Category: Online advertising

Google’s “Policy Fellowships”–Self-Serving Efforts to Help Ward Off Privacy and Online Marketing Protections?

Google has selected 15 organizations for its 2009 “Google Policy Fellowship.” Fellows are funded by Google and will work on “Internet and technology policy” issues over the summer. Take a look at some of the groups it selected and what they say the projects will be (and their positions on Internet issues). And then ask–is Google working to help undermine the public interest in communications policy? Think online privacy and interactive marketing as you read these following excerpts from a number of these groups:

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace…Electronic privacy: CEI seeks to reframe the online privacy debate in terms of the potential benefits to consumers of greater information sharing, transparency, and marketing. Fellows will explore competing privacy policies and how they are evolving as the public grows more aware of privacy risks. This research will also encompass privacy-enhancing technologies that empower consumers to safeguard personal data on an individualized basis.”

“The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy… Online Advertising & Privacy Policy Issues: PFF defends online advertising as the lifeblood of online content and services, particularly for the “long tail,” and emphasizes a layered approach to privacy protection, including technological self-help, user education, industry self-regulation, and enforcement of existing laws, as a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.”

“The Technology Policy Institute is a think tank that focuses on the economics of innovation, technological change, and related regulation in the United States and around the world… Privacy and data security: benefits and costs to consumers of online information flows, and the effects of alternative privacy policies on consumers and the development of the Internet.”

“The Cato Institute’s research on telecommunications and information policy advances the Institute’s vision of free minds and free markets within the information policy, information technology, and telecommunications sectors of the American economy…Information Policy: Examining how increased data sensing, storage, transfer, processing, and use affect human values like privacy, fairness and Due Process, personal security, and seclusion. Articulating complex technological, social, and legal issues in ordinary language. Promoting the policies that protect these human values consistent with a free society and maximal human liberty.”

Google is also funding fellowships at other groups, including the partially Google funded Center for Democracy and Technology. The CDT connected Internet Education Foundation (which helps run the Congressional Internet Caucus, where Google is a corporate Advisory member) also will house a Google Fellow. There are a few public interest groups hosting Fellows that have an independent track record, including Media Access Project, EFF, and Public Knowledge. But awarding Fellowships to groups which will help it fight off responsible privacy and online marketing safeguards provides another insight into Google’s own political agenda.

AT&T Positions itself for its (hoped for) Digital Ad & Data Collection-driven Era [Attention: Future of Privacy Forum group]

AT&T, like other companies, understands that online advertising is an intrinsic part of the broadband era business model (along with subscriber charges, transaction fees, etc.). A number of reporters, charming cynics as they may be, are convinced that AT&T’s recent calls for some type of opt-in is merely a form of Google bashing (it’s really Google envy!). But, as this trade story describes below, AT&T wants to better cash in on online ad revenues). It underscores why Congress must enact opt-in rules and other safeguards to govern ISP data collection, profiling, and targeting–especially across platforms. It also suggests a flaw in how the new AT&T supported Future of Privacy Forum envisions safeguards. They are quoted in The New York Times saying they want “to move the debate beyond opt-in versus opt-out,”–meaning self-regulation would rule–or ruin–the data driven day. Here’s an excerpt from CED magazine on AT&T’s new restructuring plan so Internet ads can play a more prominent role:

“AT&T’s Advertising & Publishing business unit has been renamed AT&T Advertising Solutions and is responsible for all of AT&T’s advertising sales, according to the company, to take advantage of advertising opportunities that cut across print, Internet, TV and wireless. Meanwhile, AT&T’s Yellowpages.com business unit has been renamed AT&T Interactive. That operation gets expanded responsibility for the development, management and delivery of online and mobile advertising products across all of AT&T’s media platforms. AT&T Interactive is responsible for online and mobile advertising inventory and offerings.”

source: “AT&T realigns ad operations.” Brian Santo. CEDMagazine.com November 20, 2008.

New AT&T-funded “Future of Privacy” Group: Will it Support Real Privacy Protection or Serve as a Surrogate for Self-regulation and Data Collection?

A new group co-directed by former DoubleClick and AOL chief privacy officer Jules Polonetsky, called the “Future of Privacy Forum,” has been announced. It is connected to the law firm representing AT&T–Proskauer Rose–which has a considerable practice in the online marketing and data collection area. Other backers include Intel, General Electric, IBM and Wal-Mart.

We are concerned, however, that the role of the Forum is to help discourage Congress from enacting an opt-in regime for data collection. Both ISPs–such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner–as well as online advertising companies such as Google/DoubleClick, Yahoo, and Microsoft must be governed by privacy laws which empower and protect consumers. The role of ISPs in any data collection for targeted online marketing, in particular, requires serious analysis and stringent safeguards. AT&T, Google, Microsoft, Comcast, the online ad networks, and social media marketers (to name a few) must be required to provide meaningful disclosure, transparency, accountability and user control (with special rules governing health, financial and data involving children and youth). Self-regulation has failed. If the Future of Privacy group is to have any legitimacy, it will work to support serious federal rules. But if it trots out some sort of voluntary code of conduct as a way to undermine the growing call for real privacy safeguards, this new group may soon be viewed as beholden to its funders and backers.

Google’s Net Vision: “take the TV experience and provide it on the Web”

As online advertising companies such as Google import the TV ad model into the online experience, what will be the consequences: to content diversity, public interest programming, sustainable lifestyles, etc.? We have our own opinion, and it should be part of a growing debate on the future of the digital media system. Here’s a glimpse of Google’s vision and its new “Branded Entertainment” division, via an article in Fast Company [November 2008]. Our bold.

excerpt: [Seth] MacFarlane’s management team went out and signed him up with Google. The resulting “Cavalcade of Cartoon Comedy”…shorts are also distributed in an innovative way: targeting young males where they lurk by popping up in ad windows on sites such as Maxim.com and Fandango.com (while simultaneously appearing on YouTube). “The idea is not to drive someone to a Web site but to make content available wherever the audience will be,” explains Dan Goodman, president of digital at MRC [Media Rights Capital]… MacFarlane’s status as an equity partner in the deal entitles him to split the ad revenue with Google and MRC…MRC provides the funding and sells the ad partnerships, MacFarlane provides the content, and Google serves as distribution outlet, providing the “broadcast” via its AdSense network. Then all three split the proceeds…Each Cavalcade short carries a single advertiser. The first 10 were bought by Burger King…

For Burger King, the appeal was obvious. “Seth’s fan base intersects squarely with our audience of young men and women,” says Brian Gies, vice president of marketing impact for Burger King. In other words, MacFarlane’s comedy provides a very powerful and friendly connection to a very targeted audience, one that tends to get the munchies. Says Google’s Levy: “We know where to find them, and we’re putting the advertising in an environment they’re comfortable in.”

“The idea is to take the TV experience and provide it on the Web,” says Alex Levy, Google’s director of branded entertainment. “But brought to the people you want to reach, when, where, and how you want to reach them.” For a company that likes to say it’s not in the content business, that’s a remarkable statement. Google, in essence, is trying to use its ad-distribution network to turn content distribution upside down.”

Seth MacFarlane’s $2 Billion Family Guy Empire. Josh Dean. Fast Company. Oct. 13, 2008

Interactive Ad Bureau to Congress and Public: If Your Privacy is Protected, The Internet Will Fail Like Wall Street!

It’s too disquieting a time in the U.S. to dismiss what a lobbyist for the Interactive Advertising Bureau said as merely silly. The IAB lobbyist is quoted in today’s Washington Post saying: “If Congress required ‘opt in’ today, Congress would be back in tomorrow writing an Internet bailout bill. Every advertising platform and business model would be put at risk.” [reg. required]

Why is the IAB afraid of honest consumer disclosure and consumer control? If online ad leaders can’t imagine a world where the industry still makes lots of money–while simultaneously respecting consumer privacy–perhaps they should choose another profession (say investment banking!).

Seriously, online ad leaders need to acknowledge that reasonable federal rules are required that safeguard consumers (with meaningful policies especially protecting children and adolescents, as well as adult financial, health, and political data). The industry doesn’t need a bail-out. But its leaders should `opt-in’ to a responsible position for online consumer privacy protection.

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.

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

Google Pushes Junk Food via Burger King Online “Branded Content” ‘Toon Deal [Do a Search for Obesity Crisis and Search Engines]

Google will launch tomorrow a new online series sponsored by Burger King that features “animated webisodes” created by Seth MacFarlane (of Fox’s “The Family Guy”). Google will be promoting the series via its YouTube service as well as on its Adsense Content Network. Burger King gets its logo and mascot in a spot. Google says, notes one online publication, that its Adsense network will only target “18 to 34” year old men. The same report explained that “Burger King gets a direct line into its consumers, who find these nuggets of entertainment where Google might otherwise post ads. Google says this is its biggest-ever deal using the Google Ad Network to distribute and monetize content. I spoke to Alexandra Levy, the director of Google’s relatively new Branded Entertainment division. The idea is that Google has all this inventory and access and branded entertainment may prove a more compelling way to communicate an advertiser’s message.”

For the folks at Google to empower Burger King ads during the current youth obesity crisis is poor judgement on its part. Google isn’t alone, however. Microsoft, Yahoo and others are also backing the digital targeting of young people with unhealthy food and beverage products. Google should think more carefully about the consequences to the nation’s health from the products it promotes (and also consider what will eventually happen to its brand reputation).

Faster than the CBS Blinking Eye: CNET now offers behavioral targeting for its advertisers

We know the folks at Viacom and CBS know a great deal about digital marketing. The new overhaul of the CNET site, which CBS acquired last June, includes behavioral targeting in the redesign. CNET now–“[B]ased on what users are searching for, manufacturers will be able to connect with them… within the comparison shopping process. In addition to its traditional focus on tech products, CNET is adding appliance and kitchen gadget reviews, covering such products as built-in ovens, dishwashers, microwaves, refrigerators, small appliances, stoves and ranges, and washers and dryers.”

Of course, we hardly don’t know any media outlet that isn’t using some form of behavioral targeting and other interactive marketing techniques. But what’s generally missing is real disclosure to users and their ability to determine what is collected and by what methods. And while online advertising is the key business model for the future of online publishing, the rush to embrace of behavioral targeting by news organizations raises a number of disturbing questions. It’s an issue we will cover.

source: CNET.com undergoes major revamp. btobonline.com. August 28, 2008

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.