When Do Google, Washington Post, Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft, Cox et al. work together lobbying? As they help IAB make the U.S safe for Internet Advertising practices

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has stepped up its efforts as a lobbying force in D.C. The group wants to make sure we don’t have laws and regulations which would meaningfully protect the public, including consumers. Here’s how the IAB describes its “Public Policy Council” (one of the groups many standing councils and committees):

“Proactively lobby Congress and Federal Administrative agencies on privacy issues, with a focus on educating key decision-makers on the importance of the interactive advertising industry. 2. Help craft meaningful legislative proposals that protect consumers’ privacy interests without unduly burdening legitimate interactive advertising practices. 3. Engage the Federal Trade Commission to influence future enforcement proceedings, potential rulemakings, and public workshops on issues central to the interactive advertising industry.”

Here is their mission statement and a list of the policy council members:

Mission

Lead the advocacy efforts of IAB’s membership as they engage all levels of government on key policy issues in order to ensure continued growth of the industry.

Committee Leadership
  • Dave Morgan, Tacoda, Chair
Committee Participants
  • Alan Davidson, Google, Inc.
  • Alan Roth, Zango
  • Alexandra Wilson, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • Alissa Kaplan, 24/7 Real Media, Inc.
  • Andrew Moskowitz, Vizi Media
  • Anne Lucey, CBS Digital Media
  • Bennet Kelley, ValueClick Media
  • Bennett Zucker, Right Media Inc.
  • Bill Bailey, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Bob Filice, Blue Lithium
  • Brad Aaron, Q Interactive
  • Brent Thompson, IAC Media & Advertising
  • Brooks Dobbs, DoubleClick, Inc.
  • Bryce Harlow, CBS Digital Media
  • Caroline Little, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Charles Curran, AOL
  • Chris Kelly, Facebook
  • Chris Lin, comScore
  • Cliff Harris, Cablevision Advanced Systems
  • Colin Johnson, Motive Interactive Inc
  • Craig Spiezle, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Dan O’Connell, WeatherBug
  • Danny Choriki, ADTECH US, Inc.
  • David Cancel, Compete, Inc.
  • David Green, NBC Universal Digital Media
  • David Payne, CNN.com
  • Diane McDade, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Don Mathis, Azoogle Ads, Inc.
  • Erin Miranda, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Frank Torres, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • George Pappachen, Dynamic Logic
  • Greg Berretta, Zango
  • Gregg Pendola, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Henry Goldstein, CNET Networks, Inc.
  • Hillary Smith, Right Media Inc.
  • Ho Shin, Advertising.com
  • Jeff Long, Revolution Health Group
  • Joey Lesesne, Cox Newspapers, Inc.
  • John Barabino, Google, Inc.
  • John Hopkins, WebMD
  • John Orlando, CBS Digital Media
  • John Wilk, WorldNow
  • Jonathan Meyers, Forbes.com
  • Josh Brown, CBS Digital Media
  • Jules Polonetsky, AOL
  • Karl Gallant, ValueClick, Inc.
  • Ken Levin, Edmunds.com
  • Ken McGraw, Zango
  • Laura O’Daly, iVillage, Inc
  • Lesley Grossblatt, I/PRO
  • Leslie Dunlap, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Linda Chan, SourceForge Inc.
  • Linda Schoemaker, aQuantive, Inc.
  • Lisa Anderson, AOL
  • Louis Hengen, Tacoda
  • Marilyn Cade, AT&T
  • Mary Berk, MSN (Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions)
  • Matt Kaminer, WebMD
  • Matthew Stern, Musicloads
  • Melissa DeVita, MediaFLO USA, Inc.
  • Michael Drobac, Ask, Inc
  • Pablo Chavez, Google, Inc.
  • Pesach Lattin, Vizi Media
  • Phil Stelter, Range Online Media, Inc.
  • Richard Bates, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Rick Lane, News. Corp
  • Robert Gratchner, Atlas Solutions
  • Sarah Deutsch, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Bryant, Idearc Media Corp.’s SuperPages.com
  • Shayne Wiley, Yahoo!, Inc.
  • Sheri McGaughy, Weather Channel Interactive (Weather.com)
  • Sherrese Smith, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
  • Steve Emmert, LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell
  • Susan Fox, Walt Disney Internet Group
  • Tom Bartel, Return Path
  • Tom Beck, Enlighten

5500 loans 72p requirements deemedreceivable system ac management creditaccept payments credit 123 onlinecardc credit aceptcasino 18dice 3 casinocredit solutions advanced5 casino diamonds Map

Michael

Earlier this month, the buy-out firm where former FCC chairman Michael Powell is a “senior advisor,” Providence Equity Partners, acquired a 10% stake in the new online joint venture run by GE/NBC Universal and Murdoch’s News Corp. Providence contributed $100 million to what is valued as a $1B business. Named for now “New Site,” the venture is aimed at competing with Google’s YouTube and provide a broadband video platform more under the control of major entertainment and advertising brands. Content and ad deals have already been made with Time Warner, Intel, Cisco, Cadbury Schweppes, Esurance, and General Motors. As long as we have former FCC chairs and commissioners–and top staff–going to work for the very companies they once regulated, the Commission’s work will be suspect. With the next FCC opening, advocates should press for a candidate who commits not to escape via the oh, so lucrative, media & communications biz revolving door.

By the way, the role which private equity is reshaping the media business–much to its ultimate detriment, in my opinion–is the focus of an upcoming Columbia University event. Prof. Eli Noam, who organized the session, has a thoughtful piece on the issue that appeared in the Financial Times. Advocates and policymakers must press Congress to hold hearings on the role of private equity in media deals and the public interest. New laws, regulations, and strategies are required to protect democratic governance and accountability of communications in the digital era.

capital credit one activate problemsmp3 40 hadith qudsi8gb t29 teclast mp3ringtones 355 551cialis viagra levitra compare36 ringtone cellular us crazyfistsblunt 1973 donload james mp357 mp3 chevy Map

from Google’s job description listed under “Team Manager, Entertainment Vertical – Irvine or Santa Monica.”

excerpt: “As a Google Entertainment Team Manager you’ll help to provide integrated, cross-platform advertising solutions for media and entertainment clients including TV, movie, gaming, music and web publishing companies. Google has become a leader in this space because we’ve developed effective products and services targeted to entertainment marketers and consumers. You’ll serve as a mini-CEO responsible for developing and implementing strategies to sustain and grow a multi-million-dollar revenue business in the Entertainment industry. This will require you to hire, train and lead your Advertising Sales team, whose job is to sell and provide Google advertising solutions to Fortune 1000 clients and the agencies that serve them… You’ll own the relationships with clients and agencies, which includes targeting, educating and developing new clients to grow the business in unpenetrated territory. You have excellent client-servicing and relationship skills along with the entrepreneurial drive to approach and persuade new and existing customers with large, multi-faceted propositions.”

We also think the job entitled “Brand Accelerator” is interesting. Here’s an excerpt as well:

The primary objective of the Google Brand Accelerator (GBA) is to become the indispensable partner to advertisers and agencies for building brands online. GBA will allow Google to consistently deliver the most efficient and effective digital platform upon which the world’s leading brands are built. We will connect advertisers’ brand message to the target audience at the highest moment of relevance through innovative and accountable online marketing solutions that offer unmatched precision and scale… Responsibilities:…

  • Develop compelling programs in response to RFPs delivered by agency and advertiser clients.
  • Liaise with the YouTube product team in the development of new products, verticals and sponsor-able opportunities; deliver marketer/sales point-of-view to help shape these new offerings and maximize revenue…

Google’s public policy blog is promoting its CEO recent speech on “Internet Freedom.” Curiously, Mr. Schmidt’s failed to address the privacy concerns related to his search business (especially crucial given the pending Doubleclick deal. Isn’t privacy such an Internet Freedom, Mr. Schmidt?). Here’s a link to it. It’s worth listening to. But it didn’t really provide the dramatic call for democratic communications the country and world requires. It’s really about making the world’s policy regime safe for Google’s interactive marketing plans–especially mobile.

Here’s an excerpt about the speech on the Google policy blog, entitled:

Eric Schmidt at PFF: what Internet freedom means to us

In the policy arena, Eric offered three specific calls to action. First, he said we need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes online – and give teeth to the issue by pressing governments to classify censorship as a trade barrier. Second, we need to continue working toward universal broadband access, by government collaborating with industry and making sure that networks remain content neutral. And third, he called on government to be more transparent to its citizens – citing as an example our Sitemaps partnership with the federal government and five state governments.

credit no with check $100,000 loancash loan 14 payday 10 credit15 payday loan online cash advancelink 21 payday loanpayday cash advance online loan 22mortgage 2nd home improvement loans equity7 loan payday advance 10 cash15 cash payday advance loan 10 Map

Facebook’s new Digital Ad Plan: FTC Needs to Act Now!

Today’s Wall Street Journal story on Facebook’s plans to expand one-to-one interactive ad targeting is just the latest example of the growing threats to personal privacy online [“Facebook Gets Personal With Ad Targeting Plan.” Vauhini Vara. Aug. 23, 2007. sub. required]. The story notes [my italics] that “Facebook Inc. is quietly working on a new advertising system that would let marketers target users with ads based on the massive amounts of information people reveal on the site about themselves. Eventually, it hopes to refine the system to allow it to predict what products and services users might be interested in even before they have specifically mentioned an area.

As the industry watches the Palo Alto, Calif., start-up to see if it can translate its popularity into bigger profits, Facebook has made the new ad plan its top priority…”

Online marketers such as Facebook and so many others want to harvest the ever-flowing rich vein of personal/ behavioral-related info flowing over websites–our friends, interests, media consumption and buying habits, etc.–all so we can be targeted by precision multimedia marketing techniques. The FTC’s recently announced “town hall” meeting about online marketing and privacy–spurred principally by this blogger’s group and US PIRG with our 11/06 complaint–is a completely inadequate response to the problem. Frankly, the FTC cannot act as if they are clueless here, or suggest that the town meeting is part of an intense analysis. The problems are glaring and evident, as we’ve been making clear to the FTC for almost one-year now. It’s time for major policy action to protect the public from unscrupulous marketing techniques designed to invade our privacy and manipulate our behaviors. Facebook should be a wake-up call to the folks at 600 Pennsylvania Ave. and the Hill. If we can’t especially protect Facebook’s young users, (as well as with other social networking sites) it reveals how inadequate our governmental watchdogs are.

PS: It’s worth watching this Ad Age video on how marketers are flocking to Facebook. But a sub. may be required.

Latest stats on Facebook, via MediaPost:”

Facebook has grown three times as fast as MySpace in the past year, according to Nielsen//NetRatings. Seeing a massive influx of first-timers, Facebook U.S. visitor numbers reached 26.6 million in May–up a full 89% year-over-year and 3.6 million more than in April, according to comScore.  Worldwide, comScore reported, Facebook reached 47.2 million visitors in May–8.4 million more than in April, and with an average of 20.6 visits per user.”

PPS! Yesterday, the Financial Times had an important story about the CIA using Facebook and other sites to target their recruiting. Here’s an excerpt [my italics]: “Underscoring the power of social-networking sites, the Central Intelligence Agency recently used Facebook to help boost applications for the national clandestine service. The move sparked concerns that the CIA was monitoring members, which the agency denies.

”Earlier this year, the CIA used Facebook – an excellent peer-to-peer marketing tool – to advertise employment opportunities with the agency,” said George Little, a CIA spokesman. “This effort, part of a much broader campaign leveraging traditional and new advertising media, was used strictly for informational purposes.” [source: US launches ‘MySpace for spies’. Demetri Sevastopulo. FT. Aug 21, 2007. ]

New York Times Co. & Behavioral Targeting: When will the paper really cover the privacy and related threats?

The New York Times Co. has long been a leader in the online advertising field. But it has consistently failed to cover/meaningfully report on the implications of what it has been doing and intends to now do. The emergence of online advertising is one of the most important stories affecting our society, in my opinion. More than privacy is at stake, although that issue should be at the forefront of our concerns. We have spoken to reporters and others at the Times about the lack of coverage. We believe that there is a major problem at the paper seriously examining this issue (which, frankly, the paper shares with other major news organizations that also use behavioral targeting technologies, including USA Today and the Wall Street Journal). As we have stated before, the Times Co. is also on the executive committee of the board running the key online advertising issue trade lobbying group working to protect the industry from criticism and policy safeguards.

Yesterday, the New York Times Co. announced a partnership with behavioral targeting firm Revenue Science. The release from Revenue Science explained that: “Revenue Science, Inc., offering the most widely adopted, powerful, and flexible targeting platform for digital media, today announced that The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has selected the company to provide its best-in-class behavioral targeting capabilities for NYTimes.com, About.com and IHT.com.

The addition of The New York Times Company increases Revenue Science’s roster of leading media brands, which includes the Wall Street Journal Online, FT.com, Nikkei Net and Reuters. Revenue Science’s ability to reach high-value audiences makes it the industry’s premier targeting provider.”

Here’s what Revenue Science says it provides its clients. Tell me, after reading it and other information on its website. Don’t you think it cries out for a very serious story, with continued follow-up? There also must be consistent disclosure from the Times and its news outlets as it covers the online ad industry that they are both politically and financially involved with the issue.
From Behavorial Science (excerpt): As a Revenue Science advertiser, you can take advantage of our Revenue Science Targeting Marketplaceâ„¢ with our Audience Connectâ„¢ solution. Audience Connect enables you to find key audiences for your message across thousands of sites in the Revenue Science Targeting Marketplace, using any of these proprietary targeting techniques:

  • Search Re-Targeting™—You spend a large part of your budget driving search traffic to your site. Once they get there, are they staying? How valuable would it be to reach them again? Now you can find out.
  • Re-Targeting™—Use sophisticated re-targeting technology to move your prospects through the buying cycle.
  • Reach—Segment and qualify people based on interests, behaviors, workplace attributes, geography, and results.
  • Behavioral Segments—
    • Revenue Science Behavioral Segments
      Revenue Science Segments enable advertisers to reach high-quality audiences across the Revenue Science network. Revenue Science provides marketers with access to hundreds of distinct behaviors within each segment. Our industry-leading targeting platform identifies the specific behaviors that best achieve your campaign goals and optimizes your campaigns to use only the strongest-performing behaviors. We offer segments in automotive, travel, technology and finance to name a few.”

Progress & Freedom Fdn.’s Lack of Online Ad Market Knowledge…Maybe they should stop fundraising from Google and spend time better understanding the issues

The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) is a classic example of a think-tank whose ideological worldview is so distorted, it can’t be relied on to truly provide an objective analysis. Its commentary, “Googling `Monopoly’ (Wall Street Journal, Aug 21, 2007. Sub. maybe required), fails to be an well-informed discussion of the issues raised by the FTC’s review of the proposed Google acquisition of Doubleclick. The commentary was co-authored by PFF’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 1980’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 FTC—and the public—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 about—Google funds PFF, btw, as do other online advertisers—run afoul of such intellectual problems regularly. (PFF should have disclosed its funding in the Journal piece, which it failed to do).

PFF’s first analytical problem is that it doesn’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 doesn’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.

Two, PFF completely misunderstands the privacy issues related to online advertising, as incredible—and sad for personal freedom in the digital age—as it sounds. We are talking about unprecedented, moment-by-moment, collection of a vast store of personal information. Used to create profiles that are then developed in a lightening flash into powerful marketing messages that follow individual users website to website. Google and so many other major online advertisers don’t want a meaningful privacy policy where data can’t be collected at all without express prior and informed consent from users; where the use of such data is truly limited to specific transactions approved by the individual. In the absence of privacy protections, consumers will be manipulated by the online ad ecosystem. Once again, PFF officials should spend more time analyzing the literature.

Finally, Mr. Lenard and Prof. Rubin should immediately ask the Journal to run a disclosure that Google—the subject of their commentary, funds Progress and Freedom Foundation. They should make a public apology that they didn’t disclose such a connection. Then, they can—in the spirit of pending `back to school’ time—go and hit the books so they can be truly informed about the subjects they tackle.

PS:  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

Google & Doubleclick: Merging the No 1. Video Platforms

It’s important to follow the online ad marketplace for video-based advertising. Note what a Doubleclick top exec said in a ClickZ interview: ” We claim we do the most video on the Internet.” The same exec also said that “[A]ccording to all the figures, as far as we can tell, we’re the second largest rich media vendor.”

Of course, Google’s YouTube is the number one online video brand as well [a Google rep. is quoted saying that it’s now the eight largest website]. As YouTube explains, it is “the world’s largest online video community allowing millions of people to discover, watch and share originally created videos. YouTube… acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small.”

In other words, the merging of Google with Doubleclick will create an online video and search advertising and marketing powerhouse–one which threatens both competition and privacy (among other issues).

Online Ad Expenditures to Surpass "All Other Media by 2011"

Just a reminder–if it isn’t obvious–that the “new media” world is fast upon us. We should be focusing more of our policy and creative energies to make sure the digital landscape provides the U.S.–and the rest of the world–with the kind of democratic media system civil societies require. If we don’t use this brief period of transition to build a more humane, diverse, and informative media system, we will set back the path of democratic growth and diminish the public health (in the broadest terms). As you will see from this excerpt of a trade news report on the latest study coming from media financial analyst concern Veronis, Suhler, Stevenson, there’s a tremendous amount of money that will be made in the digital field. The time to make sure some of those revenues go to groups who put people ahead of solely a profit-oriented approach is now. Now is also the time to build-out an array of social networks, online video platforms, cooperatively-managed search engines, responsible mobile online marketing ventures, green digital structures, etc, etc. Otherwise, our programming will continue to be shaped by the forces from Sand Hill Road and the LA-NY media communities. Note the changing use of media as well, illustrating a dynamic we should take advantage of. Here’s an excerpt from Laurie Peterson’s recent [8/7/] article in Mediapost:

“Internet Ad Spending Set To Overtake All Other Media By 2011: VSS”

“SPENDING ON INTERNET ADVERTISING WILL reach $61.98 billion, and will surpass newspapers to become the nation’s leading ad medium in 2011, projects private equity firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson in its 21st Communications Industry Forecast released today.

“We are in the midst of a major shift in the media landscape that is being fueled by changes in technology, end-user behaviors and the response by brand marketers and communications companies,” says James Rutherford, executive vice president and managing director at VSS.

At the same time, the consumer migration to digital media–which require less time investment than traditional media counterparts (think 3-minute YouTube clips versus 30-minute TV shows)–has spawned a year-over-year decline in the amount of time consumers spent with media, VSS researchers say. The tally came in at 3,530 hours in 2006, a per-capita decrease of 0.5%. It’s the first time since 1997, researchers say, that such a behavior has occurred.

Consumers are also migrating away from ad-supported media and spending more time with media they support, according to the VSS Forecast. Consumers spent an average of 1,631 hours in 2006 with consumer-supported media, such as the Internet and video games–a gain of 19.8% compared to 2001. Time spent with ad-supported media, such as broadcast television and newspapers, has fallen 6.3% since 2001 to 1,899 hours per person.

“We expect these shifts to continue over the next five years,” Rutherford adds,” as time and place-shifting accelerate while consumers and businesses utilize more digital media alternatives, strengthening the new media pull model at the expense of the traditional media push model.”

excerpt:
A Multi-Party System or a Monopoly

While Google looks at spending potentially $4.6 billion on the wireless auction, it has another multi-billion dollar matter it would like to have settled. That, of course, is its acquisition of DoubleClick. Announced in April, the deal has been met with significant backlash and questioning from all corners. Currently the deal awaits Federal Trade Commission approval. At stake is potential control of the Web advertising ecosystem. A marriage of Google & DoubleClick creates a clear pecking order for all advertising online — an order that would once again put Yahoo and Microsoft in a trailing position…To date, Google employees have out-contributed Microsoft employees toward the 2008 presidential candidates — a stark contrast to the 10:1 contribution margin that existed in 2006…As Google tries to rewrite the rules on how advertising is done and expands its reach into all spectrums of communications, the importance of Washington will only grow. Over the past two years Google has grown its Washington lobbyists base from 0 to 12 (a sizable number for a technology company), hosted four 2008 presidential candidates on its campus (three Dems, one Republican) and established its own political action committee that has already out-raised its 2006 total.”

from: “The Next President: Sponsored by Google.” Chris Copeland. Search Insider. August 10, 2007.

goo movies german girlsediting software moviemovies college sexfree titty fuck moviesmovie star porn12 dbz moviesoftware movie editingmovies fucking wedding Map