How Marketers Are Also Tracking Your Actions Online–when you hit “Play, pause, next…” [Annals of Web Analytics]

excerpt:  When it comes to analytics, few know the space like Avinash Kaushik, which is why we took your questions to him…

Ad Age: Are video-heavy, rich-media sites affecting the importance of certain metrics?

Mr. Kaushik: Absolutely. We used to live in the world of hits. Then we moved to page views. Now we are moving to “interactions.” … The actions of your website visitors are measured. Play, pause, next, send, forward, click, etc. — each is a “vote” by the customer to engaging in some kind of integration with your web experience.

Analytics.  Abbey Klaassen.  Ad Age.  March 30, 2009 [sub required]
 

“Social Influence Research” from Ad Agencies to Identify “Advocates and Champions” for brands [Annals of Social media Marketing]

excerpt:  In one instance, we used Social Infuence Research to conduct qualitative research for a Web site targeted at teen girls. Participants were recruited and asked to bring two friends to an interview. The researchers used the interview to observe the behavior of the group and the dynamics that occurred among the individuals in it. As a follow-up, the group was given a video camera and asked to document a trip to the mall. The video provided tremendous insight into the influencer and follower behaviors that were naturally occurring in the group… In another research project, we interviewed entire nuclear families to understand how its members managed and allocated financial resources. Families are the oldest and most established “social networks.” As such, they have fairly clearly delineated exchange and influencing processes to make decisions. To map how those decisions were made, we interviewed parents and children separately, and then together. In addition we worked with the family to create a digital photo diary for an entire week. Through those “mapping” interviews and exercises, we were able to canvas how financial decisions were made, how parents implicitly and explicitly passed along “money values” to their children, how children implicitly and explicitly absorbed the parents’ financial lessons and ultimately how the family network functioned around financial matters…

Generating social graph analysis and reporting helps to identify not only the attributes of influencers, but shows us who they are, where they are, what makes them influencers and, most importantly, where they cross other networks. Of course, social networks are nothing new; marketers have observed and responded to influencer relationships across categories for many years. However, the evolution of the social Web has created a new opportunity for digital marketers and researchers to harness a consumers’ social influence across their online network and create advocates and champions for their brand.

source:  Razorfish. 2009.

Alain Heureux, IAB Europe, and the Battle Over Online Marketing and Privacy: Worried about Article 29 Working Party and Calls for Regulation

We recently met Mr. Heureux in Brussels at a EU conference on consumers in the digital age.  He is a most capable representative of the European online advertising industry.  But Alain’s job is also to help prevent the enactment of privacy safeguards that would protect European consumers and citizens when they use digital and interactive media.  Here are excerpts from a recent article on Mr. Heureux in New Media Age [26 March 2009]:

In the battle to protect online advertising from intervention by politicians, Alain Heureux is on the front line. The president and CEO of IAB Europe spends half his time on what he calls public affairs, concentrating on the regulatory agenda in Brussels.  “The three main concerns are privacy, targeting and social media, and all the links between…“We’re very worried,” he admits. “At the moment, the revenues from targeting and profiling are not so big, so if you damage them you might not damage the entire industry immediately. But marketers want to move away from traditional techniques to targeted, efficient forms of marketing, and that shift can only happen with the use of technology and data. So there is a risk of damaging the future of marketing and media.”

Heureux’s concerns include the Article 29 working party which, although it has no power to introduce legislation, carries considerable weight in Brussels. It’s currently working on a paper which would define a person’s IP address as personal data, making it subject to the same data protection regime as other personal information. He’s also worried about the upcoming EU elections, wondering if one of the current commissioners might campaign on a privacy and data protection platform.

“Someone could position themselves as the messiah of data protection,” he says. “You’d get a lot of sympathy from consumers’ associations and citizens who are a little bit scared about all this data stuff, so it would be easy to take that great role and use it politically. That’s why these elections are dangerous, the threat is very much present.”…

Heureux takes the view that the only way to stop regulators passing new laws is for the industry to regulate itself. And while he acknowledges that Brussels is open to the idea of self-regulation, he sees one of his biggest problems as managing its expectations.

“Regulatory affairs take time, but the regulator wants everything now, not in a year’s time.” …“We need to create room for self-regulation but I’m worried about who will take care of enforcement. It’s not clear that the SROs [self-regulator organizations] will do it, because they’re under-resourced and under-funded, so it won’t be easy to extend self-regulation to include new techniques and practices.”

Despite these concerns, Heureux acknowledges with a smile that the current economic situation is helping the cause of self-regulation. He sees companies becoming more pragmatic and open to compromise with their competitors, while regulators are more concerned about the effect of new legislation on jobs and business.

Annals of Branded Social Media–Ford Chooses 100 Bloggers to Serve as “Fiesta Agents”

Anyone tracking social media marketing recognizes that major brands and ad agencies are playing a highly influential role shaping the new medium.  It’s something we are closely observing.  Here’s an excerpt from Ad Age’s “Ford is Counting on Army of 100 Bloggers to launch new Fiesta [Eric Tegler.  April 20, 2009.  sub required].

“…the automaker is counting on 100 bloggers to introduce its new Fiesta, which is set to reach U.S. dealers in early 2010. The idea behind Fiesta Movement is to get the model’s target audience to drive and, hopefully, chatter about the car for months to come…Ford is loaning 100 German-built Fiestas to social-media trendsetters for six months. The 100 “Fiesta agents,” chosen from 4,000 who applied online, will share their experiences behind the wheel, completing monthly, themed missions from travel to social activism; posting videos; and updating their friends and followers on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere…Early signs indicate a ripple effect from simply signing agents to the Fiesta Movement… several of those selected have already gotten interviews with regional newspapers or TV stations based on their acceptance into the program…JWT will undertake the bulk of reviewing/posting online content generated by Fiesta agents, while mining data with the new metrics made possible through social media.”

Federal Gov’t (GSA) Refuses to Make Public Agreements with Facebook, MySpace, etc. Is data from individuals seeking gov’t information going to these sites?

Today we asked the GSA to make public the negotiated agreements (terms of service) it has made with social networking companies such as Facebook and MySpace (it has also made deals with Google’s YouTube, etc., see below).  The GSA has been negotiating with a number of new media companies so that federal agencies can provide information and services on such sites (GSA says it has been doing so to help answer “President Obama’s call to increase citizen participation in government”).  One central question we have is whether these private commercial providers are going to have access to citizen and other public data when we use these sites.  We also want to know if the Federal government will be provided information, such as web analytics, about citizen/public use of these services.  We have concerns about enhancing the ability of the government and private companies to gain access, and analyze, our information.  Here’s what the GSA press office emailed me back:

Thank you for your interest in the new media agreements.
At the request of the providers the agreements themselves will not be shared with the public.
However I can share some more details about what was negotiated. Hope this helps!

Terms of Service Agreements with Social Media Providers
Frequently Asked Questions

1.  Why is the government working on these Terms of Service (TOS)?
Over the past six months, a coalition of federal agencies (led by GSA’s Office of Citizen Services) has been working on Terms of Service agreements with a broad range of social media providers who offer free services to users. The objective is to resolve issues with the existing standard Terms of Service that are problematic to federal agencies (see list of issues below). Having these agreements means that, if an agency chooses to use various social media sites, they won’t have to start from scratch on negotiating a special TOS.

2. Which social media providers are you working with?
We’re negotiating tailored TOS with a broad range of providers. We’ve completed agreements with YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Blist, Slideshare, AddThis, Flickr, and Blip.tv. We’re hoping to negotiate agreements with additional providers, including Yahoo Video, Vimeo, iTunes, and others.

Regarding Twitter, several agencies’ attorneys have advised that there are no issues in signing their standard Terms of Service; thus, we’re not negotiating any special TOS with them.

The government is working with a broad range of social media providers and is showing no favoritism. Nor do we expect any favoritism once agencies are able to sign up to one or many providers. We’ve chosen to start with these providers since they’re some of the most high-volume sites on the Web.

3. Will these agreements allow government agencies to use social media tools such as YouTube and Facebook?

Yes, having these pre-negotiated agreements that have been accepted by other federal agencies should make it easier for the government to use a wide range of social media tools. While we believe having these agreements will remove legal barriers to use these tools, you’ll still need to work with your agency attorneys before signing the agreements. Most importantly, you’ll need to think strategically how you’ll use these tools to accomplish your agency’s mission.

4.  Can any federal agency use these TOS?

Yes. But you need to work with your agency attorneys and any other key stakeholders to be sure your agency can agree to the legal provisions of each agreement. Because several agencies helped to negotiate these agreements, it’s expected and hoped that most other agencies will find the language acceptable.

If you’re at a sub-agency or bureau with a cabinet department (for example, CDC or FDA), you should work with contacts at the cabinet department-level (that is, HHS). This is important since, in most cases, a single agreement is being negotiated and signed for the entire department.

5. What about state or local agencies?

At this point, the agreements we’re working on only cover federal agencies. However, some of the providers are looking at negotiating special TOS for state agencies. We’ll post updated information as soon as it becomes available. If you’re a state agency and already have an agreement with a social media provider that other state agencies can use, please feel free to share.

6. Are the TOS the same for each provider?

No. Each agreement is different. Since these are free services, we lacked the leverage to impose a one-size-fits-all agreement, and instead worked to modify, in a consistent way, each company’s pre-existing TOS. Your agency will need to sign a separate agreement with each provider. However, we’ve attempted to negotiate agreements that are as similar as possible and achieve the same goals for each social media site, such as deleting material agencies cannot agree to (the indemnification clause, governance law, etc.) and inserting provisions that protect the culture and status of agencies (restricting advertising, avoiding the appearance of endorsement, etc.). See a fuller list of issues below.

7. Can agencies negotiate their own Terms of Service?

The goal behind this effort is to create a standard Terms of Service (for each provider) that can work for all federal agencies. So the preference is for agencies NOT to negotiate their own TOS. Understandably, in the absence of monetary incentive, the social media providers don’t want to negotiate different TOS with dozens (or hundreds) of different agencies, since that would be a costly effort. It’s also not efficient for the government to negotiate dozens of different agreements.
[In the particular case of YouTube, the arrangement calls for only ONE Terms of Service to be used by all federal agencies. Google, the parent company of YouTube, does not intend to negotiate separate agreements for individual agencies].

8. How can I get a copy of the agreements?

Because some of the providers prefer not to publish the tailored federal TOS on a public website, we won’t be posting them on WebContent.gov.

The issues and solutions we’ve collectively negotiated include:
•    Indemnification and limited liability:  in negotiating the various agreements, we’ve been seeking to remove the indemnification clause (because agency officials cannot agree to tie their agency to unlimited liability in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act), and to ensure that liability is limited and covered by federal law.
•    Jurisdiction and choice of law:  the proposed agreements must be governed by the law of the United States and by the relevant state law only in the absence of other federal law.
•    FOIA:   the proposed agreements recognize that we adhere to the Freedom of Information Act.
•    Intellectual property:  the proposed agreements recognize that our content is in the public domain
•    Advertising:  providers have assured that they will eliminate or minimize advertising and that they have no intention of adding advertising that they do not currently display.  On YouTube, for example, they plan to remove the “Promoted Videos” module on playback pages.
•    Grandfather arrangements:  In the case of YouTube, previous “click through” agreements will be superseded by new agreements, making it possible to “cover” existing accounts, avoiding the need to close old accounts and rebuild content from scratch.
•    Free Service:  in every case so far, providers will not charge federal account holders for the use of their services.  These are not contracts; they are no-cost agreements.  While fee-based “premium” services may be available from the same provider, those are separate arrangements for which the agency should proceed under traditional “procurement” processes.

“behavioral targeting on steroids” is how one major interactive advertiser describes rush to create “goldmine of information” on consumers

Excerpt from a column written by Domenic Venuto of Razorfish.

“Data is now sexy. Very sexy. At the same time that publishers were looking to capture market share online they realized they sit on a gold mine of information that isn’t used anywhere near its potential… Suddenly publishers turned their attention to data. They became interested in building unified customer databases, repositories that captured a 360 degree view of the customer and consolidated behavior across brands and distribution channels. Whatever the phrase, it is behavioral targeting on steroids. All efforts focused on consolidating information about a user’s online activity with their offline behavior…Publishing aside, financial companies, CPG and retailers are also extremely focused on data. They collect data from every customer interaction—television ads, mailers, Web visits, call center calls, deposits, coupons—and connect the data dots between customer touch points to understand the effects of each interaction on the acquisition and retention lifecycle.”

Google Tells Advertisers it has the “Largest Global Network” for “Pinpoint targeting”

Google says that in the Ad Age Ad Networks and Exchanges Guide.  Here are some excerpts:

The Google Content Network can efficiently and effectively meet your advertising needs. Not only do we have the largest global network,1 but our product and engineering teams have developed a range of solutions—from contextual targeting to real-time reporting—that help you and your clients create, launch and optimize campaigns that deliver results.

Connect with your audience, large or small
  • Consumer behavior is shifting toward niche sites.3 With sites spanning broad and premium niche, the Content Network gives you access to hundreds of thousands of sites and millions of consumers.
  • Select your audience based on their interests—whether they’re sports enthusiasts or social activists—and our targeting technology will find them across the Content Network.
  • We give users the ability to edit the interests we think they have, providing a new level of transparency for users and better targeting for you…Broad reach. Pinpoint targeting. Efficient prices. Better ROI. The Google Content Network…

    Network Reach

    As the largest ad network in the world, and fourth largest in the U.S., the Google Content Network reaches 75 percent of international Internet users and 76 percent of the U.S. online audience.*
    *Source: comScore, February 2009

“Microtargeting at scale”–a look at one Behavioral Targeting Online Ad Network

We urge everyone, including the FTC and Congress, to review Ad Age’s “Ad Network & Exchange” guide published on April 20, 2009.  Much of it is online.  Here’s an except from Tribal Fusion:

“We offer:

  • Vertical expertise
  • Deep customer insights
  • Comprehensive targeting tools…Tribal Fusion works with a broad array of data sources to provide a true 360º consumer view. We aggregate data to pinpoint interests, past actions and likely future behaviors. This enables each campaign to get smarter over time, informing clients about which data points are making consumers convert.
    Microtargeting at scale

    Tribal Fusion can deliver personalized messaging to multiple niche audiences on an exceptional scale, combining consumer understanding with comprehensive targeting technologies and dynamic creative. The content of a single ad unit can be tailored by the geography, demographics and lifestyle of individual viewers, producing thousands of personalized ads in real time. Ad units with dynamic copy can perform six to seven times better than static ads.“

Tales of Behavioral Targeting: Barry Diller’s IAC Can “tap into rich behavioral….information” of users

The IAC Network includes sites such as Citysearch, Evite and Match.com  From Ad Age, Page C46.  April 20, 2009 [excerpt]:

“…we can tap into rich behavioral and declared information about our users.  Translation:  We know a lot more.  For example, we know if a user exercises regularly, searches for expensive restaurants in New York, is looking for a new home to purchase, has dogs or attended a bachelor party.  Analysis of these multiple dimensions of attributes (literally millions) delivers an unmatched level of insight into our users and what’s important to them.  And we’re making that intelligence work for you.”