-business groups.” Instead of admitting that advertisers and marketers are shaping the new media system so it can better track and target us all, the IAB head claims “the consumer is in control.” Instead of admitting that it was the request made by my group and others for the FTC and the European Commission to investigate Facebook’s “Beacon” system, it says that it just took Moveon to force a (partial) retreat (anyone who has political savvy recognizes it was the combination of Moveon’s organizing, the raising of public policy concerns, and advertiser skittishness that led to the Facebook change). The commentary claims we are calling for “the banning of behaviorally-targeted ads.” But almost everyone else recognizes that we have called for meaningful privacy safeguards for behavioral and interactive marketing practices that would protect consumers.

Finally, the oldest canard in the business is used, claiming that without advertising all the “free” content online would disappear. “Advertisers are paying for it,” it is said. Nothing about how consumers ultimately pay for all this–including now their loss of data, privacy and autonomy.

Anyone with insight into where we are historically with interactive media and marketing should recognize that the privacy and marketing related issues must be honestly dealt with. Old style lobbying may show some muscle, but will backfire. Here’s hoping 2008 will bring the gift of better reflection at the IAB–to its officers, board members, and members.

tabs tramadol 120viagra ambien giftsadult add tramadol andsoma viagra amoxicillin120 tramadol 50mgre ambien vs xanaxxanax 2mg salespicture 2mg xanax Map

To Cache a Thief: In their own words…Jones Day work in both U.S. and EU on behalf of DoubleClick:

This is G o o g l e‘s cache of http://www.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S11555 as retrieved on Nov 9, 2007 17:05:06 GMT.
G o o g l e‘s cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time….

Client(s): DoubleClick Inc.

Representation: Acquisition by DoubleClick

Principal Professional(s): Joe Sims, Thomas Jestaedt, Alexandre G. Verheyden, Michael S. McFalls, Chris Ahern

Lead Practice(s): Antitrust Mergers/Joint Ventures

Industry(s): Media

Summary: Jones Day is advising DoubleClick Inc., the digital marketing technology provider, on the international and U.S. antitrust and competition law aspects of its planned $3.1 billion acquisition by Google Inc. The proposed acquisition will combine DoubleClick’s expertise in ad management technology with Google’s internet search and content platform. The transaction is currently under review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and European Commission.

Related Services
Professional Representation

The Jones Day, Google/DoubleClick & FTC conflict of interest: a higher standard is required by the agency

Our lawyers are advising my organization on this matter, but I want to remind readers of one point. John Majoras of Jones Day is listed on its web site as the “Partner-in-Charge of business development in the Washington, D.C. Office and is a member of the Firmwide Business Development Committee.” [better read it now before Jones Day removes it!]

In that position, his role raises conflicts of interest with cases involving the FTC, in my opinion. With an issue involving the future of the Internet and the fate of digital media in a democracy, the highest standards are required. Chairman Majoras should have recused herself in this case. Jones Day should not have taken on DoubleClick as a client. Jones Day’s removal of the web pages discussing its role as advising DoubleClick in both the U.S. and EU raises serious questions about the firm’s activities in this merger case. There are so many key questions that must be publicly resolved. When did Jones Day begin representing DoubleClick? When did it announce, via its website, internal communications system, and through its representation with clients, regulators, and other outside parties, that it was representing DoubleClick? Did the FTC staff learn of the relationship between their boss’s husband’s law firm and the merger? (Please don’t tell me that such a relationship, even if spread informally, doesn’t have an impact on the proceeding.)

The public requires the highest standards of conduct from its public officials and leading law firms. This incident illustrates that more must be done to make such institutions accountable. Yesterday’s FOIA request by EPIC asking that the FTC provide it with all records related to its communications with Jones Day in this merger case (and related privacy issues) is a step in the direction of obtaining some sunshine.

Over the last six months, we have been focused on the business and privacy issues related to the Google and DoubleClick merger. We knew a huge lobbying operation was in effect, with Google having added significant political capacity in D.C., and various competitors (Microsoft, the phone companies, Yahoo!) jockeying for position. Our job at CDD was to provide some honest analysis about the realities of the online advertising business–its market structure, goals, and privacy threats. We didn’t have the time–nor the resources–to dig into the political aspects of the issue. Sadly, there was little serious journalism on the deal as well. But last Monday we decided to examine what role Jones Day was playing in the Google merger and learned–via its website–that it represented DoubleClick.

This case illustrates something we all know. That the big money and special interest nature of Washington politics is at odds with the concerns and needs of the average American. As I said, a higher standard is required–for public service, disclosure and intellectual rigor (something we believe the FTC has failed to do in this case and related privacy matters). It’s a story that not going away. That’s why we are writing about it–and keeping a watch as well!

sexploitation moviesshakeela uncensored moviesmovies silk pantywhite movie single femalexxx smokin moviessoundtrack movie philadelphiain spankings moviestgp squirt movies Map

EC Enisa Report Underscores Privacy Threats and other Risks from Social Networks: Wake-Up Time for Facebook, MySpace, IAB, FTC, Congress. Rules & Safeguards Required

The expanded targeting based on user profile activity launched last month by both Facebook and MySpace underscore why we must craft federal (and EU) rules to govern the data collection apparatus of social networks. By combining behavioral targeting, transaction data, and profile information, Facebook and others have entered into a new territory. Even industry insiders understand how a line has been crossed: one senior VP at Digitas (part of the Publicis Groupe ad industry empire) noted that [our emphasis]:

“Facebook has made an announcement that has major implications for how marketers can communicate to members going forward. Essentially, Facebook said that it will allow marketers to target members with ads based on its user’s personal profiles, social connections and even the recent activities of each user’s extended network.

This announcement marks a significant departure in the way social networks have been organized to date. Until now, marketers have had limited opportunity to serve ads directly to users within the social network. With this change, marketers will now have the opportunity to target consumers directly based on attitudinal, behavioral and demographic attributes included directly in or inferred from personal profiles and connections online.”

We have sent out to the FTC today this new report [pdf] by ENISA—the European Network and Information Security Agency. Released in October, “Security Issues and Recommendations for Online Social Networks” is worth reading—for its clear and thoughtful analysis and, frankly, its disturbing implications. It’s clear from the start of the paper that social networking sites (SNS) are more than just commercial or personal playgrounds—they are, notes ENISA—“…all-embracing identity management tools…” As the report explains:

“Users are often not aware of the size or nature of the audience accessing their profile data and the sense of intimacy created by being among digital `friends’ often leads to disclosures which are not appropriate to a public forum. Such commercial and social pressures have led to a number of privacy and security risks for SN members.”

Among the “threats” the report lists includes:

1.1 Digital dossier aggregation: profiles on
online SNSs can be downloaded and stored
by third parties, creating a digital dossier of
personal data.
1.2 Secondary data collection: as well as data
knowingly disclosed in a profile, SN
members disclose personal information
using the network itself: e.g. length of
connections, other users’ profiles visited
and messages sent. SNSs provide a central
repository accessible to a single provider.
The high value of SNSs suggests that such
data is being used to considerable financial
gain.
1.3 Face recognition: user-provided digital
images are a very popular part of profiles
on SNSs. The photograph is, in effect, a
binary identifier for the user, enabling
linking across profiles, e.g. a fully identified
Bebo profile and a pseudo-anonymous
dating profile.
1.6 Difficulty of complete account deletion:
users wishing to delete accounts from SNSs
find that it is almost impossible to remove
secondary information linked to their
profile such as public comments on other
profiles.

Among the report’s other recommendations include the need to consider reviewing regulatory safeguards and data protection law, such as the FTC’s Fair Information Practices. Social networks have become a place where people are living out their lives, sharing intimate details about their identity. They cannot be operated as data mining and digital marketing operations solely. They must operate in the public interest as well, including rules protecting privacy for those under 18.

It’s time for a broad range of stakeholders to work together to address what must be done.

PS: ENISA held a conference on the issue last June, featuring a number of interesting papers.

The Future of Behavioral Targeting Regulation–First in a [very long] series

Now that the EU’s Article 29 Working Group has announced plans to investigate behavioral targeting as part of its 2008 workplan, advocates and regulators from both sides of the Atlantic can build the case for meaningful safeguards. The goal should be maximum privacy protection. It’s interesting to see the response coming from European-based behavioral targeting firms, such as nugg.ad.ag. In an article for the UK-based imediaconnection trade report, nugg.ad’s co-founder removes the use of IP addresses from the targeters arsenal, writing that “… even IP addresses has no place in targeting.” That will come to a surprise to many in the online marketing industry!

Nugg.ad is engaged in a range of targeting efforts that require the scrutiny of data regulators. But just in case you thought their rejection of IP address targeting made them a worthy of a privacy prize, you would be mistaken. In the same article, the nugg.ad executive describes the new generation of data that can be mined by marketers [our emphasis]: “Web 2.0 offers a better option — user-generated content, be it through word, sound or image, which is fitted with ‘tags’. These community recommendations lift contact management to a new level. By using targeting technology that can be applied flexibly, you can develop completely novel approaches and exploit untapped potential.”

The Article 29 group will surely be working.

8 loan pay day loan paydayprocessor account mortgage loan processor managerstudent loans and achievepersonals site adult loan personalsunsecured credit online secured loan adversestudent loan money aid federal directfinancial student loan aid directgrant loan aid student financial Map

The evolution of targeting users online (or, "Oh where oh where has our privacy gone")

An excerpt from a recent trade piece that should encourage reflection and concern (our emphasis):

“Today, we can not only target by the sites we think our customers frequent, we can follow them around the Web and target them based upon the other sites they actually visit. We can also target them based upon the words typed into a box, and from where those words are typed through search geo-targeting. We can also retarget searchers elsewhere on the Web. Facebook’s recent announcements take targeting to a whole new level, based upon age, location, interests, and other online activity.”

Source: “Search And Online Advertising: A Continual Evolution.” Ellen Siminoff. Search Insider. November 16, 2007

ringtone 7100i blackberryringtone uesers 100 mtn free tonokia ringtone 6061acdc ringtone mp3free polyphonic 3560 nokia ringtones 100a perfect lie ringtone2006 index mmf ringtoneringtone nextel 24 for i730 Map

ringtone 1260 nokiaringtones 3390 nokiaringtones nokia free 3595free polyphonic ringtone 6600 nokiaverizon absolutely free ringtonesmusic free ringtones no 100 chargeget ringtone know 50 wanna centnokia 3595 ringtone downloadable Map

Google & the Public Interest Policy Pod People

They’re coming. The “Google Policy Fellows” to help staff an array of public interest groups and policy think-tanks. “As lawmakers around the world become more engaged on Internet policy,” says Google, “a robust and intelligent public debate around these issues becomes increasingly important…The Google Policy Fellowship program offers undergraduate, graduate, and law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues…Fellows will… work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations… include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge.”

It’s wrong for public interest and consumer organizations to take Google’s money and especially provide a “Fellowship” in its name. We need to build more consumer advocacy capacity to address Google’s growing power, especially its threat to privacy. No matter what these groups say (and some already take money from Google; others receive broad media industry support), there are digital strings attached, as subtle as they may be. The Fellowship program is just another lobbying and PR effort coming from a company that has a broad policy agenda. Many of the groups above should be training people to represent the public versus companies such as Google, and other big online advertisers and new media conglomerates. Giving Google a say on the training of policy advocates, let alone a funding role, undermines the public interest movement.

The image “http://blowyourheadoff.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/invasion-of-the-body-snatchers.jpeg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

EC Second Phase Investigation of Google & DoubleClick: Good for Consumers, Competition and Privacy

Today’s announcement by the Directorate for Competition (DG Comp) underscores that the EC recognizes the serious consequences of the proposed Google takeover of DoubleClick. Competitors, consumer groups, and privacy advocates have provided sufficient information to the commission to warrant this relatively rare phase two inquiry. Google is quickly becoming the key digital gatekeeper for the online publishing and advertising marketplace. At stake here is more than just the skyrocketing Google share price, the convenience of our online searches, or even the current state of online advertising competition. The online marketing system is at the core of the dramatic changes transforming global communications–from broadband PC, to mobile, eventually even to television. If we are to have a more democratic and diverse digital marketplace of ideas and commerce, there must be meaningful competition and consumer protection in the online ad sector. This means Google should be prohibited from buying DoubleClick. Or, that at least meaningful safeguards are imposed that limit Google’s ability to leverage DoubleClick’s vast treasure trove of consumer data and its business relationships with many of the world’s largest companies.

Consumers need to be assured that they won’t be unfairly treated in terms of pricing and choice when buying online; advertisers will need protections to ensure that online marketing remains both affordable and competitive, especially when using Google. Privacy must be considered as well, with appropriate safeguards enacted