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

Ford

We don’t know anything about the work and personal interests of Mr. Luis Ubiñas. But he’s the in-coming president of the Ford Foundation. Ford is a premier public foundation working to promote a global civil society. We hope that Mr. Ubiñas will seize the initiative to fund a variety of efforts designed to foster a global democratic digital media environment. That means funding advocacy groups representing the interests of the public as both consumers and citizens (even if it means taking on the clients that he has worked with while at McKinsey and Co.); helping fund sustainable and responsible models for multi-platform and multi-media content production; promoting a diverse range of owned and operated services that reflect the interests of and are controlled by low-income and minority/new majority groups; helping journalism make the transition to the digital era; ensuring the new media truly contributes to electoral reform. Of course, dealing with the digital divide, open broadband networks, the future of public media, and privacy must also on the agenda. Such work must address the problems in the U.S., as politically thorny as they are. [We know there’s more to add to such a list. This is just starters].
This is not meant as a self-serving comment, as we’ve been funded by Ford in the past. It’s in the spirit of being on-the-record that someone with a great deal of media industry knowledge is taking over a key philanthropic institution. And it’s occurring during a critical turning point for the future of democratic communications, in the U.S. and everywhere else.

Here’s his bio from a Digital Hollywood conference: “Luis Ubiñas is a Director in McKinsey & Company’s West Coast Media, Entertainment and Technology Practice, dividing his time between offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles and also overseeing the practice in Seattle and Denver. Since joining the Firm in 1989, he has focused on serving media, communications and technology companies undergoing major change -entering or exiting businesses or redesigning core processes. Luis has extensive experience in the telecommunications and cable industries: helping build consumer high-speed data businesses; introducing advanced digital set-top boxes and services; and, now, helping design the early VOIP trials. In cable operations, he has worked with MSOs across a broad range of activities, including channel line-up standardization, rebuild prioritization, and purchasing. Luis’ work for other media companies has been operations-focused, helping several newspapers improve circulation and advertising sales and working with content companies to improve international distribution and developing digital distribution strategies. For technology companies, Luis has worked with early entrants in the home networking, digital set-top box manufacturers and other hardware providers. In addition, he has served a large number of technology start-ups as part of his work with venture capital firms. Before joining McKinsey, Luis worked at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, concentrating on marketing and strategy assignments. He also worked briefly as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and as assistant to the CEO of the Honduran beer and soft drink (Coca-Cola) monopoly. Luis has an A.B. in government, magna cum laude, from Harvard College, and an M.B.A. (Baker scholar) from Harvard Business School. He currently serves on the Boards of the Digital Coast Roundtable in Los Angeles and the SteppingStone Foundation in Boston.”

mp3 safari 1987 pozdrav zemlje izalhadi abd mp31988 mp3 state allmp3 perveen abdamp3 khayat abdallah1989 mp3 eurovision1990 temptations mp3stati mp3 abdelaziz Map

CDT’s Privacy “Report”—Full Disclosure is Missing

CDT has long been an ally of the various data collection companies it purports to oversee on behalf of consumers. It’s funded by a number of them. In fact Microsoft’s Bill Gates helped raise money for the group just last March.

The report released today fails to address the wide-ranging privacy threat coming from the major search engines and their advertising clients. It fails to acknowledge that it’s only because of policy-related pressure from privacy advocates—including the FTC complaint filed last November by my Center for Digital Democracy and US PIRG—that there have been modest corporate changes. [As well as the work of these two groups and EPIC in the case of Google’s proposed merger with Doubleclick, and the role of European Commission authorities]. CDT’s report also fails to acknowledge that it’s because of the unprecedented series of mergers in the data collection sector over the last few months, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL [$33.4 billion in the first half of 2007 alone, according to Ad Age. sub may be required.] —and the subsequent US and international regulatory scrutiny—that has created the “pressure” to bring about a few modest changes in data collection and retention practices. Without real advocates pressing—and regulators taking up their demands—we would have no changes at all (as minimal as they are). The marketplace’s approach isn’t protecting consumers.

Most troubling is that CDT fails to acknowledge that the widespread and evolving role of interactive advertising practices by these companies—including behavioral targeting, “rich” immersive media, and virtual reality formats—pose a serious threat to privacy and personal autonomy. It is not just the “bad” actors that require federal legislation, as CDT’s report suggests. If all Americans are to be protected online, the entire industry must be governed by federal policies designed to ensure privacy and consumer protection.

Here is a comment from my colleague Jennifer Harris: “When a group – with as close ties to the industry as CDT has – calls for government oversight, it is necessary to recognize just how much slack the online advertising and marketing industry has been given with our personal information. The main point is that consumers are at risk; updated federal consumer protection policies are essential to an environment that increasingly uses personal data as its commodity.”