The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) is a classic example of a think-tank whose ideological worldview is so distorted, it canâ€™t be relied on to truly provide an objective analysis. Its commentary, â€œGoogling `Monopolyâ€™ (Wall Street Journal, Aug 21, 2007. Sub. maybe required), fails to be an well-informed discussion of the issues raised by the FTCâ€™s review of the proposed Google acquisition of Doubleclick. The commentary was co-authored by PFFâ€™s acting president Thomas M. Lenard and Paul H. Ruben (a professor at Emory University and a PFF senior fellow). Both were FTC senior officials during the 1980â€™s. Clearly it was written to influence the FTC as that agency currently engages in a serious review of the proposed deal.
The piece urges that the FTCâ€”and the publicâ€”dismiss concerns my Center for Digital Democracy and others have raised about issues critical to the future of content diversity, competition and privacy online. Really, PFF should be ashamed for issuing such a commentary without engaging in a more thorough, probing and honest discussion. But sadly, a great many think-tanks dependent on financing from the very companies they write aboutâ€”Google funds PFF, btw, as do other online advertisersâ€”run afoul of such intellectual problems regularly. (PFF should have disclosed its funding in the Journal piece, which it failed to do).
PFFâ€™s first analytical problem is that it doesnâ€™t really understand the online ad market. Online advertising consists of two principal parts: search advertising and third party display ads. Google wishes to take-over the segment of the market it currently doesnâ€™t control (precisely at the point when the online market is converging the use of distinct data-related application sets, such as rich media and search). But instead of Google competing with Doubleclick and deploying salespersons ready to meet and greet their Fortune 1000 type clients it covets, it is simply buying what would be its most important competitor. When you have the largest search ad firm (in the world) acquiring the number one provider of rich media display advertising for the largest corporate ad budgets, you create an even more powerful online ad gatekeeper. Perhaps PFF should spend less time schmoozing with their supporters, such as at their recent tony Aspen retreat, and review the literature.
Finally, Mr. Lenard and Prof. Rubin should immediately ask the Journal to run a disclosure that Googleâ€”the subject of their commentary, funds Progress and Freedom Foundation. They should make a public apology that they didnâ€™t disclose such a connection. Then, they canâ€”in the spirit of pending `back to school’ timeâ€”go and hit the books so they can be truly informed about the subjects they tackle.
PS:Â We see that Google was also a sponsor of PFF’s recent Aspen event. Don’t they recognize that failure to disclose is a sin–even by Washington “inside the Beltway” lobbying standards!
mp3 allegro bach 526 bwvmix mp3 abacus live64 mp3 2010 90 54acid4 mp3 plugin 0mp3 moment 545 dat opmp3 bilk acker555 mp3 edacksonville mp3 woo boys Map