The IAB’s new lobbying “study”–this term paper gets a failing grade [plus, amazingly, it was co-authored by an ad giant board member]

The Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association that lobbies for the online ad industry, wants to help derail legislation that would protect consumer privacy.  On Wednesday, it released a report designed to sway Congress; it claimed that the “Ad-Supported Internet Contributes $300 Billion to U.S. Economy, Has Created 3.1 Million U.S. Jobs.”  Incredibly–and so revealing–was the failure of the report to discuss the privacy issue at all.  In fact, the term privacy is only mentioned once (and doesn’t refer to the civil liberties issues at the core of the debate).

In fact, this report appears more like some sort of term paper where various facts and figures were piled on in an attempt to make an argument.  The report conflates the Internet with the online ad market (and misses the larger critical issues).

But what’s astounding is that it was co-authored by a board member of WPP, the world’s largest ad agency.  Harvard Professor John Quelch has been on the WPP board since 1988, earning some 60,000 pounds a year for his service. WPP has a huge financial stake, needless to say, in the digital ad business.  Professor Quelch is also on the Pepsi Bottling Group board.  The report was developed by Hamilton Consultants, which has represented online giants such as AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, along with other major online marketers Coca Cola, GE and–of course–WPP.

The IAB’s stance appears to be that if Congress protects our privacy, it will somehow undermine the Internet’s role in economic growth.  The opposite, I believe, is true.  An Internet that reflects the values of democracy will do a better job for us all—including the lobbyists and academic consultants working on behalf of the IAB.

Google’s YouTube Pushes Carls Jr. Burgers. 53 grams of fat/870 calories/It’s #1 Video Ad for the Week

Take a look at this YouTube branded ad campaign for Carls Jr.  Look at the nutrition information.  The ad, says Visible Measures, is at the “number one spot on the Top Ad Campaigns chart this week showcases vloggers from the Nigahiga comedy group chomping down for Carl’s Jr.’s How To Eat A Burger campaign, which features the Portobello Mushroom Burger. The campaign grabbed a record-breaking 3.3+ million views…”

MTV uses Neuroscience to Analyze Ads for Games: Examining “the optimal way of connecting to this audience when they’re that rabid and that engaged.”

excerpt:  “…MTVN  conducted a three-day study of more than 60 gamers at a biometrics lab in Las Vegas; they showed the players various ads and games, all while examining stats like heart rate, respiration, movement patterns and visual attention. Interestingly, they found that 15-second pre-rolls were the most effective way to garner a player’s “focused attention”—beating out 30-second spots, in-game display ads, and even overlays. Pre-roll ads commanded up to 85 percent focused attention, MTVN’s study found, meaning that the vast majority of the viewers paid full attention to the ads…“The question we wanted to answer was do ads need to be more disruptive to be effective?” said Jason Witt, GM for MTVN’s Digital Fusion ad unit. “We can always stick a bigger ad in front of somebody. And we found that you don’t have to be more disruptive, by and large. The proof is that 15-second pre-rolls were the most effective.” The study also found that game ads had 8x higher unaided brand awareness over online display ads in general, and fueled a 12x higher intent to purchase…So for us, the goal is to see what’s the optimal way of connecting to this audience when they’re that rabid and that engaged.” 

source:  Need To Reach Casual Gamers? MTV Says 15-Second Pre-Rolls Work Best.  David Kaplan.  paidcontent.org.  June 10, 2009.

Behavioral Targeting Meets Neuroscience: “The ability to tap into psychological and physiological testing for ad targeting is an emerging field”

Here’s an excerpt from the article BT: Can It Mean Behavioral Responses To Ads?:

Companies touting the targeting of online ads to consumers as a mixture of art and science could soon find psychologists employed among their midst…One To One Interactive will open its primary research lab, OTOinsights, to other advertising agencies and research firms… Along with the main lab in Charleston, Mass., a mobile lab that can travel anywhere offers input on eye tracking; click tracking; bio-feedback such as heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response; neuro-feedback such as EEG/active attention; and facial recognition technology that interprets six fundamental human emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted, and neutral…The ability to tap into psychological and physiological testing for ad targeting is an emerging field…There are between 10 and 15 firms…spearheading efforts. …Neurofocus…focuses on EEG electroencephalographic- (EEG-) based neurological testing that reveals the degrees of attention, emotional engagement, and memory retention that consumers experience at the deep subconscious level of the brain.

source:  Laurie Sullivan.  Behavioral Insider.  June 4, 2009.

Google’s NetPAC and Lobbying

Google’s Andrew McLaughlin is listed as the “designated agent” and “Assistant Treasurer for its “NetPAC” in a Federal Election Commission filing dated March 16, 2009.  It gave out $270,000 to federal candidates for the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  It’s a veritable political “who’s who” for those receiving the money, including the leading lawmakers overseeing policies that affect Google’s interest, including privacy and intellectual property. Among the recipients include Reps. Barton, Boucher, [now WH chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, Markey, Speaker Pelosi, Sens. Dorgan, Durbin, Reid, Rockefeller, Smith, etc.

Money for the PAC came from Google execs such as Sergey Brin, David Drummond, Eric Schmidt, Vint Cerf, Mr. McLaughlin, Hal Varian and others.  It’s worth looking at the Center’s coverage of Google’s contributions.

Clearly, corporations and individuals have a right, within limits, to donate to campaigns.  But to me, Mr. McLaughlin’s role running Google’s PAC–as recently as this Spring–illustrates why such activity should be addressed by the White House’s new “Ethics Commitments” for personnel. This isn’t about Mr. McLaughlin or Google.  But no top political operative should be able to make a quick revolving door trip into a federal job that will be connected to their private sector role.

Google Promotes Carls Jr. via special YouTube Ad Deal: But “won’t be marked as ads”

excerpt via Adweek:

Justine Ezarik might not be a household name, but the 25-year-old has a cable TV-size audience… Thanks to Google, she’s also now part of Carl’s Jr.’s effort rolling out this week to sell the Portobello Mushroom Six-Dollar Burger to young men. The search-engine giant drafted Ezarik and eight other popular YouTube creators to participate in an ad campaign for the fast-food chain on the video-sharing site…

The YouTube stars were chosen not only for their creative flair, but for the networks of followers they can mobilize. Ezarik, for instance, not only has 94,000 subscribers to the iJustine YouTube channel — the nine YouTube celebs combined total 3.8 million subscribers on the site — but also boasts 590,000 followers on Twitter and 25,000 Facebook fans…Google is adding such deals to its advertising arsenal as it attempts to turn the video site into a moneymaker… Other new tools include tying advertiser videos to search results and matching high-profile creators like Seth MacFarland with brands…

The Carl’s Jr. videos will live on a dedicated YouTube channel, the creators’ pages and in ad units across sites in the Google ad network. They won’t be marked as ads on the YouTube pages, but will carry a notice they were paid for by Carl’s Jr. Each video also invites users to upload their own videos of how they eat a burger.

source:  Carl’s Jr. Makes New Kind of Network Buy:  Burger promo leans on vast reach of YouTube content creators.  Brian Morrissey.  Adweek.  June 1, 2009

Time Warner’s AOL Spin-off: How the Failure to Require Network Neutrality (Open Access) Led to a Failed Mega-Media Merger

News that Time Warner will spin-off AOL should also be analyzed in the context of the network neutrality debate.   AOL would never have had to pursue merging with Time Warner if the Clinton FCC had supported its call–backed by many consumer groups–for “open access” to broadband.  Denied the ability to migrate its successful telephone/common carrier-based business model to cable broadband by the FCC, AOL had no choice but to buy its way into the cozy cable industry club.  Here’s what Steve Case, then president of AOL, said at the National Press Club in 1998, as covered by my CDD:

“Government,” as he told the National Press Club in October 1998, “has a responsibility to preserve an open playing field—to preserve the openness, innovation and competition that are at the heart of the Internet….” Nor did Case shrink from suggesting that regulation was the key to untangling the broadband puzzle. “Significant challenges currently face regulators in the communications realm,” he conceded. “There is currently one set of policies that governs telecommunications, and another governing cable. These legal, policy and regulatory frameworks have little to do with each other….” Thus it was the government’s responsibility, Case concluded, to see that the cable broadband environment conformed to the “openness, competition and rapid innovation” that is the very “DNA” of the Internet. “The bottom line,” Case insisted, “is that competition in all ‘last mile facilities’ should remain open so that consumers have the same kind of choices in broadband that they do in narrowband.”

If the Clinton FCC, then under Chairman William Kennard, had supported open access, we (including the many Time Warner and AOL investors who lost considerable sums) may have avoided further media consolidation and the wreck which became AOL Time Warner.  It’s a history lesson the in-coming FCC chair and others should review.

Behavioral Targeting U.S. Hispanics: Another Example of Why Policymakers Must Be Proactive

Here’s an excerpt from a column written by an executive from a leading behavioral targeting company:

Behavioral targeting can help marketers reach across the cultural divide, helping to identify Hispanic online audiences, or any other ethnic group for that matter…Behavioral targeting is used to create Hispanic audience segments first based on users who have visited Spanish-language sites or any sites with Hispanic-relevant content. You can then create sub-segments based on not only ethnicity, culture, or language, but also interests and purchase intent behaviors observed on those or other sites. You can even identify “purchase influencers” among U.S. Hispanic populations, based on browsing and buying behaviors plus geographic location. You may then serve culturally relevant marketing messages to these segments when they travel to any other site online.

You will also find re-targeting useful, once you have begun to build these behavioral segments. As you serve ads to your Hispanic audiences and sub-segments, you can then re-target them across whichever network or sites you choose, with upsell, cross-sell, or discount offers…Behavioral profiles that have been tagged as part of a Hispanic audience or sub-segment can be given a boost by search data including Spanish-language or Hispanic content keywords or search engines that have been set to Spanish.

source:  How to use BT to reach U.S. Hispanics.   Jeff Hirsch.  April 21, 2009.  imediaconnection

Tracking You Offline for Better Targeting You Online: Why both the FTC and Congress Need to Protect Consumers

There is growing evidence daily about threats to consumer privacy online–all of which have real life consequences for the decisions we make when we buy products.   As the public relies more on using online to apply for credit cards, mortgages, explore health concerns or issues affecting their children and teenagers, it’s absolutely essential the individual–not the business–have full control over their data.  In a trade article on the “profiling” of consumers for online targeting, here’s how they describe linking your offline data with your digital experience.  It shows how the current definition of Personally Identifiable Information, PII, is out of date and fails to protect consumers.  Marketers don’t need your name or address to know your behaviors and target you [excerpt]:

How do marketers get access to the offline purchase data? More importantly, how do they marry it to your online identity without using PII? Usually, this involves the cooperation of several parties. The first might be an online retailer that links a credit card used in an ecommerce transaction with a third-party cookie. The second party is a data partner who owns that particular cookie and pulls in additional purchase history to augment the profile associated with that cookie, and then rents the profile to a marketer. The third is an online ad exchange, which will allow ad hoc purchasing of inventory against a particular cookie across inventory sold on the exchange.

source:  Where do we draw the line on consumer profiling?  Tom Hespos.  imediaconnection.com.  May 21, 2009

Google’s Retention of Search Data–tied to selling ads [Google Connects Offline Behavior To Digital Marketing]

This excerpt from an online ad news report illustrates perhaps a more compelling reason for Google to retain user data for longer periods, so it can better analyze the decision-making process for consumer purchasing for its ad businesses:

“We now understand the types of keywords people use at specific points prior to purchase,” says Davang Shah, head of automotive marketing at Google. “Six months prior to the purchase, we see roughly 56% of the auto searches buyers conducted were on non-branded search terms such as fuel efficient or hybrid sedan.”…Search plays a critical role throughout the purchase process…The data, related to paid, organic and display advertising as well as online marketing, includes the facts that 68% of buyers visit a manufacturer’s site in the six months prior to purchase, and 77% visit a third-party site. In aggregate, 84% visit at least one or the other…Shah says Google will cut the data by brand and provide the information to manufacturers, dealers and third-party companies…”

source:  Google Connects Offline Behavior To Digital Marketing.  Laurie Sullivan.  Online Media Daily.  May 22, 2009. Â