Digital Opens Door to Ads August 13, 2008
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentNEW YORK Historically, TV and print news outlets have offered limited opportunities for advertisers, at least compared to their entertainment brethren. Recently, however, companies including The New York Times Media Group, the BBC, CNN and MSNBC.com have come up with some innovative digital options.
Shoba Purushothaman, CEO and co-founder of The Newsmarket, a Web-based video marketing and distribution platform, said it’s encouraging that the news industry is recognizing it can’t simply take traditional ad models and apply them to digital platforms. “It’s not about slapping it on the Web and saying it’s going to work,” said Purushothaman.
That point is not lost on The New York Times Media Group, which late last month partnered with business social-networking site LinkedIn. In the deal, LinkedIn members who read the business and technology sections on NYTimes.com will automatically have articles related to their professional interest set up for them on the site. (This is made possible by a cookie on LinkedIn.)
Denise Warren, svp and chief advertising officer for The New York Times Media Group, said the agreement allows the organization to tap into “executive decision makers.”
Advertisers will receive targeted information based on profile data — e.g., a person’s industry, job, gender and geography-gathered by the NYT Media Group. Sales reps will help advertisers choose the appropriate platforms — including mobile, video and blogs — for ads ranging from banners to leaderboards.
Last year, for the first time, BBC.com — the international Web site for the BBC (outside of the U.K.) — began selling advertising globally. In April, a multiplatform sales force was launched in the U.S. to sell advertising across BBC.com, BBC America, BBCAmerica.com, BBC World News and BBCworldnews.com. (Advertising on BBC America and its Web site had been sold by Discovery Communications.) Two ad units are available, both offering video capability.
Currently, when users in all markets go to BBC.com, they’re routed to bbc.co.uk.
But the Web site is launching a U.S. edition in the second half of 2009 that will cater to U.S. appetites, according to Mark Gall, svp of advertising sales for BBC America and BBC.com.
CNN “turned a corner” when it struck a partnership in June 2007 with Google’s YouTube to present the network’s presidential debate coverage, according to Greg D’Alba, evp and COO of CNN ad sales. Starting with the 2004 elections, CNN had made a concerted effort to attract election-coverage sponsors with packages that offered a variety of platforms. In 2004, only four jumped on. Now the network has 12 sponsors, including AT&T, Cisco Systems, Exxon Mobil and Hyundai.
The perception is growing that CNN’s product is for a range of demographics, not just “the gray-haired gentleman with a huge portfolio of wealth getting ready to retire,” said D’Alba. Roughly six additional sponsors have inked election coverage packages, he added, though he declined to name them as those advertising flights have not yet begun.
READ THE REST OF THIS GREAT ADWEEK ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Internet Cookies Aren’t Evil: 6 Myths Busted December 28, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentVia Daily Bits Article HERE
Viruses, Trojan horses, worms, phishers, spam e-mails, and online fraud; these are the perfect ingredients to scare the unaware users of the Internet. And I am not talking about a certain group or country here. It seems like anywhere around the world, people have heard of such threats and have become more afraid to the point that they even take too much a precaution with (or against) their most trusted websites. Sadly, innocence played the bad guy’s role this time, and one of its victims is the tiny little chunk of data we call Internet cookie.
Today, let’s play myth busters and help our dear Internet cookies rid themselves of a number of accusations. Let’s investigate such misconceptions one by one.
Misconception #1: Internet cookies are a form of virus or worm that can cause damage to your computer.
For those who believe and are going overboard on thinking that Internet cookies are destructive viruses or worms, then I’m sorry for breaking the news to you. Internet cookies cannot cause damage, unlike a computer virus or worm. In fact, cookies do not really have anything to do with your computer system, as it is only composed of text understandable by both your browser and the web server that sent it. In short, Internet cookies are composed of only data, not programmed or programmable code.
Misconception #2: Internet cookies are spywares that give away your private information to the entirety of the web.
Don’t instantly believe your anti-spyware when it detects “something malicious” from certain websites, for it might just be judging your cookies by mistake. Internet cookies contain information like browser type, IP addresses, and some private information, like usernames, that you provided (out of your own free will, of course), and that fact makes you afraid of Internet cookies being spywares themselves. But fear not, for the reason why Internet cookies took such information about you is because they only want to customize your surfing activities to your own liking.
For example, most websites that require registration for you to visit them have an option of whether to remember you or not. This means that the web server of one of those websites can use Internet cookies to identify you among their database of users. The Internet cookie for that website will then customize your surfing activity by remembering your login information for you, so you don’t have to type them again. However, as mentioned in number one, Internet cookies are non-programmable and non-configurable, so there’s really no need to worry about them being spywares.
On a personal note, I must warn you not to fully trust such “auto-remember” features of a website especially when you are using public or office computers. My warning is not because your Internet cookie might be a spyware (which it is not), but you should avoid being remembered by the Internet cookie of a website because some malicious others can easily access your accounts once they use the computer where you are the last one who logged in to.
Misconception #3: Internet cookies produce pop-ups or allow their entrance to your browser.
This is definitely a “no-can-do” for Internet cookies. Simply put, pop-ups comprises an online advertising scheme that increase Internet traffic, as they are contained in a separate browser window once its link is clicked. I find it rather doubtful that an Internet cookie could be triggered, not to mention open a web browser and burden the fast-paced Internet traffic that has always been loaded with server requests and replies.
Misconception #4: Internet cookies give way to spamming.
Spamming, according to Wikipedia, is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to indiscriminately send unsolicited bulk messages. In relation to Internet cookies, this, certainly, is not one of the functions of an Internet cookie, especially since an Internet cookie is just a group of data, not a programmed or programmable code (this seems to be the best explanation for all the misconceptions people have against Internet cookies). Also, they can only serve as informative tools browsers use for the computer user and nothing more.
Misconception #5: Internet cookies are for advertising purposes only, causing alarm on the consumer’s part.
Internet cookies serve a lot of purpose other than advertising. While it is true that advertisers somehow make use of the cookies’ ability to store browsing behaviors of users who click on their advertisements in a web page, Internet cookies are more than what we thought. Actually, Internet cookies care a lot about the consumers in this virtual market.
Like any form of media there is today, the Internet also runs on advertisements to make browsing websites free for consumers. It would be too hard for you, a consumer, if you need to pay a website before browsing it every single time, right? It would also be too hard for online publishers if they should generate revenues of their own, similar with advertisers if they cannot reach their audience. Internet cookies make this seemingly triangular problem by allowing advertisers to promote on different publishers’ websites for consumers. Through watching a consumer’s surfing behavior, the cookies ensure that, while keeping enough ads for advertisers to catch an audience and for publishers to generate income, consumers will not be bombarded by too much promotion.
This means that website publishers’ revenues will remain constant (if not increase), which will maintain the good qualities of websites and website contents. Also, advertisers will continue supplying resources to the publishers. In turn, Internet surfing will remain free of subscription for us consumers. I believe everyone will agree with me that the last premise is for everybody’s own good!
Misconception #6: The best way to avoid any damage caused by Internet cookies is to disable and delete them.
You don’t want to do this, believe me. Internet cookies make our virtual lives easier by giving us an option to remember all our seemingly repetitive details we keep on typing on websites’ textboxes. Imagine your Internet life without cookies to aid you. You have to type every single detail about you whenever you have to log on some website.
This holds true for online buyers who do not have time for sorting out details and figuring out where their desired products are. Online buyers tend to just browse at a specific category of online products, get some news on what’s latest about their purchase, learn about the stock prices, and know exchange rates and other involved fees. Internet cookies actually do all those things for online buyers because, as mentioned earlier, the cookies observe the surfing behavior of a person. In the case of our online buyer above, the cookies will give highest priority to the types of products the consumer usually look for, setting the web page to that product as if by default. Also, other online services the consumer is fond of requesting for will be “suggested” by cookies through website elements like advertisements and safe pop-ups.
In relation with hindering cookie activities, a lot of Internet users believe that they will be safe from computer viruses, worms, and Trojan horses if they do disable and delete their Internet cookies. That is so wrong, because cookies cannot carry any other information than that of your browser and its web host. Computer threats like viruses need not require cookies to infect your computer. We will discuss those computer risks some other time.
Companies behind it?
L
et me remind you that the misconceptions above are often abused by certain software companies for their gain. There are online software companies that overstate security threats because of the misconceptions above, persuading you to install their program to fight such “devilish tracking device” which we all know as Internet cookies. Don’t believe them, especially now that you know there is nothing to worry about regarding cookies. Be the harbinger of good news for Internet cookies, and educate those who are sticking with their false beliefs. I can only hope that someday, one of the online security organizations will look into this issue and bring Internet cookies to salvation.
Anyway, let me end this article with older findings of surveys that still speak the truth even up to now. In a study entitled “Users Don’t Understand, Can’t Delete Cookies,” by Brian Quinton of Direct Online Magazine last May 2005, a number of online companies and security watchers published reports on behavior of consumers towards cookies. Starting with a report by Jupiter Research, research entities published their own studies, all of which consistently points that roughly 35 to 50 % of online users delete their computer cookies at least once a month.
Moving along within the study, Insight Express, an Internet marketing research firm published all of their findings. Here are figures about how Internet cookies are wrongly perceived:
The indication that users are ascribing evil intent to cookies was made clearer in another portion of the InsightExpress survey. Asked to check off all the reasons that they delete cookies, two-thirds of respondents—66.5%– said they erase cookies to “protect my privacy/ prevent tracking.” That response was the second most widely given in the survey, following only “clean computer/ free up disk or memory”, something 77.4% of those polled said they agreed with.
At least the privacy/ tracking prevention answer has the virtue of being valid. Other choices from the list of reasons to delete cookies show a serious misunderstanding of the technology’s capabilities. About 57.2% said they get rid of cookies to “remove spyware/ adware” from their hard drives. About 43% said doing so “eliminates spam”; 38.7% said it prevents pop-ups; and 33.8% said it prevents computer viruses. Fifty percent of those polled also said they deleted cookies because it was “recommended”.
And finally, on June of 2005, BURST Media published a report about cookies entitled “Don’t Understand Them, Can Be Good, But, Should Be Deleted” and I would like to wrap this article up the same way they did. Here’s the last paragraph, a quote, from their report:
“Privacy and security issues taint online users overall perception of Internet cookies. Nevertheless, only one-out-of-four say they want Internet cookies ‘eliminated’,” says Chuck Moran, BURST! Media’s Market Research Manager. “There is significant opportunity for the Interactive industry – including content publishers, agencies and clients as well as third parties to build user understanding of and trust in Internet cookies.”
FTC Proposes Self-Regulation Rules for Behavioral Ad Players December 21, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today released five proposed guidelines for self-regulation in the behavioral advertising industry.
The guidelines document suggests a general framework for how Web sites and other stakeholders in the behavioral ad space should communicate with Web users, gather data about their online activities and treat that data once they’ve collected it. With the release, the FTC opened a two-month comment period, after which the FTC may release formal guidelines.
The first and perhaps the most glaring of the proposals aims to make data collection more transparent to consumers, of whom “few appear to understand the role that data collection plays” in subsidizing free content, the FTC says. The suggested rule also calls for an opt-out mechanism on all sites engaged in behavioral targeting.
According to the proposed guideline, “Every Web site where data is collected for behavioral advertising should provide a clear, concise, consumer-friendly, and prominent statement noting that (1) data about consumers’ activities online is being collected… and (2) consumers can choose whether or not to have their information collected for such purpose.”
The would-be rule also indicates such sites should provide “a clear, easy-to-use, and accessible method for exercising this option.”
Other principles include one requiring “reasonable security” of consumer data; one proposing companies keep data only long enough to fill a “legitimate business need;” and another insisting data collectors only gather sensitive data such as information on a consumer’s health or children’s activities if they’ve obtained express consent.
If the language seems exceedingly non-specific, there’s a reason, said Eileen Harrington, the FTC’s deputy director for consumer protection.
“We are proposing broad principles and self-regulation… precisely because of the rapidly changing and evolving nature of these practices, including the parties and the nature of the parties that participate in them,” Harrington told ClickZ News. “These principles are intended to be broad enough and flexible enough to encompass anyone who is operating in that space.”
Two additional guidelines cover the use of data tracking for purposes other than behavioral advertising, and notifying consumers of policy changes regarding the use of behavioral data.
The complete proposed guidelines document is available on the FTC’s Web site.
Here Comes the Do Not Track List October 31, 2007
Posted by Mark Blei in : Uncategorized , add a commentPrivacy Groups Propose Do-Not-Track List
Demands Would Hinder Marketers’ Behavioral-Targeting Practices Online
<!–
–>
Published: October 30, 2007
NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — Privacy advocates are expected to propose the creation of a do-not-track list, a sort of internet version of the Do Not Call Registry, at a news conference tomorrow.
In addition to the list, the proposal calls for a requirement that advertisers, as part of their online ads, instantaneously disclose details of what they intend to track. According to a media alert announcing the news conference, the groups behind the proposal include the Center for Democracy and Technology, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others.
The news conference is scheduled to occur the day before the Federal Trade Commission convenes a two-day workshop devoted to ad targeting and internet privacy.
Use cookies to track
Typically, advertisers and online media sellers use web cookies to track and maintain information about online consumers. A cookie might be used to figure out what’s in a user’s shopping cart on a retail website or to record a user’s login for a particular site so that user doesn’t have to re-enter a login name and password every time they revisit the site. Cookies can also be used to track surfing behavior and offer up ads based on a user’s surfing history.
Thanks to such behavioral-targeting technology, a user looking at a specific type of auto on a car-review site, for example, could be targeted with an ad for that particular make and model even when they move onto a general-interest site. Behavioral targeting tends to create more valuable inventory and be more effective, according to many advertisers and publishers familiar with the technology.
However, consumer-privacy advocates charge that collecting such information in order to target ads creates “a privacy imbalance that has deprived Americans of the right to control their personal information.” Privacy advocates say current standards for collecting such data, such as the Network Advertising Initiative, don’t do enough to safeguard consumers against the potential pitfalls of data collection, and that most consumers don’t understand how such data is being used. Some studies show many consumers falsely equate the existence of a site’s privacy policy with a promise that the site will not collect or use consumer data.
Opponents speak up
Opponents of a do-not-track proposal say current privacy standards already require that data not be personally identifiable — it cannot be attached to a phone number, address, name or otherwise unique way to identify an individual. Creating a do-not-track list would, they say, run counter to that.
“It runs into the core issue of, we don’t want to take the anonymity away. This isn’t a consumer-led revolution like do-not-call was. … This is an advocate looking for a cause issue,” said Dave Morgan, chairman of Tacoda, a behavioral-targeting firm owned by AOL.
Online advertising, Mr. Morgan argues, underwrites content. In an ideal scenario, he said more targeted advertising would allow for fewer, more relevant ads on a website, creating a better experience for consumers.
Indeed, consumer surveys tend to indicate consumers find irrelevant advertising to be a source of irritation and most consumers prefer free, ad-supported content to paid, ad-free content.
According to a Forrester report on consumer attitudes toward advertising from November 2006, there are three main sources of advertising irritation to consumers: ads are too numerous, disruptive and irrelevant.
Separately, the Center for Digital Democracy, which was part of the complaint that led to the FTC hearings, is ready to file a revised complaint indicating that some of the information gleaned from tracking contributed to part of the sub-prime mortgage problems.
