tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/digital-advertising-11927/articlesDigital advertising – The Conversation2024-03-07T03:15:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2249662024-03-07T03:15:46Z2024-03-07T03:15:46ZFirst Newshub, now TVNZ: the news funding model is broken – but this would fix it<p>The announcement last week that <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510398/newshub-to-shut-down-in-june">Newshub would be shut down</a> was not the “canary in the coalmine” some suggested – it was the explosion. If it is not to be the first of many, then New Zealand needs a new model for its fourth estate.</p>
<p>The fate of Newshub and today’s <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/511058/live-tvnz-to-cut-up-to-68-jobs-in-proposed-restructure">projected newsroom cuts at TVNZ</a> threaten to leave a significant gap in the news sector, particularly television. But beyond that, the causes and solutions are very much up for debate.</p>
<p>There are both specific institutional factors and deeper structural trends at play within the television and news sectors. And Newshub’s <a href="https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/02/29/a-plan-to-rescue-newshub-on-a-beer-budget/">tangled financial history</a> serves as a reminder of the dangers of foreign ownership of strategic media assets. </p>
<p>Beyond the shifting fortunes of one company, however, the local news ecology has faced wider structural problems. The imminent loss of so many working news producers and journalists makes finding workable solutions even more urgent.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1765445020255912375"}"></div></p>
<h2>Fragmenting audiences</h2>
<p>Over the past 25 years, the TV sector’s share of the advertising market has <a href="https://www.asa.co.nz/industry/asa-advertising-turnover-report/">roughly halved</a>, from 34.3% in 1999 to just 17.7% by 2022.</p>
<p>The capture of advertising revenue by Google and Meta (the parent of Facebook and Instagram) has played a key role. Google alone now accounts for almost <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/510750/bailout-warning-went-to-minister-melissa-lee-s-office-before-newshub-s-collapse">two-thirds</a> of the roughly NZ$1.8 billion digital advertising spend in New Zealand.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/with-the-end-of-newshub-the-slippery-slope-just-got-steeper-for-nz-journalism-and-democracy-224625">With the end of Newshub, the slippery slope just got steeper for NZ journalism and democracy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But the decline in TV revenues is also related to the fragmentation of audiences, as viewers shift to new on-demand services. TV3’s daily audience reach for its linear services <a href="https://www.nzonair.govt.nz/research/where-are-the-audiences-2023/">declined by almost 50%</a>, from 35% in 2014 to 17% in 2023.</p>
<p>Perhaps not surprisingly, Newshub’s demise has amplified calls from the news sector to expedite the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2023/0278/latest/whole.html">Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill</a>. This would require the online platforms to negotiate payments to news providers for hosting, linking and sharing news content. </p>
<p>Some estimates suggest this could be worth $30–50 million annually to the news sector. On the face of it, this may appear to be a logical solution – but it’s not that simple.</p>
<h2>A flawed bill</h2>
<p>There are a number of <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/resource/en-NZ/54SCEDSI_EVI_fc7faac0-2ec0-4e47-7ab5-08db9ebb2302_EDSI122/f9a94645093fe85c6e9450a7c377e42daeb7da04">problems with the proposed bill</a>. Fundamentally, it misdiagnoses the market relationship between the platforms and the news media.</p>
<p>The tech platforms’ capture of digital advertising stems not from its co-option of news content, but from the mass harvesting of audience data (enabling targeted advertising), and algorithmic influence over content discovery.</p>
<p>The bill also provides no fixed benchmarks for payments. And the arbitration process in the event of non-agreement is potentially very complex, because different media outlets will have varying relationships with each platform.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-wont-keep-paying-australian-media-outlets-for-their-content-are-we-about-to-get-another-news-ban-224857">Facebook won't keep paying Australian media outlets for their content. Are we about to get another news ban?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Making those agreements will depend on the goodwill of the platforms. But arbitration could well determine the advantages the platforms confer on news providers (increasing their visibility and directing traffic to their websites) outweigh the commercial benefits to the platforms of hosting or sharing news content.</p>
<p>Indeed, Meta’s resistance to the news bargaining frameworks in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/facebook-news-tab-shut-down-end-australia-journalism-funding-deals">Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67755133">Canada</a> underlines the risk of a platform exempting itself from bargaining obligations by prohibiting the hosting and sharing of news. </p>
<p>News media depending on platform payments might also be motivated to provide content that maximises value to the platforms – for example, populist or controversial content more likely to be shared. Or they may be less inclined to critically investigate issues involving their benefactors.</p>
<p>Ultimately, there is no guarantee any platform payments will actually be reinvested in news production, let alone commercially unattractive genres such as local government or regional reporting.</p>
<h2>A new form of funding</h2>
<p>There is no realistic possibility of the government bailing out Newshub or any other individual news outlet.</p>
<p>And while the news media’s function in upholding democratic processes and holding power to account remains vital, it doesn’t follow that market competition and plurality are sufficient to sustain that.</p>
<p>Indeed, it was the introduction of commercial competition for eyeballs and advertising that drove <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279455908_The_State_the_Media_and_Thin_Democracy">measurable declines</a> in the length and substance of television news through the 1990s.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/breaking-news-making-google-and-facebook-pay-nz-media-for-content-could-deliver-less-than-bargained-for-196030">Breaking news: making Google and Facebook pay NZ media for content could deliver less than bargained for</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Democracy cannot thrive if the fourth estate is in a commercial race to the bottom. It requires diversity of perspectives and competition for substance that treats the audience as citizens, not just fodder for advertisers.</p>
<p>This requires a new form of funding and a new institutional arrangement. One way to achieve this would be through a small levy on digital advertising expenditure, and potentially other commercial revenues such as internet and streaming services. The revenue would be reinvested in news content through an independent agency on a contestable basis.</p>
<p>There are different possible mechanisms, but an initial model could apply a levy to digital advertising spend across the media sector. This would mean the advertising spend currently going to Google and Meta would generate the majority of the revenue. </p>
<p>Although the spend going to other media would, in principle, also incur the levy, there could be rebates for local content producers. News operators would, in any case, be the recipients of the journalism funding which the levy makes possible.</p>
<p>Even a 1% levy on the $1.8 billion digital advertising spend would generate as much revenue as the (now defunct) <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300932677/public-interest-journalism-fund-closes">Public Interest Journalism Fund</a>. A 3% levy would equal the higher estimates of what the proposed Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill would deliver.</p>
<h2>Collaborative news sharing</h2>
<p>Being administered by an independent agency (perhaps NZ On Air) would help ensure the levy supported news based on public service principles – including investigative, local government, regional and minority coverage – and that a wide range of news operations received support.</p>
<p>There is also a need for some form of collaborative news-sharing model. RNZ already shares its news content, and there have been proposals for a <a href="https://www.rnn.co.nz/">regional news network</a> to cover local issues often overlooked by the mainstream. </p>
<p>An independent, multi-platform news publisher model could underpin such an initiative. It would operate across both broadcasting, print and online media, and allow members to make use of any pooled content on their own channels or websites. </p>
<p>A levy mechanism and public news publisher model would be a far better basis for rescuing New Zealand’s fourth estate than throwing the news media some crumbs from Big Tech’s table.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224966/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Thompson is a founding member and chair of the Better Public Media Trust. He has previously undertaken commissioned research for the Canadian Department of Heritage, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, and NZ On Air. </span></em></p>Calls for the Fair News Digital Bargaining Bill to be fast-tracked are misguided. A better solution would be a straight levy on digital advertising to fund public interest news production.Peter Thompson, Associate Professor of Media Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1893102022-09-06T20:06:12Z2022-09-06T20:06:12ZHow dark is ‘dark advertising’? We audited Facebook, Google and other platforms to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482896/original/file-20220906-12-ewa20l.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C333%2C2592%2C2727&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ashkar Dave / Unsplash</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Once upon a time, most advertisements were public. If we wanted to see what advertisers were doing, we could easily find it – on TV, in newspapers and magazines, and on billboards around the city. </p>
<p>This meant governments, civil society and citizens could keep advertisers in check, especially when they advertised products that might be harmful – such as alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pharmaceuticals, financial services or unhealthy food. </p>
<p>However, the rise of online ads has led to a kind of “dark advertising”. Ads are often only visible to their intended targets, they disappear moments after they have been seen, and no one except the platforms knows how, when, where or why the ads appear. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://fare.org.au/transparency-report/">new study</a> conducted for the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE), we audited the advertising transparency of seven major digital platforms. The results were grim: none of the platforms are transparent enough for the public to understand what advertising they publish, and how it is targeted.</p>
<h2>Why does transparency matter?</h2>
<p>Dark ads on digital platforms shape public life. They have been used to spread <a href="https://apo.org.au/node/313053">political falsehoods</a>, <a href="https://themarkup.org/citizen-browser/2021/07/09/facebook-got-rid-of-racial-ad-categories-or-did-it">target racial groups</a>, and perpetuate <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-ads-can-still-discriminate-against-women-and-older-workers-despite-a-civil-rights-settlement">gender bias</a>. </p>
<p>Dark advertising on digital platforms is also a problem when it comes to addictive and harmful products such as alcohol, gambling and unhealthy food. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-ads-have-enabled-discrimination-based-on-gender-race-and-age-we-need-to-know-how-dark-ads-affect-australians-168938">Facebook ads have enabled discrimination based on gender, race and age. We need to know how ‘dark ads’ affect Australians</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/media-and-resources/media-releases/dark-marketing-tactics-of-harmful-industries-exposed-by-young-citizen-scientists">recent study</a> with VicHealth, we found age-restricted products such as alcohol and gambling were targeted to people under the age of 18 on digital platforms. At present, however, there is no way to systematically monitor what kinds of alcohol and gambling advertisements children are seeing. </p>
<p>Advertisements are optimised to drive engagement, such as through clicks or purchases, and target people who are the most likely to engage. For example, people identified as high-volume alcohol consumers will likely receive more alcohol ads. </p>
<p>This optimisation can have extreme results. A <a href="https://fare.org.au/alcohol-ad-every-35-seconds-during-covid-19/">study</a> by the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE) and Cancer Council WA found one user received 107 advertisements for alcohol products on Facebook and Instagram in a single hour on a Friday night in April 2020.</p>
<h2>How transparent is advertising on digital platforms?</h2>
<p>We evaluated the transparency of advertising on major digital platforms – Facebook, Instagram, Google search, YouTube, Twitter, Snapchat and TikTok – by asking the following nine questions: </p>
<ul>
<li>is there a comprehensive and permanent archive of all the ads published on the platform?</li>
<li>can the archive be accessed using an application programming interface (API)?</li>
<li>is there a public searchable dashboard that is updated in real time?</li>
<li>are ads stored in the archive permanently?</li>
<li>can we access deleted advertisements?</li>
<li>can we download the ads for analysis?</li>
<li>are we able to see what types of users the ad targeted?</li>
<li>how much did it cost to run the advertisement?</li>
<li>can we tell how many people the advertisement reached?</li>
</ul>
<p>All platforms included in our evaluation failed to meet basic transparency criteria, meaning advertising on the platform is not observable by civil society, researchers or regulators. For the most part, advertising can only be seen by its targets.</p>
<p>Notably, TikTok had no transparency measures at all to allow observation of advertising on the platform. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482707/original/file-20220905-20-vg8uvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=635&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advertising transparency on these major digital platforms leaves a lot to be desired.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Transparency-Report.pdf">From 'Advertisements on digital platforms: How transparent and observable are they?'</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other platforms weren’t much better, with none offering a comprehensive or permanent advertising archive. This means that once an advertising campaign has ended, there is no way to observe what ads were disseminated. </p>
<p>Facebook and Instagram are the only platforms to publish a list of all currently active advertisements. However, most of these ads are deleted after the campaign becomes inactive and are no longer observable.</p>
<p>Platforms also fail to provide contextual information for advertisements, such as advertising spend and reach, or how advertisements are being targeted. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/transparency-reports-from-tech-giants-are-vague-on-how-theyre-combating-misinformation-its-time-for-legislation-184476">'Transparency reports' from tech giants are vague on how they're combating misinformation. It's time for legislation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Without this information, it is difficult to understand who is being targeted with advertising on these platforms. For example, we can’t be sure companies selling harmful and addictive products aren’t targeting children or people recovering from addiction. Platforms and advertisers ask us to simply trust them.</p>
<p>We did find platforms are starting to provide some information on one narrowly defined category of advertising: “issues, elections or politics”. This shows there is no technical reason for keeping information about other kinds of advertising from the public. Rather, platforms are choosing to keep it secret. </p>
<h2>Bringing advertising back into public view</h2>
<p>When digital advertising can be systematically monitored, it will be possible to hold digital platforms and marketers accountable for their business practices.</p>
<p>Our assessment of advertising transparency on digital platforms demonstrates that they are not currently observable or accountable to the public. Consumers, civil society, regulators and even advertisers all have a stake in ensuring a stronger public understanding of how the dark advertising models of digital platforms operate. </p>
<p>The limited steps platforms have taken to create public archives, particularly in the case of political advertising, demonstrate that change is possible. And the detailed dashboards about ad performance they offer advertisers illustrate there are no technical barriers to accountability.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189310/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicholas Carah is Deputy Chair of Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. Nicholas receives funding from the Australian Research Council, VicHealth and Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Aimee Brownbill is Senior Policy and Research Advisor at the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Dobson receives funding from the Australian Research Council (LPLP190101051 DPDP220100152), VicHealth, and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brady Robards receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DE190100858, LP190101051, SR200200364), VicHealth, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Department of Education, Skills & Employment.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Angus receives funding from Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects DP200100519 ‘Using machine vision to explore Instagram’s everyday promotional cultures’, DP200101317 ‘Evaluating the Challenge of ‘Fake News’ and Other Malinformation’, and Linkage Project LP190101051 'Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media'. He is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society, CE200100005.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kiah Hawker, Lauren Hayden, and Xue Ying Tan do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>None of the major digital platforms lets the public see what advertising they carry and how it’s targeted, according to a new report.Nicholas Carah, Associate Professor in Digital Media, The University of QueenslandAimee Brownbill, Honorary Fellow, Public Health, The University of QueenslandAmy Shields Dobson, Lecturer in Digital and Social Media, Curtin UniversityBrady Robards, Associate Professor in Sociology, Monash UniversityDaniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Queensland University of TechnologyKiah Hawker, Assistant researcher, Digital Media, The University of QueenslandLauren Hayden, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant, The University of QueenslandXue Ying Tan, Software Engineer, Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1833342022-05-23T00:30:23Z2022-05-23T00:30:23ZAlcohol marketing has crossed borders and entered the metaverse – how do we regulate the new digital risk?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464379/original/file-20220519-21-ghhfbr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C17%2C3928%2C2610&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The World Health Organization’s newly <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240046504">released report</a> on regulating cross-border alcohol marketing raises the alarm for countries like Australia and New Zealand, given their light touch towards alcohol advertising.</p>
<p>Alcohol is widely consumed in Australasia but there is ongoing tension over how much restraint, if any, should be placed on the marketing of these products. </p>
<p>Australia and New Zealand are at the unrestrained end of the marketing continuum. Both countries rely on industry-led policy in the form of voluntary codes – an approach identified as insufficient by the WHO report.</p>
<h2>What is cross-border alcohol marketing?</h2>
<p>Alcohol marketing, created and disseminated in one country and spread across borders into others, is commonly used by multinational corporations striving to increase sales and normalise alcohol as an everyday product. Much of this advertising is taking place in the digital media sphere. </p>
<p>The increased use of these media platforms by alcohol corporations allows them access to cheap advertising opportunities. For as <a href="https://au.reset.tech/uploads/resettechaustralia_profiling-children-for-advertising-1.pdf">little as US$2</a>, an advertising campaign based in Australia could reach a thousand young people profiled as interested in alcohol, for example.</p>
<p>Marketing across digital media has also increased the impact of those messages. </p>
<p>Brands interact with users on social media platforms, encouraging the posting, sharing and liking of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33573719/">branded images and messages</a>. Higher user engagement is associated with <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32079562/">more drinking</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="AB InBev logo behind a smartphone also showing the logo" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464113/original/file-20220518-21284-beeqsu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Multinational corporations like AB InBev have been quick to embrace digital platforms as a new way to advertise alcohol products.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/in-this-photo-illustration-an-ab-inbev-logo-is-seen-on-a-news-photo/1234971135?adppopup=true">Pavlo Gonchar/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Targeting the individual</h2>
<p>The increased power of these advertisements reflects the effectiveness of “personalised marketing”. Companies can now target individuals and “look alike” audiences. </p>
<p>This approach is made possible thanks to the enormous amount of data collected as we interact together, purchase products and indicate our interests and passions through our clicks and likes.</p>
<p>This data is extremely valuable to marketers and alcohol corporations. It gives them insight into the best time of day, the best brand of alcohol and the best type of marketing message to send our way. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/alcohol-advertising-has-no-place-on-our-kids-screens-49648">Alcohol advertising has no place on our kids' screens</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>All groups across society are vulnerable to being bombarded by messages encouraging the purchase and consumption of alcohol. </p>
<p>Digital advertising can target everyone: teenagers looking for brands which exemplify their identity; young adults, the heaviest “occasion drinkers” in Australia and New Zealand, some of whom are developing drinking habits that may be hard to change in later life; and adults of all ages who wish to reduce their consumption, often for health reasons. </p>
<p>Digital media has become an all-encompassing marketing environment in which the “buy” button – with home delivery and often no checks on age or intoxication – provides a seamless marketing and distribution system. </p>
<p>In New Zealand, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/dar.13222">online sales</a> increased significantly during the COVID-19 lockdowns, particularly among heavier drinkers.</p>
<h2>Entering the metaverse</h2>
<p>The alcohol industry is now showing its initiative by entering the emerging <a href="https://www.ypulse.com/article/2022/02/03/metaverse-mansions-more-tiktok-how-brands-are-marketing-for-this-years-super-bowl/">metaverse</a>. To understand the metaverse, <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/technology/brave-new-world-how-the-metaverse-may-shape-our-psychology">according to one commentator</a>, you should </p>
<blockquote>
<p>take today’s social media, add a splash of sophisticated 3D, fold in a plethora of options for entertainment and gaming, garnish it all with data-driven personalisation, and you are all set to take away your order of a supersized social media network, the metaverse.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-children-see-more-than-40-ads-for-unhealthy-products-each-day-its-time-to-change-marketing-rules-120841">NZ children see more than 40 ads for unhealthy products each day. It's time to change marketing rules</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In terms of marketing, this provides a new opportunity. The biometric data essential to a virtual reality experience is also available to develop “<a href="https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol23/iss1/1/">biometric psychographics</a>”, allowing for the even greater personalisation of advertising.</p>
<p>Virtual alcohol brands created and used by avatars in the metaverse support the development of brand allegiance in real life, and virtual reality will transform e-commerce experiences and increase the power of sponsorship. </p>
<p>AB InBev, the largest global alcohol corporation, was an early adopter of the metaverse. One of its brands, <a href="https://sifted.eu/articles/metaverse-brands-nft/">Stella Artois</a>, is sponsoring the Australian Zed Run platform on which virtual horses can be raced, bred and traded. The Zed Run platform experienced 1,000% growth in early 2021. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two people stand in front of a screen with a digital image of a horse." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/464116/original/file-20220518-23-f6cjil.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Digital horse racing game Zed Run has exploded in popularity, with alcohol companies using the digital platform to reach a new audience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/performers-tyra-cartledge-and-kendall-drury-takes-part-in-a-news-photo/1329475903?adppopup=true">Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Regulating to reduce alcohol harm</h2>
<p>The digital world is extremely dynamic. It is also opaque to most policy makers and public health practitioners. It is telling that there is no reference to the metaverse as a cross-border alcohol marketing opportunity in the WHO report.</p>
<p>There is an urgent need for debate regarding how policy makers should better understand the risks involved with the targeted marketing of hazardous products such as alcohol.</p>
<p>The WHO report outlines various partial and unsuccessful approaches to regulating marketing in the digital media.</p>
<p>Attempts, such as <a href="https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/303690/Alcohol_marketing_on_social_media_sites_in_Finland_and_Sweden_2019.pdf">Finland’s</a> regulation of user-shared branded material, have failed because they did not interfere with the basic architecture of the social media platforms, which is predicated on engagement via sharing and liking.</p>
<p>The most successful examples offered by the WHO report have been countries like Norway, which have imposed a complete ban on alcohol marketing including in the digital media. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/childrens-health-hit-for-six-as-industry-fails-to-regulate-alcohol-ads-108494">Children's health hit for six as industry fails to regulate alcohol ads</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The report emphasises the need for surveillance and enforcement, suggesting ways in which alcohol companies could be penalised for marketing breaches.</p>
<p>The support provided by international agreements such as the <a href="https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/overview">Framework Convention on Tobacco Control</a> is identified as a possible template for future discussions. </p>
<p>The response to tobacco marketing provides a good and largely effective model for officials and policy makers. That said, the public health goal for alcohol is not equivalent to the smokefree goal. Advocates are not trying to eliminate alcohol altogether. </p>
<p>However, there are parallel arguments in favour of creating a healthier media environment through regulation to prevent the promotion of alcohol products via increasingly sophisticated technological and psychological tools. </p>
<p>These products are significant causes of reduced well-being, and this marketing increases consumption and therefore harm. The messages of the WHO report are timely and should be heeded.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sally Casswell has received funding from many independent funding bodies and WHO. She is Chair of the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance which advocates for evidence based alcohol policies and is a Board member of Health Coalition Aotearoa. </span></em></p>Cross-border advertising and the metaverse are pushing governments to reassess how they manage the potential harm caused by alcohol advertising. Is New Zealand doing enough?Sally Casswell, Professor of public health policy, Massey UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1689392021-09-30T05:06:48Z2021-09-30T05:06:48ZAustralia’s competition watchdog says Google has a monopoly on online advertising — but how does it work?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423820/original/file-20210929-20-tha5tz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C5%2C1885%2C810&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gerd Altmann/Pixabay</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the pre-digital world, advertising was largely carried by print media, radio and television. </p>
<p>Today, digital advertising has <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/237974/online-advertising-spending-worldwide/">surpassed</a> those channels, pervading our desktops and laptops, smartphones, tablets and a variety of other internet-connected devices. And perhaps the biggest player in the online advertising space is Google. </p>
<p>Australia’s competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), says Google now dominates the country’s online advertising so throughly it must be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/28/accc-calls-for-new-powers-to-rein-in-googles-dominance-of-australian-online-ads">reined in</a>. </p>
<p>The ACCC maintains that over the past ten years, Google’s advertising technology has developed to the point of being anti-competitive. </p>
<h2>The lion’s share</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20advertising%20services%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf">report</a> released on Tuesday, the ACCC said Google had arrived at market dominance through a massive data advantage. The tech giant hoovers up vast quantities of information about the people who use Google Search, YouTube, Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, Google Contacts, Google Sites, Google Meet, Google Chat, Cloud Search and more.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Google signage says 'grow with Google'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423968/original/file-20210930-20-5jpz4q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Google purchased YouTube in 2006 for US$1.65 billion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The watchdog estimates 80–90% of all online ad impressions for Australia passed through at least one Google service in 2020. An “ad impression” is created when an ad is displayed on an app or webpage. It is the benchmark by which advertisers know how many times an ad has been viewed. </p>
<p>In light of this estimate, it’s fair to say Google has the lion’s share of Australia’s digital advertising industry, which last year reached A$9.5 billion in spending. </p>
<p>The ACCC has recommended a new industry code to make the end-to-end ad process more transparent. It also wants to impose rules on how user data is collected for digital advertising purposes, and how fees for services are calculated. </p>
<p>The full <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20advertising%20services%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf">list</a> of recommendations is aimed at limiting Google’s potentially monopolistic power in the digital advertising market. </p>
<h2>What does Google say?</h2>
<p>In response, Google has said the ACCC hasn’t properly taken into account other online advertising channels available to Australian advertisers, such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. </p>
<p>Google also highlighted <a href="https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-asia/australia/how-advertising-technology-helping-power-our-digital-economy/">a PwC report</a> which estimated three-quarters of the tech giant’s advertising customers in Australia were small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) — and that Google’s services contributed A$2.4 billion to Australia’s economy each year.</p>
<p>A Google spokesperson reaffirmed the company’s willingness to work with the ACCC to engender a “healthy ads ecosystem”, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/28/accc-calls-for-new-powers-to-rein-in-googles-dominance-of-australian-online-ads">The Guardian</a>. </p>
<h2>Google’s winning formula</h2>
<p>It may be apocryphal that in the early days of Google, when their only product was a revolutionary search engine, a business advisor is said to have asked the founders how they intended to make money. The reply was along the lines of “we’ll figure something out”. That something, it seems, was <a href="https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/6366577?hl=en">Google Ads</a>. </p>
<p>Last year, Google Ads helped the market value of US company Alphabet (of which Google is a part) surge in excess of <a href="https://www.gobankingrates.com/money/business/how-much-is-google-worth/">US$1 trillion</a>, joining Apple and Microsoft. It places ads in Google Search results, as well on mobile apps, webpages and videos, and is the main tool through which advertisers can reach customers via Google’s services.</p>
<p>Each time someone uses Google Search, or visits a website hosting ads through Google Ads, an automated ad auction takes place behind the scenes. Advertisers bid on the maximum <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cpc.asp">cost-per-click</a> amount they’re willing to pay for their ad.</p>
<p>Paying cost-per-click means that rather than paying for the ad space itself, the winning advertiser pays a set amount to Google each time someone clicks on their ad. </p>
<p>Of course, not everyone who clicks an ad will also make a purchase. It might only be one click in ten that converts to a sale — this depends on how hot or cold the market is. </p>
<p>So if the cost per click is 50 cents, and the click-to-sale conversion rate is one in ten, the advertiser must sell their product for no less than $5 if they want to break even on their ad purchase. But how does that price compare with their competition’s? They must do their sums carefully. </p>
<p>For an ad to be displayed in a prime position, the cost-per-click bid must be sufficiently high, the ad must be of a high quality, and must have keywords directly related to the search enquiry.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/accc-world-first-australias-federal-court-found-google-misled-users-about-personal-location-data-159138">ACCC 'world first': Australia's Federal Court found Google misled users about personal location data</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to <a href="https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1704368?hl=en-AU">Google</a>, ads can be targeted based on a number of factors including audience “demographics” (certain locations, ages, genders and device types) and by picking out “similar audiences”: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Expand your audience by targeting users with interests related to the users in your remarketing lists. These users aren’t searching for your products or services directly, but their related interests may lead them to interacting with your ads.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The exact details of the process are murky, however, as Google guards its methods carefully.</p>
<h2>What does the future look like?</h2>
<p>As artificial intelligence (AI) comes increasingly into people’s lives, the job of buying things will conceivably be delegated to AI assistants. This is the vision of <a href="http://podcast.diamandis.com/?s=advertising">Peter Diamandis</a>, one of Silicon Valley’s leaders best known as the founder of the technology nonprofit <a href="https://www.xprize.org/">X Prize Foundation</a>.</p>
<p>How would it work? Well, over time your personal AI will come to know all about your daily habits, the products you use, how often you use them, what brands you like, where you go, who you meet — everything. </p>
<p>It will then make product suggestions to you based on these patterns. This is an expanded version of what Google already does with its Google Assistant feature.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Google Assistant" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=285&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423943/original/file-20210929-27-1ipmeia.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Google Assistant uses AI to tailor its offerings to the devices’s owner.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">antonbe/ Pixabay</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Amazon does this too, sending users messages along the lines of “we notice you’re reading this. Other readers who’ve read that have also read…” </p>
<p>The next step would be for AI to go ahead and buy the consumables it knows you need, when you need them, and have them delivered to you — without you expressly requesting it. This means you won’t run out of things you didn’t realise you were low on. </p>
<p>But on the other hand, this potential future raises serious concerns regarding our personal privacy, agency and consumerist behaviours. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/google-is-leading-a-vast-covert-human-experiment-you-may-be-one-of-the-guinea-pigs-154178">Google is leading a vast, covert human experiment. You may be one of the guinea pigs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168939/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Each time you visit a page hosting ads, an automated ad auction begins behind the scenes — where the highest bidder wins the chance to target you with their product.David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1604922021-05-24T12:09:02Z2021-05-24T12:09:02ZWhy do I need anything other than Google to answer a question?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/400406/original/file-20210512-15-2qezsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4043%2C1997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Scholars can be more reliable than search engines.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/silhouettes-of-people-holding-laptops-are-seen-in-front-of-news-photo/1026614170">Anadolu Agency/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Why do I need a scholar to answer a question if there is Google? – Harrison F., age 13, Brookline, Massachusetts</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Imagine you’re researching something. Whether you’re a fourth grader who needs to find out how volcanoes erupt or you’re an adult looking for more information regarding a news article, you might want to quickly look something up on the internet. What could go wrong?</p>
<p>Google’s search engine may seem to have all the answers to your questions. But where does that information come from? Who selects the websites that display when you enter “volcanic eruption” in the search box? Who decides which item shows up first and in what order the rest will follow?</p>
<p>I think about these questions a lot because of what I do for a living: helping University of Memphis scholars <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dFsRzLUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">communicate about their work</a> with academic peers and the public. </p>
<p>These scholars are experts who have worked and studied for a long time to learn all they can about a topic. They answer questions by combining their knowledge with the <a href="https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method">scientific method</a> to discover new things. </p>
<h2>Page, Brin and PageRank</h2>
<p>When <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/4/20994361/google-alphabet-larry-page-sergey-brin-sundar-pichai-co-founders-ceo-timeline">Larry Page and Sergey Brin</a> created Google’s search engine in 1996 as Stanford University computer science students, they were trying to establish a fast way to easily find things on the internet. At the time, <a href="https://www.iflscience.com/technology/this-website-simulates-the-pain-of-loading-the-internet-in-the-90s/">searching through the web was slow and difficult</a>, making it hard to find the best information.</p>
<p>They invented an algorithm, a detailed step-by-step instruction set or formula, called <a href="https://searchengineland.com/what-is-google-pagerank-a-guide-for-searchers-webmasters-11068">PageRank</a>. It works by estimating the quality of a webpage by measuring the number and quality of other pages that link to it. When you search on Google, its search engine returns the highest ranked pages related to what you’re looking for. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IKXvSKaI2Ko?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">PageRank, explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Some drawbacks</h2>
<p>Googling became so fast it can seem instantaneous.</p>
<p>But the results you see when you do a Google search can be influenced by other things besides PageRank, including whether <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0021-4">advertisers are paying Google</a> to make their websites show up higher than they otherwise might. <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-a-social-media-problem-how-search-engines-spread-misinformation-152155">Google’s algorithms</a> factor in hundreds of other variables, including what sites you’ve clicked on in the past and how recently a page was updated.</p>
<p>Unlike scholars, Google’s search engine can’t automatically decide which sources are the most important, most accurate or most significant. That is, Google searches don’t necessarily identify <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-a-social-media-problem-how-search-engines-spread-misinformation-152155">objective and reliable</a> information.</p>
<p>You may consider switching to another search engine like Microsoft’s Bing or one that specifically promotes the privacy of your information like DuckDuckGo. But many of these alternatives have the same shortcomings. </p>
<h2>How scholars communicate</h2>
<p>Scholars often communicate by publishing research papers. Each paper emphasizes a single idea that adds something to a discussion. It may be the new result from an experiment or a new observation. Other scholars then read that paper and discuss it.</p>
<p>Knowledgeable people can take stock of the same set of facts and still have different perspectives, which means there isn’t necessarily one right answer to a question. Over time this back and forth leads to some generally accepted principles and concepts.</p>
<p>This cycle of research, review and discussion has been <a href="https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2661">around since the first</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0380">academic journals were published in 1665</a>. As new discoveries are made, ideas can change.</p>
<p>One way researchers show what other ideas they consider in their work is through scholarly citations. You’ve surely seen them before – they are in the reference section at the back of nonfiction books or at the bottom of Wikipedia articles. Each points to another work.</p>
<p>These citations tell you what other books and sources the author of what you’re reading considered – and how they came to form the ideas. If multiple scholars <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/b:scie.0000027310.68393.bc">use the same ideas as building blocks</a> for their own concepts, and then their ideas, in turn, are used as building blocks for other ideas, it continually leads to a cycle of innovation. </p>
<p>This discovery process isn’t influenced by advertisers – even if it can be partially shaped by whether or not scholars <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164">can get funding</a> to pursue a particular kind of research. </p>
<p>Many of the ideas you find on the internet originate from scholarship but are vulnerable to bias and advertising pressure in a way most scholars are not. We need scholars because they provide a complete picture, the most up-to-date information, derived from their wisdom and deeply considered perspective.</p>
<p>The internet makes locating information easier than at any other point in human history. But as <a href="https://www.relicsworld.com/albert-einstein/information-is-not-knowledge-the-only-source-of-knowledge-is-experience-you-author-albert-einstein">Albert Einstein</a> said, “Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience.”</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160492/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cody Behles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unlike scholars, Google’s search engine can’t automatically decide which sources are the most important, most accurate or most significant.Cody Behles, Director of Innovation & Research Support, University of MemphisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1510202020-12-06T18:55:06Z2020-12-06T18:55:06ZClosures, cuts, revival and rebirth: how COVID-19 reshaped the NZ media landscape in 2020<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372730/original/file-20201203-21-1399mp3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C5168%2C3453&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Bauer Media <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/life/120757500/bauer-closure-spells-apocalypse-for-new-zealand-print-media-says-past-editor">announced the closure</a> of its New Zealand magazine operation just a week into level 4 lockdown in early April, things looked ominous for local media. Revenues and newsrooms were already contracting. It was hard to see things improving.</p>
<p>However, while the full picture is still unclear, it seems most of New Zealand’s TV, radio and print outlets have come through the COVID-19 crisis bruised and battered — but alive. Sadly, an estimated 637 media jobs have disappeared in the process.</p>
<p>In short, 2020 has left the New Zealand media market profoundly restructured. </p>
<p>Perhaps most significantly, as the tenth <a href="https://www.aut.ac.nz/study/study-options/communication-studies/research/journalism,-media-and-democracy-research-centre/jmad-centre-news">New Zealand Media Ownership Report</a> shows, there are now more independent news outlets in the market than at any time in the past decade. </p>
<p>That trend was underscored by Australian Nine Entertainment <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/stuff-ma-management-idUSL4N2D60HK">selling</a> (for NZ$1) its New Zealand subsidiary Stuff to CEO Sinead Boucher. The sale returned the country’s largest digital news platform and 12 national and regional newspapers to local ownership.</p>
<h2>The magazine massacre</h2>
<p>Many of these structural changes in the country’s media might have happened anyway, but the pandemic certainly accelerated some decisions. </p>
<p>A case in point was Bauer. The company blamed its closure on “the severe economic impact of COVID-19”, but it had been facing declining advertising revenue well before the pandemic hit. This was <a href="https://www.bauermedia.com/news/press-release-publishing-new-zealand">made worse</a> when magazines were not included among essential goods and services during the lockdown in March and April. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1245451512135823360"}"></div></p>
<p>Bauer also <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/06/australia-magazine-industry-in-crisis-as-bauer-media-folds-seven-titles-pacific-magazines">closed titles</a> in Australia, but in June the company’s Australasian magazines were <a href="https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/bauer-confirms-australian-exit-with-sale-to-mercury-capital-20200617-p553ck">sold</a> to Australian private equity group Mercury Capital. The new owner resumed publication of Woman’s Day, New Zealand Woman’s Weekly, Australian Women’s Weekly NZ, Your Home & Garden, NZ Listener and Kia Ora. </p>
<p>Later, flagship current affairs titles North & South and Metro were <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/buyers-emerge-for-metro-and-north-south-listener-still-up-in-the-air/AS6AQX3DO6MSJWHMY6ZIK6BTTA/">sold</a> to independent publishers and relaunched in November. </p>
<h2>A government lifeline</h2>
<p>You might say the country’s media survived the pandemic with a little help from friends — and even frenemies: the government, readers and Google. </p>
<p>In April, the government <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/414946/covid-19-government-announces-support-package-for-media-sector">announced</a> a $50 million media crisis support package — the lion’s share went to broadcasting.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/funding-public-interest-journalism-requires-creative-solutions-a-tax-rebate-for-news-media-could-work-146563">Funding public interest journalism requires creative solutions. A tax rebate for news media could work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But most of the country’s news outlets received support from the government’s wage subsidy scheme, including NZ Media and Entertainment (NZME) and Stuff, the two largest print and online news publishers. </p>
<p>Without that government support it’s clear many news outlets would have been more severely affected. The NZ Herald received $8.6 million in wage subsidy and Stuff $6.2 million. State-owned broadcaster TVNZ received $5.9 million and the private-equity-owned MediaWorks $3.6 million. </p>
<p>The scheme also kept many smaller digital news outlets afloat, and some even expanded. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1239626719381745664"}"></div></p>
<h2>The Google factor</h2>
<p>Some news outlets received additional funding from Google’s <a href="https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/intl/en_gb/journalism-emergency-relief-fund/">Journalism Emergency Relief Fund</a> — slightly ironic, given the impact of the digital giant on traditional media advertising revenues (hence the “frenemy” tag).</p>
<p>A total of 76 news organisations across the Pacific benefited from Google’s “short-term relief”. While smaller publishers welcomed it, the money spent per outlet was unlikely to make any serious dent in Google’s budget — it was more a gesture of goodwill. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/courting-the-chameleon-how-the-us-election-reveals-rupert-murdochs-political-colours-149910">Courting the chameleon: how the US election reveals Rupert Murdoch's political colours</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, Queenstown-based non-profit media outlet <a href="https://crux.org.nz/">Crux</a> received $5,000. To put that in context, in the first half of 2020 search engines — mainly Google — <a href="https://www.iab.org.nz/news/h1-q2-2020-digital-advertising-revenue-report/">received</a> $361 million in digital advertising revenue in New Zealand, along with the social media platforms gobbling up 72% of the country’s total digital advertising spend.</p>
<p>For its part, <a href="https://newzealand.googleblog.com/2020/10/reflecting-on-our-google-news.html">Google says</a> it has done more for the country’s journalism than providing financial aid, and has “trained almost 600 journalists in dozens of newsrooms across the country”. </p>
<h2>Higher traffic and increased donations</h2>
<p>News companies also got by with a little help from their readers during the pandemic. The NZ Herald <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/nz-herald-audience-breaks-records-in-extraordinary-news-year/NCPOMHKM3KW74GEKSELJYEGF4Q/">reported</a> “overall print-digital readership […] at record levels and newspaper readership [at] its highest in almost a decade”. </p>
<p>Independent digital news outlets <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/">Newsroom</a> and <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/">The Spinoff</a> also reported spikes in readership and donations or subscriptions. Web analytics confirm overall news site traffic increased quite substantially during the pandemic. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/misinformation-on-social-media-fuels-vaccine-hesitancy-a-global-study-shows-the-link-150652">Misinformation on social media fuels vaccine hesitancy: a global study shows the link</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>According to data analysts <a href="https://www.similarweb.com/">SimilarWeb</a>, total visits to the NZ Herald website grew from 36.5 million in May to 46.4 million in August. Similarly, total visits to the Stuff site went from 39.7 million in May to 43 million in August, while The Spinoff grew from 2.4 million in May to 2.9 million in July. </p>
<p>These positive developments were offset by plenty of negatives, however. Many commercial newsrooms shrank substantially, with hundreds of jobs lost. The full effects of the pandemic will not be known for some time, and what the industry will look like in 12 months is hard to predict. </p>
<p>What is clear, though, is that more government support will be needed in the coming years if New Zealand wants a healthy media system as part of its democracy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151020/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merja Myllylahti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The pandemic hit media hard, but a new report shows New Zealand now has more independent news outlets than at any time in the past decade.Merja Myllylahti, Co-Director, JMAD Research Centre, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1453912020-09-02T19:55:51Z2020-09-02T19:55:51ZIt’s not ‘fair’ and it won’t work: an argument against the ACCC forcing Google and Facebook to pay for news<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356000/original/file-20200902-16-fc84wy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=72%2C117%2C5934%2C3890&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Google and Facebook have threatened to limit or remove news services for Australian users, in response to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s draft news media bargaining code.</p>
<p>This week, Facebook <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-services-in-australia/">announced</a> should the code become law, the company would stop letting publishers and users share local and international news on its Australian Facebook and Instagram sites. </p>
<p>Google has also <a href="https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/">made implicit threats</a> to limit its Australian news services – potentially by removing Google News in Australia, as it did in Spain <a href="https://europe.googleblog.com/2014/12/an-update-on-google-news-in-spain.html">in 2014</a>. </p>
<p>Arguments in favour of the code centre on two points. First, that Australian media outlets are in critical danger of going bust because of Google and Facebook’s dominance of the digital advertising market. </p>
<p>Second, that Google and Facebook are Godzilla-like entities dominating the market and resisting any regulation attempt – especially one that could set an international precedent.</p>
<p>It’s true regulation has a role in addressing the anti-competitive aspects of the digital advertising industry, but I have doubts about the ACCC’s code. It would allow commercial news businesses to bargain with Google and Facebook, in order to be paid for Australian news content included on their platforms.</p>
<p>But I don’t think it will work (which I say reluctantly as both Google and Facebook have much to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-accc-is-suing-google-for-misleading-millions-but-calling-it-out-is-easier-than-fixing-it-143447">answer for</a>). I also don’t think the code is fair – and there’s a better way to solve the problem. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-first-australia-plans-to-force-facebook-and-google-to-pay-for-news-but-abc-and-sbs-miss-out-143740">In a world first, Australia plans to force Facebook and Google to pay for news (but ABC and SBS miss out)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Misunderstanding how news works on social media</h2>
<p>For years, Facebook has <a href="https://powerdigitalmarketing.com/blog/facebook-advertising-and-news-feed-algorithm-history/#gref">tinkered</a> with its algorithm to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/technology/facebook-to-change-news-feed-to-focus-on-friends-and-family.html">prioritise posts</a> from users’ personal connections, in what chief Mark Zuckerberg characterised as a preference for the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/">digital lounge over the digital town square</a>.</p>
<p>Basically, your Facebook News Feed (the main feed in which you discover new content) isn’t really a “news” feed. Rather, it features personalised content from those you most often, or have most recently, connected with.</p>
<p>If a news story appears on your feed, it has likely been shared by one of your connections. Or, you may be following that company’s Facebook page, or the company may have paid to advertise (boost) the content. </p>
<p>Which news stories you come across on Facebook depends on a variety of factors and algorithmic decisions. This process is complicated and vastly different to how news is presented on a publication’s website, or in a newspaper.</p>
<p>The ACCC’s attempt to have media businesses “fairly” paid for the value of Australian news on social media is problematic because accurately attributing value to this content is anything but straightforward.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting a major point of resistance against the ACCC code is the requirement for Google and Facebook to give 28 days’ notice of algorithmic changes that will affect either referral traffic to news, or the ranking of news behind paywalls.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A person engages with content on facebook via their mobile." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/356023/original/file-20200902-14-nsjp56.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social media algorithms dictate you’re more likely to be exposed to content that reflects your past online activity, as well as the activity of your online friends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The opaque business of digital advertising</h2>
<p>Commercial news today is funded largely through advertising based on audience numbers and demographics, rather than content alone (excluding subscription models).</p>
<p>Traditionally, however, audiences have been targeted based on news content. For example, ads for wedding dresses would be placed in bridal magazines. In such scenarios, the content itself is valuable to advertisers because it attracts <em>their specific</em> audience.</p>
<p>In digital advertising, however, the news content is often secondary or even inconsequential for generating ad revenue. The ads target their audience directly based on a user profile of recorded behaviours, characteristics and preferences. The page the ad appears on may be a factor, but one of many.</p>
<p>This is called <a href="https://www.outbrain.com/blog/programmatic-advertising/">programmatic advertising</a>. When you visit a site, an automated “bidding war” is instantly conducted where your user profile is matched against potential advertisers. The winner takes the ad spot – and this is decided by several factors including offer price, as well as the likelihood of the ad being clicked. </p>
<p>All of this happens in the time it takes for a website to load (about <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTg9l4d8MU4">200 milliseconds</a>).</p>
<p>The ACCC code proposes remuneration for publishers based on a negotiated value of news content, but the value of news for online advertisers isn’t derived from the content as much as the targeted audience. </p>
<p>Hence, the tussle between the ACCC, Google and Facebook is both confusing and confused.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1298487084689195008"}"></div></p>
<h2>Assessing the value of news</h2>
<p>The ACCC code also conflates the ways digital news content and social media users are socially and commercially valued. In explaining the need for the code, the ACCC states: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>While bargaining power imbalances exist in other areas, the bargaining power imbalance between news media businesses and major digital platforms is being addressed as a strong and independent media landscape is essential to a well-functioning democracy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This “public sphere” ideal is the premise for treating news content as being important enough to force digital giants to subsidise it. Fair enough, but the ACCC’s “professional standards test” which news businesses must pass to qualify for remuneration sets a low bar. </p>
<p>It doesn’t consider important aspects of public interest journalism, such as concentration of ownership, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/whitewash-on-the-box-how-a-lack-of-diversity-on-australian-television-damages-us-all-143434">newsroom diversity</a> – a vexed issue in Australia’s news landscape.</p>
<p>Also, the code states the ABC and SBS are not able to claim remuneration (but can still benefit from information about algorithms and data). This is based on the idea that commercial news media are more vulnerable than public broadcasters, due to advertising revenue lost to Google and Facebook. </p>
<p>With this, the argument has changed: the value of news is not only democratic, it’s also commercial. </p>
<h2>There is another way</h2>
<p>It seems Google and Facebook would rather take extreme measures than be forced to pay for news, or provide news businesses information about algorithm changes and user data. Both companies <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-says-it-doesnt-make-money-from-australian-news-kind-of/">have</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/15/facebook-says-it-doesnt-need-news-stories-for-its-business-and-wont-pay-to-share-them-in-australia">claimed</a> they provide greater value to Australian news businesses than they receive. </p>
<p>Perhaps the way forward is to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/can-killing-cookies-save-journalism/">regulate programmatic advertising</a>. Specifically, we should scrutinise the complex network of companies that discretely trade data profiles and advertising space. And this industry is dominated by, guess who, Google and Facebook. </p>
<p>Reform in this space may help address the advertising revenue and market power problems the code seeks to resolve. </p>
<p>The ACCC’s next cab off the rank is a <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries-ongoing/digital-advertising-services-inquiry/submissions-to-issues-paper">review and report</a> on the ad tech industry that considers these issues. </p>
<p>Hopefully it will suggest approaches to regulating the digital advertising market. This seems a better option than the compensation currently being sought.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-shady-world-of-the-data-industry-strips-away-our-freedoms-143823">How the shady world of the data industry strips away our freedoms</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Damien Spry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The code seems to oversimplify how news content on big digital platforms should be assigned commercial value.Damien Spry, Lecturer, University of South AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246312019-10-31T12:55:30Z2019-10-31T12:55:30ZWebsite privacy options aren’t much of a choice since they’re hard to find and use<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299532/original/file-20191030-17868-w33qup.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=463%2C337%2C2250%2C1606&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If only it were as easy as pushing a button.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/privacy-button-147123530">REDPIXEL.PL/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>You’ve probably encountered a pair of shoes that won’t stop following you around the internet, appearing in advertisements on different sites for weeks. </p>
<p>Today, the vast majority of advertising is targeted – that is, you see an ad because an advertiser thinks that you, specifically, might be interested in what they have to offer. You may have visited a store page for a pair of shoes, or maybe there’s something in your internet browsing history that places you in their target demographic. </p>
<p>While many websites offer a way to opt out of targeted advertisements or unwanted emails, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ROhRS9gAAAAJ">we</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kIUqgbcAAAAJ">discovered</a> in <a href="https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2019/presentation/habib">our recent research</a> that exercising privacy choices isn’t always easy. But that helped us formulate some simple solutions that could make things easier for users around the web.</p>
<h2>Anything but standardized</h2>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3sEYZIEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Our</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2XCryp4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">team</a> of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zg29qGEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">research</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X57uzqcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">collaborators</a> examined the privacy choices available on 150 English language websites. On each site, we searched for three common types of privacy choices: requests to be removed from – that is, opt out of – email marketing, opt-outs for targeted advertising and data deletion choices. For each privacy choice, we noted where on the website it was located and the steps required to exercise the choice.</p>
<p>The good news is that most websites do offer relevant opt-outs or data deletion options. Eighty-nine percent of sites with email marketing or targeted advertising offered opt-outs for those practices, and 74% had a way for users to request their data be deleted.</p>
<p>More good news: Nearly all websites had a privacy policy link on their homepage, and many of these policies included privacy choices. </p>
<p>The bad news is that the privacy policies we surveyed were long – on average 3,951 words. They were difficult to read, with only one-third including a table of contents. These policies were written well above the eighth grade reading level <a href="https://privacyrights.org/resources/lost-fine-print-readability-financial-privacy-notices-hochhauser">considered appropriate for the general public</a>. Worse, the sections containing privacy choices were even harder to read and understand than the rest of the policy, requiring university-level reading ability.</p>
<p>Key terms aren’t standardized across privacy policies on different sites. When we examined privacy policy section headings, we looked for phrases that appeared in multiple policies, such as “your choices” and “opt out.” Unfortunately, we did not find much consistency.</p>
<p><iframe id="2Q7Xa" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/2Q7Xa/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>That makes it difficult for users to scan or search for key words or phrases that might help them understand their options. Users would benefit from standardized language across all websites that describes their privacy choices.</p>
<p>Even when a user manages to find a site’s privacy choices, it may not be clear how to use them.</p>
<p>We learned that some opt-out links, instead of leading to an opt-out tool, went to the homepage of an advertising industry association that hosts an opt-out tool, but elsewhere on the site. Other links were broken. Some policies contained multiple links to various advertising opt-outs, but the sites didn’t explain the differences between the links or whether a user would need to visit one or all of them. </p>
<p>One particular website we encountered, Salesforce, linked to six different advertising opt-out tools. In our view, users should not have to parse a website’s complicated third-party relationships; the websites themselves should make it easy for users to opt out of targeted advertising, no matter who is serving it.</p>
<h2>Uncertain effects</h2>
<p>Once someone does manage to opt-out, it’s not always clear what will happen.</p>
<p>Most websites we visited did not tell users exactly what they could opt out of. Some websites let users request to not be tracked for advertising, while others allow users to opt out of targeted advertising but not the tracking. In this case, a hypothetical shoe ad wouldn’t appear on the site, but the company advertising the shoes may learn that you visited the site.</p>
<p>Only about half of the websites that offered opt-outs for targeted advertising explained whether opting out of seeing targeted ads also meant that users would not be tracked. Users might believe they are protecting themselves from tracking when in fact they are not.</p>
<p>Even when the choices are clear, the pages are not always easy to use. </p>
<p>For example, to opt out of all of Amazon’s email communications, we had to scroll past a list of 79 options before seeing the option to “opt out of all marketing.”</p>
<p>At The New York Times, deleting the data they’d gathered on us required completing 38 different actions, including finding and reading the privacy policy, following the link to the data deletion request form, selecting a request type, selecting up to 22 check boxes, filling in eight form fields, selecting four additional confirmation boxes and completing an “I am not a robot” test.</p>
<p>Even if these design decisions are unintentional, companies are effectively deterring their users from exercising privacy choices.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=322&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298564/original/file-20191024-170493-1jvilnc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sites use their own language to signal to users where they might delete their data.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.usenix.org/sites/default/files/conference/protected-files/soups19_slides_habib.pdf">Habib et al</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Consistency is key</h2>
<p>When it comes to digital privacy, we think consistency is key.</p>
<p>Websites need to provide choices that are easy to find, understand and use. They should simplify things by offering one-click opt-out options that consolidate multiple links and dozens of options.</p>
<p>It should go without saying that the opt-out links need to actually work.</p>
<p>If websites offer users the ability to make fine-grained choices, it would be helpful to put them all in one place and adopt consistent terminology.</p>
<p>Furthermore, websites need to clarify what opt-out options do.</p>
<p>And perhaps most important, regulators should hold companies accountable not only for offering choices, but for choices that are specific and that consumers can actually use.</p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124631/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hana Habib receives funding from Carnegie Mellon CyLab. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lorrie Cranor receives funding from Bosch, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Mellon CyLab, DARPA, DuckDuckGo, Facebook, an endowed professorship established by the founders of FORE Systems, Google, Innovators Network Foundation, NSA, and NSF. She is affiliated with the ACM Technology Policy Council, the Computing Research Association, the Future of Privacy Forum, the Aspen Institute Cybersecurity Group, and the Center for Cybersecurity Policy and Law. </span></em></p>Many sites offer the ability to ‘opt out’ of targeted advertisements, but doing so isn’t easy. Simplifying and standardizing opt-outs would help improve privacy on the web.Hana Habib, Graduate Research Assistant at the Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon UniversityLorrie Cranor, Professor of Computer Science and of Engineering & Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1258152019-10-29T02:30:14Z2019-10-29T02:30:14ZTelstra’s new high-tech payphones are meeting resistance from councils, but why?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298885/original/file-20191028-113962-lo0nuj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=14%2C8%2C1902%2C1267&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Telstra's new digital advertising payphones can be found at Melbourne's Bourke Street Mall. In this photo, the older centre booth sits between two of Telstra's larger high-tech booths. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/advertising-payphones">City of Melbourne</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia is witnessing the first major redesign of the payphone booth since 1983. But Telstra’s new vision is meeting resistance from some councils, and the matter is in the courts.</p>
<p>In an effort to make payphones relevant to the needs of modern Australians, Telstra’s revamped payphones feature mobile charging, Wi-Fi access through <a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/telstra-air">Telstra Air</a> (free or via a Telstra broadband plan, depending on the area), and large digital advertising displays.</p>
<p>Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/20/telstra-and-city-councils-head-to-court-over-new-3m-tall-phone-booths">described</a> the new booths as “a craven attempt” to profit from “already crowded CBD footpaths”, and a “Trojan horse for advertising”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-australias-digital-divide-fast-for-the-city-slow-in-the-country-ever-be-bridged-60635">Will Australia's digital divide – fast for the city, slow in the country – ever be bridged?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Under existing Universal Service Obligation (USO) agreements, Telstra has to provide payphones as part of its standard telephone service. The USO is a consumer protection measure that ensures everyone has access to landline telephones and payphones, regardless of where they live or work. Telstra is the sole provider of USO services in Australia. </p>
<p>The USO is funded through an industry levy administered by the <a href="https://acma.gov.au/Industry/Telco/Carriers-and-service-providers/Universal-service-obligation/payphones-universal-service-obligation-acma">Australian Communications and Media Authority</a>. This means registered carriers with revenues over A$25 million per year contribute to the levy, including Telstra. </p>
<h2>The face of the new Aussie payphone</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://exchange.telstra.com.au/modernising-payphones/">blog post</a> last March, a Telstra employee said the new “<a href="https://www.telstra.com.au/consumer-advice/payphones/smart-payphone">smart payphones</a>” provided emergency alerts, multilingual services, and content services including public transport information, city maps, weather, tourist advice, and information on cultural attractions.</p>
<p>The booths are 2.64m tall, 1.09m wide, and are fitted with 75-inch LCD screens on one side. In 2016, 40 payphones were approved by City of Melbourne planners and installed over the following year, marking the start of Telstra’s plans for a nationwide rollout.</p>
<p>Telstra’s submission to the city claimed the booths were “low-impact” infrastructure and therefore planning approval was not required, in accordance with the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A05145">Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)</a>.</p>
<p>In 2017, Telstra and outdoor advertising company JC Decaux <a href="https://www.jcdecaux.com.au/press-releases/jcdecaux-renews-long-term-partnership-telstra-reinvent-payphone-australia">announced</a> a partnership to “bring the phone box into the 21st century”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/better-public-wi-fi-in-australia-lets-send-a-signal-17116">Better public Wi-Fi in Australia? Let's send a signal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It would initially have 1,860 payphones upgraded in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. These five cities represent 64% of the country’s population and 77% of advertising spend.</p>
<h2>Taking matters to court</h2>
<p>Earlier this year, Telstra’s application for 81 new booths was blocked by the City of Melbourne, and the city commenced proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have the booths redefined as not being low-impact.</p>
<p>Given the council allowed 40 booths to be installed in 2017, it’s unclear why its position has since changed. </p>
<p>In May, Telstra hit back by starting federal court proceedings against the council in an effort to overturn prior proceedings. In June, the Brisbane and Sydney city councils joined the City of Melbourne as co-respondents.</p>
<p>Melbourne Councillor and Chair of Planning Nicholas Reece said the new payphones would create congestion on busy footpaths, describing them as “monstrous electric billboards masquerading as payphones”. </p>
<p>He said the booths were “part of a revenue strategy for Telstra”.</p>
<p>But Telstra <a href="https://exchange.telstra.com.au/modernising-payphones/">claims</a> the new payphones are only 15cm wider than previous ones. A company spokesperson said the extra size was necessary to accommodate fibre connections and other equipment needed to operate the booth’s services. </p>
<h2>Who pays for, and profits from, payphones?</h2>
<p>In 2017, a Productivity Commission inquiry into the USO <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/telecommunications/report">reported</a> an average annual subsidy of A$2,600-50,000 per payphone, funded through the industry levy.</p>
<p>But the levy doesn’t cover the cost of installing and providing advertising on booths. Also, Telstra’s advertising-generated revenue doesn’t directly offset the cost of installing and operating the payphones. </p>
<p>Telstra has advertised on its payphones for the past 30 years. But display screens for advertising on new booths are <a href="https://participate.melbourne.vic.gov.au/advertising-payphones">60% larger</a> than previous ones. </p>
<p>The City of Melbourne is concerned because <a href="https://www.sgsep.com.au/publications/insights/the-economics-of-walking-deserves-far-more-attention">commissioned research</a> by SGS Economics and Planning estimates a 10% reduction in pedestrian flow because of the new booths. This would happen as a result of people getting distracted by the payphone advertising, and would cost the city A$2.1 billion in lost productivity.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/optus-apology-on-coverage-highlights-multi-network-problem-25204">Optus' apology on coverage highlights multi-network problem</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That said, federal legislation doesn’t prevent Telstra from placing advertising on payphones. So the existing court case could hinge on Melbourne city council’s argument that by increasing the size of digital displays, Telstra’s new payphones are no longer low-impact. </p>
<p>The outcome should be known early next year.</p>
<h2>Do we still need payphones?</h2>
<p>At a time when consumers and businesses use about <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/new-report-tracks-internet-activity-on-mobile-and-fixed-lines">24.3 million mobile handsets</a>, it’s reasonable to <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-australias-digital-divide-fast-for-the-city-slow-in-the-country-ever-be-bridged-60635">question whether</a> payphones are still required. </p>
<p>The number of payphones in operation today is sharply down compared with the payphone’s heyday in the early 1990s, when more than 80,000 could be found across Australia.</p>
<p>But there’s strong evidence they continue to supply a vital public service.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/298804/original/file-20191027-113991-16vo5j8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Telstra’s payphones operate in many small regional communities such as Woomera, South Australia. It has a population of less than 200 people.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">georgiesharp/flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Currently, Telstra provides more than 16,000 public payphones. Last year, these were used to make about 13 million phone calls, of which about 200,000 were emergency calls to 000.</p>
<p>So regardless of the verdict on the Telstra case, the public payphone is and will continue to be an iconic and integral part of our telecommunications landscape.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/125815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark A Gregory has received funding from grant organisations, including the Australian Research Council and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. He is the Chair of the Australian Association for Information and Communication Technology and the Managing Editor of the Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy.</span></em></p>The new payphones have Wi-Fi, mobile charging and transport information. But city councils are concerned they’re digital billboards for Telstra, which could cost billions in lost productivity.Mark A Gregory, Associate professor, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179452019-08-28T12:57:31Z2019-08-28T12:57:31ZYou’d be better off lighting your money on fire than giving it to a politician to spend on TV ads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/288977/original/file-20190821-170914-nnm0r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hillary Clinton may have lost to Donald Trump because she bought the wrong kind of ads</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Campaign-2016-Debate/2915e066eb274b78bc2194d8b1058b50/5/1">AP/David Goldman</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Alright, you want to make this country a better place for yourself, your children and the many generations to come. So you make a donation to a political candidate you believe will fight for a better country.</p>
<p>But, in reality, you are wasting your money. Here’s why. </p>
<p>Television has long been the golden goose of political advertising. The conventional wisdom is that the candidate who can spend the most on it will most likely win. </p>
<p>With the exception of Donald Trump, almost every person elected president since 1960 has raised and spent <a href="http://metrocosm.com/2016-election-spending/">more money</a> than their opponent. That includes Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama – with a significant amount of that money being used to buy expensive television advertisements.</p>
<p>In 2016, Hillary Clinton raised over US$1.1 billion, as opposed to Trump’s grand total of less than <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/">$650 million</a>. She outspent Trump almost <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/clinton-maintains-nearly-3-1-ad-spending-edge-n672766">three times over</a> on television advertising.</p>
<p>So how is it that a presidential candidate won with less money raised and spent?</p>
<h2>Spending where it counts</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0">Some</a> have attributed this to free media Trump received from television networks hungry for ratings. But, in many ways, that argument doesn’t hold water, so consider a different answer: digital advertising. </p>
<p>While he was outspent on TV, Trump spent <a href="https://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/trump-spent-online-ads-clinton-june/305184">four times</a> the amount Hillary Clinton did on digital ads, which are any ad on a computer rather than the typical campaign ads on TV, mail or billboards.</p>
<p>Why would this be the answer?</p>
<p>As of 2016, a new era of politics has been established (arguably initiated by Obama in 2008), dominated by digital advertising. And no one has done it better than Donald Trump. </p>
<p><iframe id="fZD3T" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fZD3T/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The wasted dollars of TV advertising</h2>
<p>A typical House candidate will spend 65% to 70% of their entire political budget on TV and U.S. mail advertising. </p>
<p>When one of them advertises on TV, <a href="https://www.adweek.com/tvspy/why-broadcast-tv-is-still-the-media-of-choice-for-political-ads/178953/">almost 80% of the money spent</a> on the ads is spent broadcasting those ads to people who don’t vote or live in that candidate’s district. That’s because TV does not allow you to target your audience to the same precise level as digital can. This is true from major metro TV markets to rural states. </p>
<p>So if you give to a political campaign, then over 50% of your money is
being spent on TV ads that do not reach people who can vote for your candidate. </p>
<p>What’s more, if you take into account what is spent on further advertising, it turns out that for every dollar you give, only 10 cents actually goes to engaging voters.</p>
<p>In effect, television advertising is the worst thing you can support in terms of impact for your money.</p>
<p>But, if you give to campaigns, both district-level and presidential, that advertise digitally, it is an entirely different story. </p>
<p><iframe id="ujbHx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ujbHx/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Digital advertising targets better</h2>
<p>When politicians advertise digitally, their advertising can get smarter and more targeted. That’s because the digital advertising acquires more information on individuals and better learns what policies and causes the donor cares about. </p>
<p>For example, much of Donald Trump’s current Facebook advertising doesn’t even ask for money, it asks for information about you, such as which issues you are interested in and whether you favor building ‘The Wall.’ Here’s a screenshot: </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Screenshot from Trump campaign Facebook advertisement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And here are screenshots from a campaign website that the Facebook ad takes you to, which includes an “Official Secure The Border Survey.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281848/original/file-20190628-94688-obzdwn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=733&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281849/original/file-20190628-94692-agu7zk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Screenshots, Trump campaign website.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facebook</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Trump’s digital ads not only ask for your opinion on a variety of topics, they also assign you a survey number and ask for all the data necessary (name, email, ZIP code, phone number) to target you individually for future voting and fund raising. </p>
<p>This is even more valuable than the advertisement itself, because individuals can continually be targeted on topics they specifically care about. </p>
<p>Trump <a href="https://www.techforcampaigns.org/2018-political-digital-advertising-report">spent 44%</a> of his massive 2016 election media budget on digital advertising. Commercial companies spend 54% of their advertising budgets on digital advertising. But U.S. Senate campaigns only spent 4% to 7% on digital advertising in 2016. </p>
<p>Who do you think is spending more money on figuring out how people are responding to different forms of advertisement?</p>
<p>Now that he’s campaigning for re-election, President Trump is currently running thousands of ads per day on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=active&ad_type=all&country=US&q=Donald%20J.%20Trump&view_all_page_id=153080620724">Facebook alone</a>. That’s consistently more than the 23 Democratic candidates challenging Trump combined. </p>
<p><iframe id="Uc5Vi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Uc5Vi/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>If this trend continues into the general election, it is pretty clear to me who most likely will win. </p>
<p>It seems that the winners will be those who use digital wisely – the losers will be the ones who stick with TV. </p>
<p>[ <em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117945/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Liberty Vittert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>TV has long been the golden goose of political advertising – the one who spends the most wins. That’s over, and it’s a new era of digital advertising. No one’s done it better than Donald Trump.Liberty Vittert, Professor of the Practice of Data Science, Washington University in St. LouisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1149722019-05-07T20:04:38Z2019-05-07T20:04:38ZSelling out the city to advertising? Nothing new to see here<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272722/original/file-20190506-103075-1qvm39u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Larger-than-life advertising is nothing new for our cities – this billboard is at the corner of Flinders and Elizabeth streets in Melbourne.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/melbourne-victoria-march-7-2019-sign-1333535069?src=NCD5w6yfhAbmRgwAWJ-fiw-1-2">jadecraven/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent debates about prominent advertising in Melbourne and Sydney have highlighted public concerns about the commercialisation of public space. The sense that our cities have become increasingly vulnerable to commercial forces is premised on the assumption that advertising has no place in our cities. </p>
<p>However, historical images of our cities challenge this view. They reveal advertising and commercial signage to be an ever-present part of our cityscapes and urban life.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/digital-media-are-changing-the-face-of-buildings-and-urban-policy-needs-to-change-with-them-84779">Digital media are changing the face of buildings, and urban policy needs to change with them</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A recent controversy in Melbourne over a proposed billboard has echoes of 19th-century debates over billboards occupying prominent city sites. Projections of animated images onto the wall of 231 Swanston Street will turn it into one of the largest advertising billboards in the city. Described as a “<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/visual-clutter-mega-billboard-approved-for-swanston-street-20190327-p5185w.html">mega-sized 305 square metre display</a>”, its size is a key issue, but the controversy does not end there.</p>
<p>Melbourne City Council had at first rejected the sign, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/visual-clutter-mega-billboard-approved-for-swanston-street-20190327-p5185w.html">arguing</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] digital billboards beaming high-rotation advertisements into the public realm are creating an unprecedented level of visual clutter that detracts from our city streets. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Lumen Billboards challenged the decision through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/308.html">VCAT upheld the appeal</a>, deeming that the sign’s size and illumination was appropriate for the site and that it had little impact on the area’s heritage.</p>
<p>Some see VCAT’s decision as yet another example of big business overriding public interests. <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/mega-billboard-on-swanston-street-will-add-nothing-and-only-take-away-20190403-p51aav.html">Writing in The Age</a>, Nicola Philp attacked the perceived commercialisation of public space. Readers’ comments echoed her sentiments. One reader lamented:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Melbourne is becoming an advertisers [sic] paradise with gaudy flashing signs everywhere. The beauty and elegance that Melbourne once had is slowly being eroded.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another took aim at advertising, fuming: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I hate the idea of more intrusive advertising being forced down our throats.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Concerns about the commercialisation of public space were similarly expressed in response to the use of the Sydney Opera House as a billboard to promote the Everest horse race last October. The Opera House’s chief executive opposed the highly controversial decision by the New South Wales government. More than <a href="https://www.change.org/p/defend-our-opera-house-support-louise-herron-9a97d417-bb75-4737-b572-049aaf357ccf">310,000 people signed a change.org petition</a> against the decision. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-uncivil-mr-jones-104549">View from The Hill: The uncivil Mr Jones</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-2OHyHCZJA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The use of the Opera House to promote a horse race triggered public protests.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Such numbers did not deter the state government, which had several prominent figures supporting its decision. Among them was Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who described the iconic building as “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-07/pm-says-sydney-opera-house-biggest-billboard-sydney-has/10348398">the biggest billboard Sydney has</a>”.</p>
<p>The PM’s crude description is, strictly speaking, correct. Despite its policy forbidding “logos, corporate identities or colours”, the Opera House sails have been regularly used for promotional purposes. Unofficially, it has also served as a canvas for various protest slogans. However, the Everest uproar was as much about commercial promotion as it was about the power of the city’s political elites.</p>
<h2>Concern about commercialisation is an old one</h2>
<p>Concerns about the commercialisation of city streets and landmarks are nothing new. In 1880, Brisbane’s Telegraph newspaper took aim at billboards “occupying two of the most prominent sites in the city”, labelling them “terrible eyesores”. Sydney’s lord mayor expressed similar sentiments in 1907 when he was <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112641786">reported as saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It was an outrage in a civilised community that every square inching of land abutting on the public streets should be made hideous by posters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Significantly, one of the first items printed in Australia was a playbill from 1796 promoting a theatrical performance. Like government orders, the playbill and other commercial notices were posted in prominent locations in city streets. Retailers added their mark to city streets by employing signwriters to adorn their premises and promote their wares. </p>
<p>The significance and impact of such commercial signage was formally recognised in 1830, when the governor of New South Wales <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2195232">decreed</a> that it was illegal to “keep up any Sign, Writing, Painting, or other Mark, on or near to his House or Premises” that falsely gave the impression a house was licensed.</p>
<p>As commerce duly grew, so too did the amount of advertising on city streets. By the early 20th century, commercial signs and advertisements were an entrenched and inescapable aspect of urban life. They permeated walls, hoardings and all parts of public transportation systems. Electricity and neon lighting extended outdoor advertising’s reach into the night-time hours. </p>
<p>In recent times, sports grounds have added another commercial layer by selling their naming rights. Melbourne’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium#Naming_rights_history">Marvel Stadium has previously been known as Colonial Stadium, Telstra Dome and Etihad Stadium</a>. More confusingly, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Sport_and_Athletics_Centre">Brisbane</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Australia">Sydney</a> have both been home to ANZ Stadium (formerly known as QE II and Stadium Australia/Telstra Stadium respectively).</p>
<h2>And then there are the signs we love</h2>
<p>Our relationship with commercial signs is not static. Some signs have taken on a life of their own. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_billboard">Coke sign in Sydney’s King’s Cross</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipping_Girl_Sign">Skipping Girl in Melbourne’s Abbottsford</a> have become a part of the respective cities’ cultural heritage. </p>
<p>The interest generated by the uncovering of a long-hidden <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/the-new-ghostly-attraction-in-wynyard--catch-it-before-it-is-spirited-away-20170917-gyizkj.html">“ghost sign” for Peapes menswear</a> near Wynyard Station in Sydney similarly reveals that commercial signs and advertising are less utilitarian than critics suggest.</p>
<p>Commercial advertising is a part of our city’s fabric and heritage. While the VCAT decision certainly raises legitimate concerns about processes and the values we apply to public space, the approval of the giant billboard is entirely consistent with our past. </p>
<p>Whether or not we like it is, of course, a different question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Crawford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Both Melbourne and Sydney have been embroiled in controversy over advertising that dominates public space, but the debate isn’t new. In fact, it’s almost as old as our cities.Robert Crawford, Professor of Advertising, RMIT UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1101532019-01-31T11:43:33Z2019-01-31T11:43:33ZFacebook at 15: It’s not all bad, but now it must be good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/256152/original/file-20190129-108364-1ljvmw1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=343%2C17%2C5535%2C3895&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Doth the CEO protest too much?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Facebook-Privacy-Scandal-Congress/5122dc257cb64d2198e92691210420d9/54/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is almost too easy to bash Facebook these days. Nearly <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-pollster-tavis-mcginn-honest-data">a third of Americans</a> feel the country’s <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/248074/most-popular-us-social-networking-apps-ranked-by-audience/">most popular social media platform</a> is bad for society. As the company approaches its 15th birthday, <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/6/16976328/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-pollster-tavis-mcginn-honest-data">Americans rate its social benefit</a> as <a href="https://twitter.com/benioff/status/1062578525377425408?lang=en">better than Marlboro cigarettes</a>, but worse than McDonald’s. </p>
<p>Yet as a <a href="https://fletcher.tufts.edu/people/bhaskar-chakravorti">scholar of digital technologies</a> and their effects on society – and even though I am not on Facebook – I worry that public perception has become overly critical of Facebook. It’s true that the company has been behaving like many 15-year-old adolescents, acting <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-s-2018-timeline-scandals-hearings-security-bugs-n952796">irresponsibly and selfishly</a>, and making <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/01/20/sheryl-sandberg-facebook-five-step-plan/">endless promises</a> to do better, at least until the next mess is uncovered. However, as talk grows of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/18/technology/facebook-ftc-fines.html">fines</a> and <a href="https://investorplace.com/2019/01/facebook-stock-is-immune-to-regulation/">regulations</a>, it’s worth remembering there is such a thing as overregulation, which would respond to the urgency and charged political climate of the current moment but hurt the public interest in the long run.</p>
<p>Official action to rein in Facebook’s power should reflect on the bad and ugly things the company has done and allowed to happen. But the debate shouldn’t forget some things about Facebook that would qualify as “great,” which may have been missed in the avalanche of negative sentiment toward the company and its leaders.</p>
<h2>The bad stuff</h2>
<p>The individual and social harms due to Facebook are many, including contributing to <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/02b6d334-8c2d-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340">concentration in the online advertising market</a>, <a href="https://blocnotesdeleco.banque-france.fr/billet-de-blog/les-monopoles-un-danger-pour-les-etats-unis">with negative impact on productivity and wage growth</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026">distracting</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563210000646">students</a> and <a href="http://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189">potentially causing users</a> <a href="https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2015/0203-if-facebook-use-causes-envy-depression-could-follow/">mental distress</a> and <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-10/facebook-junkies-are-similar-to-drug-addicts-study-finds">giving rise to symptoms akin to substance abuse</a>.</p>
<p>The bottom line is clear: Spending too much time on Facebook may be bad for you. </p>
<h2>Things get ugly</h2>
<p>All technology companies have been experiencing some <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/technology-backlash-47393">heightened skepticism</a>. However, more <a href="https://www.cbinsights.com/research/facebook-fares-very-poorly-in-this-survey">Americans felt negatively toward Facebook</a> than those who felt similarly about Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Apple combined, according to a 2017 poll. Facebook’s place in the public perception has only deteriorated since then. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-s-2018-timeline-scandals-hearings-security-bugs-n952796">company’s violations of user trust</a> are legion, including <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/19/tech/facebook-user-data-big-tech-companies/index.html">ignoring its own privacy policies</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/technology/facebook-data-sharing.html">sharing data without permission</a>, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/01/25/facebook-duped-kids-into-spending-games-without-parents-permission/2679250002/">tricking children into spending their parents’ money</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/election-misinformation-facebook.html">allowing disinformation campaigns</a> that affect elections in the U.S. and elsewhere, and – perhaps worst of all – magnifying propaganda that has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/world/asia/facebook-sri-lanka-riots.html">sparked violence</a> around the world.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the company’s services have allowed bias and discrimination to take root. In early 2018, the National Fair Housing Alliance and affiliated groups sued Facebook, alleging that its advertising platform let <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/nyregion/facebook-housing-ads-discrimination-lawsuit.html">landlords and real-estate brokers discriminate</a> against women, disabled veterans and single mothers, among other groups. The company’s own civil-rights audit found it <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/18/facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-on-civil-right-abuses.html">contributed to voter suppression</a> and targeted manipulative advertising to impressionable groups. That report came on the heels of two comprehensive reports compiled for the U.S. Senate detailing how <a href="https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/ira-political-polarization/">Russian government agents used Facebook</a> and other social media sites to <a href="https://www.newknowledge.com/articles/the-disinformation-report/">influence Americans’ thinking</a>.</p>
<p>The company’s rap sheet is long and growing. Its <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/stung-by-criticism-facebooks-sandberg-outlines-new-plans-to-tackle-misinformation/">repeated assurances that it will fix</a> the problems are now roundly assumed to be empty promises.</p>
<h2>But wait, there is great stuff, too</h2>
<p>With this much going wrong, it is easy to forget that the company has shown great technological and business sophistication in connecting people like never before. Facebook combined innovative <a href="https://medium.com/s/a-brief-history-of-attention/how-likes-went-bad-b094ddd07d4">social-networking ideas</a> from others and <a href="https://moneyinc.com/10-largest-facebook-acquisitions-record/">bought up potential competitors</a> like Instagram and WhatsApp. This itself constitutes an innovation in creating a connectivity platform like no other.</p>
<p>In terms of contribution to the economy, the company is right – if a tad self-serving – to note that it has <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facts-about-facebook-11548374613">helped small businesses</a> reach new customers and build relationships with both existing and prospective clients. The value of those connections is unclear – a single “like” could be worth <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-a-facebook-like-actually-worth-in-dollars-2013-3">anywhere between nothing and US$214.81</a>, depending on the type of business and what it’s looking for Facebook users to do. An independent study from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis found that from 2005 to 2015, U.S. <a href="https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/publications/working-papers/2017/wp17-37.pdf?la=en">gross domestic product grew one-tenth of 1 percent faster</a> than it would have if Facebook hadn’t existed.</p>
<p>In terms of how connectivity helps advance other innovations, Facebook is a key contributor to <a href="https://thenewstack.io/a-reason-to-not-hate-facebook-open-source-contributions/">leading-edge open-source coding projects</a> in a range of applications, such as machine learning, gaming, 3D printing, home automation, scientific programming and data analysis, among others. The company has also leveraged its huge network of users to help <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/40546380/facebooks-disaster-maps-helps-rescuers-know-where-theyre-needed-most">authorities</a>, <a href="https://mashable.com/2017/11/29/facebook-community-help-api-fundraising/">communities</a> and <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/11/16/facebook-safety-check/">families</a> respond efficiently to natural and human-caused disasters.</p>
<p>Particular groups of Facebook users may also see distinct benefits from being connected. Elderly people may get a <a href="https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/should-grandma-join-facebook-it-may-give-her-a-cognitive-boost-study-finds">cognitive boost</a>; people who <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0411">seek a self-esteem boost</a> from viewing their own profiles, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0214">shy people</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3">people with diabetes</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.6.456">people on the autism spectrum</a> have all felt more support and improved well-being from using the site. </p>
<h2>Can Facebook turn great to good?</h2>
<p>As Facebook turns 15, the company faces a critical set of challenges. U.S. officials will be scrutinizing its activities and seeking ways to curb its power in society. Regulating Facebook itself will <a href="https://www.vox.com/technology/2018/4/12/17224096/regulating-facebook-problems">not be easy</a>, and will generate endless debate. The company will also have to contend with covert online agents <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/427430-intel-leaders-warn-of-russian-influence-threat-ahead-of-2020-election">seeking to undermine democracy</a> by using Facebook to influence elections in India, Europe, Nigeria and Poland, among other places – not to mention the 2020 U.S. presidential election.</p>
<p>The company’s management will have to take bold steps, not only to defend Facebook’s positive features, but to eliminate – or at least reduce – the harm the company’s products and services do to people and society. Most companies aspire to go from “<a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/9780066620992/good-to-great/">good to great</a>”; Facebook’s challenge at 15 is a bit more complicated: It must convince a skeptical public and regulators chomping at the bit that it can mitigate the effects of its bad and the ugly sides – and go from being great to being a <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy">force for good in the world</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110153/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bhaskar Chakravorti has founded and directs the Institute for Business in the Global Context at Fletcher/Tufts that has received funding from Mastercard, Microsoft, the Gates Foundation and the Onassis Foundation. He is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Brookings India and a Senior Advisor on Digital Inclusion at the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth.</span></em></p>Facebook has been acting irresponsibly and selfishly, and promising to do better without actually improving. But that’s not the whole story: The company has some positive qualities, too.Bhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business, The Fletcher School, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1070252018-12-07T14:54:28Z2018-12-07T14:54:28ZTech giants need to take more responsibility for the advertising that makes them billions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249423/original/file-20181207-128205-uby39s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Last week I was followed around the Internet by a pair of shoes. I had looked at them online as a gift for my father-in-law, but he didn’t like them, and neither did I. Yet no matter what site I visited, there they were, staring at me in their full moccasin glory. </p>
<p>Digital advertising can be really annoying, but it can also be dangerous. It has recently been accused of perpetuating <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/public-cash-paying-for-growth-of-fake-news-vb2hbvs3x">fake news</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/06/javid-launches-study-into-advertising-on-child-abuse-sites">funding child abuse</a> and interfering with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html">democracy</a>. </p>
<p>Facebook, which makes most of its $US40 billion a year revenue from digital advertising, has been in the <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-27/ad-scammers-need-suckers-and-facebook-helps-find-them">firing line</a>, but many other businesses across the digital advertising supply chain are now <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/group-m-downgrades-uk-ad-growth-warns-in-housing-a-threat/1519560?bulletin=campaign_media_bulletin&utm_medium=EMAIL&utm_campaign=eNews%20Bulletin&utm_source=20181129&utm_content=Campaign%20Media%20(23)::www_campaignlive_co_uk_ar_1&email_hash=">feeling the pinch</a>. </p>
<p>It is not surprising then, that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has taken steps to <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/11/01/uk-ad-watchdog-puts-better-regulation-online-ads-the-heart-its-new-strategy">toughen up regulation</a>, or that new government legislation is <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldcomuni/116/116.pdf">being considered</a>. </p>
<p>These developments are hoping to offer a much needed safety net for the digital advertising industry, often described as the “Wild West” – a <a href="https://www.ebiquity.com/news-insights/media/the-search-for-media-transparency-continues/">murky, lawless place</a> where anything goes. Yet, digital advertising is probably a safer place to focus marketing spend now more than ever. A booming “<a href="https://www.doubleverify.com">ad verification</a>” industry is instilling trust back into the complex digital supply chain by ensuring that adverts are correctly placed and targeted.</p>
<p>Self-regulation is also gathering pace. The Internet Advertising Bureau now offers <a href="https://www.iabuk.com/goldstandard">Gold Standard</a> certification to firms striving for positive and safe digital advertising experiences, while the launch of a <a href="https://jicwebs.org/about-us/our-aim/">media industry coalition</a> demonstrates collaborative efforts to increase transparency and accountability. </p>
<p>These developments are welcome and they are working. But their focus on brand safety overlooks some bigger questions. </p>
<h2>Be careful what you click for</h2>
<p>First, there is the politicisation of advertising placement. For the brand of moccasins which stalked me online, it probably makes sense for their adverts not to appear next to toxic hate speech on YouTube. But what about next to a news article about alleged animal cruelty in the leather supply chain? Where would you draw the line? </p>
<p>Brands make these decisions constantly, through a <a href="https://digiday.com/marketing/mystery-ad-buyer-blacklists/">complex process</a> in which adverts are placed (or not) based on their association with “good” or “bad” key words used in websites and articles. </p>
<p>In the responsive digital world we live in, every user experience is truly unique. What I see online is different to what you see. We can never truly know what strategy lies behind the adverts we are shown.</p>
<p>Second, what is the societal cost of brands steering away from important subjects including <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/10/15/vice-asks-industry-rethink-blacklists-lgbtq-and-important-issues-are-avoided">race and religion</a> through advertising placement decisions?</p>
<p>For example, an article about fashion in 2018 is a much safer place for the moccasins brand to advertise alongside, compared to the article on animal cruelty. The message to the digital platform? Content which is pedestrian, not polarising, pays. This brings powerful ramifications for democracy and freedom of speech. If content that doesn’t meet brand tolerance tests is not commercially attractive, are particular narratives suppressed?</p>
<p>It is exactly this point that leads many to question the sustainability of digital advertising. Indeed, <a href="https://www.adweek.com/digital/could-an-ad-free-subscription-version-of-facebook-be-a-viable-option/">Facebook is experimenting with ad-free subscription</a>. Maybe content that brands consider “unsafe” will get pushed further behind pay walls. </p>
<p>Finally, in the increasingly automated world of targeted marketing, algorithms are not good at spotting context. </p>
<p>Said shoe brand might, therefore, choose not to be associated with content it considers inappropriate – such as commentary on “animal cruelty”. But algorithms cannot always differentiate content in a meaningful way. Is all content about “animals” problematic? </p>
<p>When outcomes are unknown, brands will opt for the safest and potentially most sanitised option. This may mean that algorithms shift from being neutral tools to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3">value-laden</a> ones. </p>
<p>Worryingly, the only real way to overcome this algorithmic bias is for real live humans to verify content. We are now seeing an increasing number of “<a href="https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/commpub/12/">commercial content moderators</a>” doing our online dirty work by policing social media sites and removing harmful and distressing imagery. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/249286/original/file-20181206-128214-8c02bv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook friends.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/new-york-usa-april-26-2018-1078357280?src=SMYz2YiM9-Pdbmd9j4S3pQ-1-21">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Often poorly paid – and walking the “safe” and “unsafe” tightrope in a matter of seconds – what these people see can lead to serious <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/04/facebook-content-moderators-ptsd-psychological-dangers">psychological repercussions</a>. The human toll of the safety drive should not be underestimated. </p>
<h2>Big tech, big responsibility</h2>
<p>All of this raises serious questions about the role of marketing in society, and the ethics of big tech. For many, self-regulation is not enough. Politicians have called on brands to <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/brands-pull-ads-tech-platforms-terror-content-mps-say/1519357?">curtail commercial relations with the tech giants</a> to address safety concerns in their platforms. </p>
<p>I agree. We have to push every organisation along the digital supply chain harder. The DARE approach I advocate (Digital Advertising Responsibility and Ethics) focuses less on demonising and more on humanising business. It advocates two vital actions.</p>
<p>Firstly, promoting the work of industry ethical game changers who are encouraging a new definition of responsibility – the Financial Times, for example, who <a href="https://whatsnewinpublishing.com/2018/10/ft-we-stopped-advertising-on-facebook-and-the-effect-was-negligible/">stepped away from Facebook</a> following controversial identity checks on advertisers (a move Facebook is now reconsidering), or Nestlé, which is looking into funding sustainable cocoa sourcing through <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/09/27/ethical-adtech-will-help-kitkat-fund-nestl-s-sustainability-scheme-and-nespresso-may">ethical ad buying</a>. </p>
<p>Other brands, such as Vodafone, are moving <a href="https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/vodafone-brings-digital-media-buying-in-house-pioneering-move/1486379">digital advertising in-house</a> to have more control. Such examples demonstrate the trust deficit currently operating within the digital advertising industry. </p>
<p>Secondly, we need a bigger role for ethics in the digital supply chain. Ethics begin where the law ends, considering the right or wrong in any decision. Ethical thinking requires constant reflection in a changing digital landscape, rather than rules-based compliance. Yet while many advocate <a href="https://www.raconteur.net/hr/brands-control-digital-advertising">a code of ethics</a> for the tech profession, I believe the key to to moving the field forward will come through education, open discussion and individual reflection. </p>
<p>It is only by making progress in these directions that we will be able to shift away from the murky culture that currently dominates the filtering of the online world. It’s not about sticking the boot into big tech. More the moccasin.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107025/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Glozer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To get out of the digital advertising quagmire, the only way is (business) ethics.Sarah Glozer, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Business & Society, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/973892018-05-29T14:25:08Z2018-05-29T14:25:08ZGDPR isn’t enough to protect us in an age of smart algorithms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220795/original/file-20180529-80629-jz8pl5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Europe’s new privacy law comes with teeth. Within hours of the General Data Protection Law (GDPR) coming into effect, an Austrian privacy campaigner used the new EU legislation to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44252327">file a legal complaint</a> against Facebook and Google. It’s too early to tell how the case will be resolved but companies that violate the law can be fined up to <a href="http://fortune.com/longform/facebook-fix-it-team-fortune-500/">4% of annual revenue</a>. That means the two companies could be fined a <a href="https://noyb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pa_forcedconsent_en.pdf">total of €7.6 billion</a> (£6.6 billion).</p>
<p>Yet, even as most internet users were dealing with a deluge of GDPR-related emails from companies trying to follow the law, it occurred to me that what is possibly the most strident attempt by lawmakers to protect people’s privacy still won’t be enough. Not even nearly. The problem is that the law doesn’t protect the data that is most precious to tech firms, the inferred data produced by algorithms and used by advertisers.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/gdpr-ground-zero-for-a-more-trusted-secure-internet-95951">basic premise of GDPR</a> is that consumers must give their consent before a company such as Facebook can start to collect personal data. The company must explain why data is collected and how it’s used. The firm also isn’t allowed to use the data for a different reason later on.</p>
<p>All these rules naturally translated into consent boxes that “popped up online or in applications, often combined with a threat, that the service can no longer be used if user(s) do not consent”, <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/its-day-one-of-gdpr-and-facebook-google-are-accused-of-breaking-new-rules-1527284532">observed Max Schrems</a>, the campaigner who has filed the complaint against this “take it or leave it” approach.</p>
<p>Still, any new cases against Facebook and Google could go the way of the current enquiries into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-data-harvesting-what-you-need-to-know-93959">Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>. Addressing EU representatives during a parliamentary hearing, a suited-up Mark Zuckerberg was recently seen rehashing a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2018-05-21/facebook-s-zuckerberg-testifies-to-european-parliament">familiar narrative</a>, that he’s sorry and hasn’t “done enough to prevent harm”. “Whether it’s fake news, foreign interference in elections or developers misusing people’s information, we didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibilities,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/technology/mark-zuckerberg-apologize-european-parliament.html">he said</a>.</p>
<p>In other words, a highly technical challenge concerning data security and consumer privacy has been reduced to a public spectacle of remorse and redemption. And when the resolution comes in, just as with GDPR, it will arrive in the shape of email consent forms full of incomprehensible fine print and terms and conditions. The greatest danger of this is that the public will be blinded from seeing what truly matters.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/220796/original/file-20180529-80623-bvxkcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Internet users are still being constantly tracked.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Where the social networking sites, search engines and big online retailers have truly succeeded so far is in defining the “personal data” that lawmakers say requires protection. The data that GDPR covers includes credit card numbers, travel records, religious affiliations, web search results, biometric data from wearable fitness monitors and internet (IP) addresses. But when targeting consumers, such personal data, though useful, is not paramount.</p>
<p>For example, if TV network HBO wants to advertise the new season of Game of Thrones to anyone reading an article about the show on the New York Times website, then all HBO needs is an algorithm that understands the behavioural correlation, not a demographic profile. And those all-knowing algorithms, the under-the-hood machine learning tools that power everything from Facebook’s news feed to Google’s self-driving cars, remains opaque and unchallenged. In fact they have their own protections in the form of intellectual property rights, making them trade secrets much like the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/04/algorithms-powerful-europe-response-social-media">Coca-Cola recipe</a>.</p>
<p>But the difference between Coca-Cola and Facebook is, of course, in their business models. Facebook, Google, Snapchat and YouTube all generate revenue through advertising. Consumers pay for their Coca-Cola but they get their digital services for “free”. And that seemingly free service has introduced what economists call the <a href="http://lexicon.ft.com/term?term=principal/agent-problem">“principal-agent” problem</a>, meaning tech firms may not act in consumers’ best interest because they are the product not the customers. This is exactly why Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, has said Facebook users can’t opt out of sharing their data with advertisers because that would require Facebook to be “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/users-would-have-pay-opt-out-all-facebook-ads-sheryl-n863151">a paid product</a>”.</p>
<h2>GDPR could open the way for a solution</h2>
<p>But this is not unsolvable. Tech companies could be required to nominate independent reviewers, computer scientists and academic researchers to conduct algorithm audits to ensure any automatic decisions are unbiased and ethical. </p>
<p>Data scientists working at tech companies could also be required to ensure that any smart algorithm follows the principle of “explainable artificial intelligence”. This is the idea that machine learning systems <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/program/explainable-artificial-intelligence">should be </a>able to explain their decisions and actions to human users and “convey an understanding of how they will behave in the future”.</p>
<p>What is unique about the tech world today, and remains virtually incomprehensible to those who work outside the sector, is the minimal level of reassurance and regulation of the basics it has come to expect. Facebook’s shares have <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10/facebook-shares-recover-from-cambridge-analytica-crisis">already recovered</a> since the Cambridge Analytica scandal. </p>
<p>This shows that the biggest potential payoff of GDPR is not so much immediate protection of consumers, but the chance to open up an arena for public debate. Imagine consumers could one day voice their grievances over unfair targeting, or challenge the logic of a proprietary algorithm at a public tribunal, staffed by independent computer scientists. It is this kind of built-in scrutiny that will make a fairer and more useful internet. GDPR is the first step in this direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97389/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Howard Yu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facebook and Google already face a legal complaint in the wake of the new data protection law, but the most precious data still isn’t covered.Howard Yu, Professor of Management and Innovation, International Institute for Management Development (IMD)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/885602017-12-05T05:17:40Z2017-12-05T05:17:40ZWhat consumers need from the ACCC inquiry into Google and Facebook<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197708/original/file-20171205-22989-1s184cx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sometimes it's not clear to the consumer how Google search results come about, and what they show. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bangkok-thailand-dec-152016-google-app-536806483?src=s-OT0ceQIWOxiMGUbAOL-A-1-4">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Yesterday the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-commences-inquiry-into-digital-platforms">launched</a> an inquiry into digital platforms including Google and Facebook. </p>
<p>Chairman of the ACCC <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-commences-inquiry-into-digital-platforms">Rod Sims</a> said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACCC will look closely at longer-term trends and the effect of technological change on competition in media and advertising. </p>
<p>We will also consider the impact of information asymmetry between digital platform providers and advertisers and consumers </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The inquiry is overdue. To be useful, it should recognise that consumer protection law can play a larger role than it does currently in addressing platform power in the digital economy. Those leading it need to ensure its outcomes are truly beneficial for consumers, and not just the media companies and businesses using online advertising. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/confusion-over-googles-paid-services-could-land-it-in-trouble-again-57662">Confusion over Google’s paid services could land it in trouble, again</a></em> </p>
<hr>
<h2>How Google presents information</h2>
<p>To date, limited attention has been given to the issues faced by Australian consumers in internet markets, and particularly internet search. </p>
<p>Our research focuses on what consumers see and experience when they use Google.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1119&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1119&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1119&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1406&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/197724/original/file-20171205-22982-1v66gz0.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1406&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A search for ‘coffee adelaide’ produced the following results - but which are ads, and which are organic content? <strong>CLICK TO EXPAND AND VIEW</strong></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the early days, Google’s search results page was essentially a combination of organic search results (those that result from Google’s algorithm that ranks according to relevance) and ads (a pay-per-click model of advertising). This provided for a relatively clean page with each of the two main elements delineated by labels and shading. </p>
<p>As Google has grown and its services evolved, Google’s search results page has become increasingly complex, with several competing elements. Many of these search results elements are derived from Google’s subsidiary “vertical search” services which provide users with a specific category of online content, such as Google Maps, Google News and Google Shopping.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-017-9349-9">Our research</a> shows this creates confusion. We found that: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Australian consumers have a limited understanding about the operation and origin of different parts of the search results page</p></li>
<li><p>consumers were best able to understand and identify paid advertisements, as compared to results that were organic or linked to subsidiary services</p></li>
<li><p>there was particular confusion about the operation and origin of Google’s Shopping service, but also the origin of organic search results</p></li>
<li><p>confusion seems to be more pronounced among older users and those without higher education qualifications. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>These findings point to a gap in consumers’ digital literacy about Google search that should be addressed by this ACCC inquiry.</p>
<h2>Past ACCC focus on Google</h2>
<p>In 2011, the ACCC brought proceedings against Google for breaches of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth). </p>
<p>The ACCC alleged that by publishing or displaying several misleading sponsored links, Google was liable for misleading and deceptive conduct, as the maker of those advertisements (the claim against the advertiser was settled). The ACCC also claimed Google had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by failing to distinguish sufficiently between its organic search results and sponsored links. </p>
<p>The case went all the way to the <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2013/HCA/1">High Court</a>, who dismissed the case against Google. They found the evidence against Google never rose so high as to prove that Google personnel, as distinct from the advertisers, had chosen the relevant keywords, or otherwise created, endorsed, or adopted the sponsored links. As such, Google was not liable as the maker of misleading and deceptive advertising content. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1086.html">Justice Nicholas in the Federal Court at trial</a> also found against the ACCC’s allegation that Google had failed to distinguish its organic search results and sponsored links. He said reasonable members of the public would have understood sponsored links were advertisements that were different from Google’s organic search results.</p>
<p>As shown above, our research suggests otherwise. Despite its <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2013/HCA/1">win against the ACCC in the High Court in 2013</a>, Google should consider taking simple steps to label the different parts of its search results page more clearly, or risk legal action once more. </p>
<h2>A guide for the future</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/60/2016/07/Daly_Angela_and_Scardamaglia_Amanda.pdf">our recent submission</a> to the Australian Consumer Law Review Issues Paper, we advocated for an evidence-based approach to all regulatory action under Australian consumer law.</p>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-017-9349-9">We have also argued</a> that agencies such as the ACCC should consider introducing “best-practice” guidelines for online search providers and comparison shopping services in relation to the use of labelling and disclaimers to clearly identify source and affiliation, in order to minimise consumer confusion. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-your-doctor-might-google-you-74746">Yes, your doctor might Google you</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the United States, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/06/ftc-consumer-protection-staff-updates-agencys-guidance-search">Federal Trade Commission issued similar guidelines</a> about how these services should operate, and stated that failure to adequately distinguish between these different kinds of results may constitute a deceptive practice in violation of consumer protection laws. These guidelines provide a good starting point for regulatory agencies in Australia.</p>
<p>We also think further research is warranted that focuses on how different factors influence display of search results. We know this can vary depending on region, user preferences and settings, browsing history and devices used (PC, laptop, tablet or mobile phone). </p>
<p>We believe there is the potential for a more active role for consumer law in the digital ecosystem to address problems emanating from large and powerful platform providers such as Google than it previously has occupied. Perhaps this inquiry is the first step towards that. </p>
<p>However, it will be important for the ACCC to separate out the interests of consumers from the interests of businesses using Google to advertise, and media companies. Sometimes these interests converge, but not always. This can be seen in the recent European Commission investigation into Google’s alleged abuse of a dominant position in the search and advertising markets. These proceedings have resulted in <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3012437">an outcome which may benefit Google’s competitors more than consumers</a>. </p>
<p>The ACCC should be wary about producing the same outcome in its own inquiry, which <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-commences-inquiry-into-digital-platforms">is expected to</a> produce a preliminary report in December 2018, and a final report in June 2019.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Scardamaglia received an internal grant from Swinburne's Faculty of Business & Law and Faculty of Health, Arts and Design to fund this research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Daly received internal grants from Swinburne’s Faculty of Business and Law and Faculty of Health, Arts and Design to fund this research. She is a member of Digital Rights Watch Australia’s board of directors and is chair of the Australian Privacy Foundation’s International Committee.</span></em></p>The ACCC’s inquiry into digital platforms should make it easier for users to identify advertising on Google.Amanda Scardamaglia, Senior Lecturer, Department Chair, Swinburne Law School, Swinburne University of TechnologyAngela Daly, Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/853662017-10-17T23:55:36Z2017-10-17T23:55:36ZSolving the political ad problem with transparency<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190479/original/file-20171016-30962-1tqe36c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The American people used to get more information in common.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-group-commuters-reading-newspaper-train-151781759">sirtravelalot/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost all the content and advertising on the internet is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/technology/how-facebook-ads-work.html">customized to each viewer</a>. The impact of this kind of content distribution on the 2016 election is still being explored. But, we can certainly say that the campaigns used this to say <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/">different things to different people</a> without having to worry about accuracy.</p>
<p>Addressing this problem by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/google-facebook-and-twitter-scramble-to-hold-washington-at-bay">having people screen ads</a> is impractical and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trevor-potter-the-political-reality-of-citizens-united/">legally questionable</a>. A more straightforward solution based on <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/88005/full-disclosure">current disclosure laws</a> has been <a href="https://www.axios.com/mccains-latest-surprise-regulate-facebook-2498450082.html">proposed in Congress</a>: The <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356065-senate-dems-want-curb-election-interference-with-new-bill">Honest Ads Act</a> would increase transparency by having digital media platforms <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-political-ad-disclosure_us_59c55ca2e4b0cdc773313503">post all ads</a> on a web page that everyone can view.</p>
<p>Before the web, big data and machine learning, political groups and campaigns reached their target audiences through mass media – newspapers, radio and television. Most everyone saw the same news reports and advertisements at the same times. As a result, the public shared a common base of knowledge about what political candidates were saying. No longer.</p>
<p>Today, digital media platforms track what users look at, search for, post, like and share to micro-target their users with ads they are likely to want to see. Compared to the scattershot approach taken on TV and other mass media, micro-targeted ads are amazingly effective. This is great for the media platforms, who get to make money from advertisers. It is great for consumers, who can trade their time viewing ads they are likely to want to see in exchange for “free” use of the internet. And, it is great for businesses that get to reach their target audiences for less money.</p>
<p>Recent news makes it clear, however, that micro-targeting is not so great for democracy. Micro-targeted advertisements, which are at the heart of the most successful <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/net205apples/google-business-model">internet business model</a>, allow political groups and others – including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/technology/facebook-russian-ads.html">foreign countries</a> – to tell Americans tens of thousands of <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/">different stories</a>. Each of these messages is customized for people who are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/facebook-advertising-anti-semitism.html">predisposed to agree</a> with it, and unavailable for anyone else to check or verify. The net result is to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war">increase divisiveness</a> and disputes about “<a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-we-fall-for-fake-news-69829">fake news</a>” as the public’s common set of knowledge is divided into increasingly smaller pieces.</p>
<h2>A look to the 19th century</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The official portrait of President William Henry Harrison.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Reid_Lambdin_-_William_Henry_Harrison_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg">James Reid Lambdin/White House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem of politicians telling different stories to different people is not new. In 1840, William Henry Harrison’s presidential candidacy essentially <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/williamhenryharrison/gailcollins/9780805091182/">invented the modern campaign</a>. He was the first to hold mass rallies, make personal appearances and introduce catchy slogans. He realized that he could tailor his messages to different audiences, and even provide different segments of the population with different sets of facts. The people on the receiving end of his speeches would never know their counterparts in a different region were being told something different. </p>
<p>The solution: The traveling press corps made sure that everyone had access to all of a candidate’s speeches. Harrison and other candidates could, of course, still say whatever they want to any audience, but the press coverage made self-contradiction a political liability. Today’s solution is the same: Increase transparency. In the age of micro-targeted internet ads we need to make all ads available to all the people.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngjUkPbGwAg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An example of ‘fake news’ in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the 2004 presidential election, transparency was essential to eliminating fake news. An ad campaign by a group called “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth</a>” was created to discredit Democratic candidate John Kerry. In part because the public at large saw the ads, the effort was unmasked as inaccurate propaganda about <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080610022244/http://www.newsweek.com/id/55728/output/print">Kerry’s service in the Vietnam War</a>. By increasing the transparency around online ads, <a href="http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript">we the people</a> can hold all politicians, parties and interest groups accountable, and return to reasonable debates based on a common set of facts.</p>
<h2>Current solutions aren’t enough</h2>
<p>The recent news that Russia tried to manipulate the election with micro-targeted ads on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/technology/facebook-russian-ads.html">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/09/google-uncovers-russian-bought-ads-on-youtube-gmail-and-other-platforms/">Google</a> and <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Update-Russian-Interference-in-2016--Election-Bots-and-Misinformation.html">Twitter</a>, and that advertisers can micro-target ads based on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/facebook-advertising-anti-semitism.html">racist keywords</a>, has led to calls for online media platforms to be more socially responsible and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/congress-facebook-twitter-political-ads-243505">accountable</a>.</p>
<p>The tech companies’ <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/google-facebook-and-twitter-scramble-to-hold-washington-at-bay">planned response</a> involves hiring more people to review ads and keywords – a form of censorship. Even if each ad and its related targeting keywords could be vetted by the media companies, there are <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trevor-potter-the-political-reality-of-citizens-united/">free speech issues</a> involved in rejecting ads. Furthermore, motivated and clever advertisers are likely to find ways to reach their <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russia-ads-.html">intended demographics</a>. </p>
<h2>Taking the lesson from history</h2>
<p>As in 1840, Americans need help restoring the transparency that has been lost with changes in how campaigns reach the electorate. If media platforms were required to post all advertisements in an online archive on their websites for at least one year, then consumer groups, political watchdogs, the press and in fact any citizen would be able to monitor the ads being run.</p>
<p>In addition, at least for political ads, the keywords used to target the audience and the group paying for it could be included along with the ad itself. Keeping all ads on a known and publicly available page would make the ads available for all to see for a reasonable amount of time. Advertisers would be held accountable because everyone would be able to see the ad and it would not go away quickly. If we, as citizens, don’t take it upon ourselves to check the archive page, then shame on us.</p>
<p>It won’t solve all of the problems of micro-targeting. Advertisers and campaigns will doubtless try to circumvent whatever rules are in place. The goal is not perfect accountability, but a step toward it. Just as campaign laws require paid political ads on mass media to <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.11">identify their funding sources</a>, there should be a trail of accountability for advertisements on digital media platforms. This system is technically feasible and could be set up immediately. It is likely to reduce misinformation and curtail foreign manipulation at the same time, and could help the internet live up to its hope of improving – not hindering – democracy.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article was updated on October 19, 2017, to reflect and incorporate the fact that a specific bill was proposed in Congress to enact rules along the lines this article proposes.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seth Goldstein has received support from NSF, Darpa, ONR, Altera, Xilinx, Intel and Microsoft. He is a member of the ACM and IEEE and a past member of ISAT.</span></em></p>Micro-targeted online advertising has destroyed how Americans share experiences and a common knowledge base. The fix for this societal and political problem is as simple now as it was in 1840.Seth Copen Goldstein, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/700502017-03-12T19:19:10Z2017-03-12T19:19:10ZHow Facebook and Google changed the advertising game<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/152076/original/image-20170109-4292-2swxlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Google and Facebook are wiping out other digital advertisers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The tech revolution is coming to advertising. Chatbots are replacing humans, data threatens our privacy, and the blockchain is linking it all together. In our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/tech-and-advertising-36831">tech and advertising</a>, we’re taking a look at how the industry is being reshaped.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Creativity and spectacle are becoming less important than the personal information used to target ads. The sponsored links on a Google search or in your Facebook feed are very effective, but for a completely different reason than your favourite television commercial. </p>
<p>When you think about advertising what comes to mind is probably the art. Memorable ads are often creative, clever or emotional. Something along the lines of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGJiTpBBD18">a big, viral Australian beer ad</a>, or maybe something from the <a href="http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/50/commercials">Super Bowl</a>.</p>
<p>These ads had a symbiotic and reciprocal relationship with the media they played alongside. Big sporting events or television shows draw a certain audience, and advertising agencies created a spectacle to match. This isn’t the game anymore.</p>
<h2>Google and Facebook dominate digital advertising</h2>
<p>According to Jason Kint, CEO of digital content industry group Digital Content Next, Google and Facebook captured all of the <a href="https://www.iab.com/news/digital-ad-revenues-grow-19-year-year-first-half-2016/">US$32.7 billion growth</a> in digital advertising spending in the first half of last year. Everyone else’s share shrunk by 3%.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"793562463119745024"}"></div></p>
<p>Kint’s estimate came after <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-battle-falteringad-revenue-and-traffic.html?_r=0">earlier predictions</a> by Morgan Stanley analyst Brian Nowak that some 85% of new ad spend in 2016 would be split between these two companies. </p>
<p>Google and Facebook both make money by pairing user-generated content and personal information with advertising. </p>
<p>Google’s search engine serves sponsored results alongside other results in response to user search queries. Content posted by users on YouTube is often preceded by ads that mimic many of the traditions of television ads. Google-hosted display ads also appear on non-Google websites.</p>
<p>Facebook uses information users have given it, such as age, gender, relationship status and location. The site uses this to display ads from advertisers seeking to target people by specific characteristics.</p>
<p>Although they both use some of the same social signals, it is often a slightly different process: Facebook has monetised personal data, while Google has monetised activity.</p>
<h2>‘The internet of you’</h2>
<p>Unlike earlier forms of advertising that were targeted to generalised audience segments by broad demographic characteristics, the forms of advertising used by Google, Facebook and their competitors are more precise. </p>
<p>They use specific activity (such as searching for a term like “hotels”) or status information (changing a relationship status to “engaged”) to find people most likely to be interested in chosen ads. </p>
<p>More recently, data generated in a more passive way – from going about daily activities like travelling to work or cooking meals – are also added to our searches and what we post on Facebook. This information is collected through in-home and wearable devices like <a href="https://madeby.google.com/home/">Google Home</a> and mobile phones. </p>
<p>All of this data generation and collection leads to personalisation, or what <a href="https://jawbone.com/blog/internet-of-you/">wearable device maker Jawbone calls</a> “internet of you” – “technology tailored to you, with your own data driving the experience”. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vb-lVTBFJw0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Hosain Rahman, CEO of wearable devices maker Jawbone, says internet-connected devices should be “organised around you”.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ads are precision targeting</h2>
<p>The personalisation and precision of these new ads are changing the nature of advertising. It’s no longer about entertaining, delighting or making a personal connection; it’s about precision targeting. </p>
<p>It is easy to imagine gyms seeking new clients by targeting those who have shown search interest in getting fitter, enabled by <a href="https://theconversation.com/think-youre-reading-the-news-for-free-new-research-shows-youre-likely-paying-with-your-privacy-49694">online tracking</a>, but what about using step-counting devices to promote those shoes to someone who has actually started walking just a little more? </p>
<p>These are the kinds of data-supported advertisements of the “internet of you”. </p>
<p>Such strategies <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracking-your-digital-fingerprint-online-raises-privacy-issues-29688">pose difficult ethical questions</a> about privacy and personal information as users may have consented to the data use without actually reading or understanding long and complex terms-of-service documents. </p>
<p>These approaches also upend a common and understood – although widely criticised – approach to funding internet content with display ads. As the media theorist Douglas Rushkoff <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/doug-rushkoff-hello-etsy">put it</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We are not the customers of Facebook, we are the product. Facebook is selling us to advertisers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But on the “internet of you”, users may find they are <em>both</em> the customer who purchased a product and the target of a secondary customer (an advertiser) who bought their data. </p>
<h2>What this means for advertising</h2>
<p>With Facebook and Google dominating, many other web publishers are at a loss as to what to do. They find it difficult to find the “right solution to the big question of driving payment for quality content”, as the <a href="https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be#.ecl88i6rj">founder of the website Medium recently put it</a>. </p>
<p>In an <a href="https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/articles/marketing-trends-year-in-search-2016.html">end-of-year update</a> for marketers, Google highlighted the biggest issue in this new world – trust. Companies “must find ways to reassure consumers and position their brands as trustworthy”.</p>
<p>One way to create engaging and trustworthy advertising is by showing an interest in what customers already care about, which is helped by knowing as much about them as possible. </p>
<p>However, if users find precisely targeted ads creepy or feel unable to trust the devices in their homes and on their bodies, they may push back against marketers that deploy them. That would force ad makers to look once again to content that works alongside the media it funds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70050/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Travis Holland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For advertisers, media content is becoming less important than personal information.Travis Holland, Lecturer in Communication and Digital Media, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635622016-09-09T04:36:20Z2016-09-09T04:36:20ZHere’s what happens when you ‘like’ a brand on Facebook<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136775/original/image-20160906-25244-nle34r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What's not to like?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thumbs Up via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2015/06/16/50-free-ways-to-increase-your-facebook-page-likes/#6664a90a23d0">Businesses seem obsessed these days</a> with getting you to “like” them on Facebook. </p>
<p>It’s difficult to browse the internet without being inundated with requests to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/452446998120360/">like</a> a company’s Facebook page or with contests and offers <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/like-button">dependent on doing so</a>. </p>
<p>From the company’s perspective, a like on Facebook offers a chance to stay “top of mind,” a marketing concept that means a consumer thinks of a specific brand first for a certain product or service by having its promotional messages show up in that user’s Facebook newsfeed. Being liked can also be used as a metric to determine the performance of social media campaigns and other promotional activities. The more a company is liked, the more successful the promotion is thought to be.</p>
<p>But is this really the case? To find out, <a href="http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JRIM-09-2014-0059?journalCode=jrim">we surveyed hundreds of Facebook users</a> to dig into the meaning and value of the Facebook like. We wanted to understand the motivations behind liking certain types of brands and discover how that affects interactions between the user and the business. We also sought to understand how this varies depending on brand type (i.e., product makers versus service providers).</p>
<p>Findings from two studies we undertook reveal that what likes say about consumers and what they think about the brands they like is surprisingly varied.</p>
<h2>The loyalty of liking</h2>
<p>For the first study, we asked 150 Facebook users to tell us about a brand that they currently like on Facebook. We then asked them to describe their motivation behind clicking the like button the first time, their interactions with the brand since liking them and any changes that have occurred in their relationship with the brand since then. </p>
<p>From our results, it seems that the primary reason that consumers choose to like a brand on Facebook is a sense of existing loyalty or obligation to support a brand. The largest percentage of respondents said they liked a brand simply because they felt that’s what a loyal fan should do. The next biggest share seemed to be more focused on getting something in return for their like, such as information, social recognition or entries into contests.</p>
<p>Interestingly, only a relatively small percentage of respondents reported that they “liked” the brand on Facebook because they simply liked (had a positive attitude toward) the brand. This differs from loyalty in subtle ways. </p>
<p>For example, I may have a positive attitude toward the Rolls Royce brand after seeing its products in advertisements, product placements, etc., but I have never owned one of its cars; therefore, I do not feel loyalty or obligation to the brand. This finding shows that some users who may not have purchased products from the brand may still like the brand on Facebook for various reasons. </p>
<p>As for levels of interaction since first liking a brand, over half of users said that while they may have read the brand’s posts or viewed its images in their Facebook newsfeed, they haven’t given any information whatsoever back to the brand. Just one-fifth said they reposted or shared content from the brand, while only 17 percent reported actually commenting on brand posts. </p>
<p>Finally, there was an interesting and contradictory set of instances in which respondents reported no change in the brand relationship but at the same time went on to actually detail positive brand-related consequences. </p>
<p>For example, a respondent initially noted that his relationship with Ford did not change after liking the Ford page, but later noted that he did look at more photos of new Ford trucks posted by the company on Facebook. This could be interpreted as a change in their relationship, because they are interacting more with the brand. </p>
<p>This suggests that generating Facebook likes can indeed have positive outcomes for a company, including having more interaction with its fans. </p>
<h2>Are all likes created equal?</h2>
<p>While the first study provided interesting results, we wanted to see if there was a statistically significant difference in the way that Facebook users reported interacting with product versus service brands. </p>
<p>While varying types of businesses may all be trying to gain the same outcome, <a href="http://areas.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/Marketing/FacultyStaff/zeithaml/Selected%20Publications/A%20Conceptual%20Model%20of%20Service%20Quality%20and%20Its%20Implications%20for%20Future%20Research.pdf">there is evidence</a> that differences exist between how product- and service-based brands interact with potential customers, ones that require distinct engagement strategies. </p>
<p>Just as all brands are not the same, all likes are not equal. It may seem more natural to like a brand that makes an actual product such as a favorite car manufacturer or clothing brand than a service like a plumber, cable provider or pet groomer. That’s because, due to their intangible nature, services can be much more difficult for consumers to evaluate. As a result, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070398262002">service companies need to initiate</a> social interactions with their customers in order to communicate value and set appropriate expectations. </p>
<p>So in our second study, we surveyed 300 Facebook users to explore these differences and discovered some interesting similarities and differences in the way they interact with brands selling products and those offering services. </p>
<p>For example, we found that “fans” of product brands were more likely to report engaging in passive interactions with the company such as by reading or liking posts compared with those of service brands. They also reported a greater intention to make future purchases. </p>
<p>We found no differences between the groups, however, in their intentions to engage in more active Facebook interactions such as sharing or commenting on posts. </p>
<h2>Parsing the results</h2>
<p>So what does this all mean? </p>
<p>First, it tells us that simply adding up Facebook likes does not necessarily tell us how engaged a customer is with a company’s brand. Many of our respondents liked their respective brands for reasons other than wanting to engage in an interactive relationship. In other words, quantity of likes does not equal quality of relationships. </p>
<p>In addition, brand and social media managers should not automatically assume that new Facebook followers are new to the company. Many of our respondents felt that it was their obligation to a favorite or oft-purchased brand to like that brand on Facebook. </p>
<p>Although passive engagement with followers is perhaps not what gets the most attention when pundits discuss the benefits of Facebook engagement, it still offers benefits, such as becoming more “top of mind.” Brand managers should not always assume that their loudest and most active Facebook followers are the only ones getting the message.</p>
<p>Finally, our research offers different lessons for service- and product-based brands. For the former, feelings of brand connectedness were a strong outcome of Facebook interaction. These companies should perhaps focus more on personalizing their Facebook messages in an attempt to further stimulate and enhance this elevated sense of connectedness. </p>
<p>For product-based brands, although brand connectedness was lower, purchase intention and brand attitude – the positive or negative associations one has with the brand – were higher. To leverage this, these companies should perhaps include more calls to action on Facebook and showcase their latest and greatest product offerings. </p>
<p>So next time you “like” a brand on Facebook, think about what you are telling the company. And whether that’s the message you want to send.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63562/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Companies seem obsessed these days with getting you to ‘like’ them. But what does that really mean?Alisha Horky, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Elon UniversityMark J. Pelletier, Assistant Professor of Marketing, Radford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/549832016-03-02T11:21:02Z2016-03-02T11:21:02ZOnline ads know who you are, but can they change you too?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113451/original/image-20160301-31056-1q6a5m4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do advertisers know us better than we know ourselves? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fingerprint via www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Do you ever get the sense that advertisements you see online know more about you than you might expect? Have you ever wondered why you’re being shown an ad for a product, only to realize later that you might actually be the kind of person who would want to buy it?</p>
<p>If so, it’s likely that the ads appearing on your screen have been behaviorally targeted.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.marketing-schools.org/types-of-marketing/behavioral-marketing.html">Behavioral targeting</a> uses information about nearly everything you do online – clicks, searches, social media, what you’ve bought and browsed – to select ads that marketers think will appeal to you based on your unique online behavior.</p>
<p>Our recent research shows, however, that these ads do more than reflect your past or future preferences. They can change how you see yourself in fundamental ways.</p>
<h2>What kind of person are you really?</h2>
<p>What makes this practice unique is that it does not involve advertising the exact things you have already shown an interest in, as is the case when ads for the shoes you bought two weeks ago follow you around online. </p>
<p>Instead, behavioral targeting predicts what you might like based on a profile of you that was created by tracking your online actions. To adopt Hollywood parlance, behavioral targeting typecasts you.</p>
<p>For example, if you spend your time online learning about environmental causes or donating to Greenpeace, you might see an ad for an eco-friendly clothing brand on your favorite gossip column. Someone else visiting the same website, but who has instead searched for luxury cars and symphony tickets, might receive an ad for an upscale restaurant. Different people receive different ads, even on the same site, because an algorithm has identified them as a certain type of consumer.</p>
<p>As a marketing practice, behavioral targeting is relatively <a href="http://behavioraltargeting.biz/history-of-behavioral-targeting/">new</a>. In 1999, DoubleClick and Engage were among the first to promote the idea that personal identifiable information collected across a network of websites could be used for ad targeting. </p>
<p>However, uncertainty about who would own consumer data and technological limitations led publishers to question the value of behavioral targeting and delay adopting it. Without a big enough group of publishers willing to share data with one another about what consumers were doing, the practice stalled.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113444/original/image-20160301-31050-185nvce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=473&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pregnant? Marketers may already know.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pregnant woman via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Predictive power</h2>
<p>Behavioral targeting gained momentum over the following decade, thanks in part to advances in tracking and prediction. A <a href="https://www.google.com/patents/US7809740">patent</a> filed by Yahoo! in 2006 exemplifies how the behavioral targeting process was standardized to produce user profile scores based on recency, frequency and intensity of clicks, which in turn determine ads. </p>
<p>The predictive power of consumer data within marketing was brought into the public spotlight by, fittingly, Target. In 2012, the retailer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html">predicted</a> that a customer was pregnant well before the young woman told her father. </p>
<p>Target did so by creating a model that tracked purchase choices and predicted pregnancy status based on specific items (e.g., multivitamins, lotion and cotton balls). While the tracking and advertising described in the article occurred offline, the story highlighted marketers’ ability to collect and use individual-level behavior to deliver marketing messages. </p>
<h2>Identifying behavioral targeting</h2>
<p>How can you tell that an ad has been behaviorally targeted? </p>
<p>Take a close look at some of the ads you see on your favorite websites, like Yahoo or Gawker (unless you have an ad blocker running). When you look at the upper right hand corner of the ad, do you see a little blue triangle? Maybe a tiny “AdChoices” script? If so, BINGO!</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.youradchoices.com/">AdChoices icon</a> is a symbol affixed to an ad denoting that it was selected for you based on your past online behavior. Although there is no legal mandate to disclose when an ad is behaviorally targeted, the <a href="http://www.aboutads.info/">Digital Advertising Alliance</a> – an industry group that enforces privacy practices – responded to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-recommendations-businesses-policymakers">Federal Trade Commission</a>-issued guidelines by promoting use of the icon among advertisers and by <a href="http://www.youradchoices.com/learn.aspx">trying to educate</a> the public. Both initiatives are aimed at addressing privacy concerns among consumers. </p>
<p>While marketers may like behavioral targeting because it results in <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=80378">higher click-through rates</a> and <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/behavioral-targeted-ads-advertising-ftc-privacy-cmo-network-ads.html">increased conversion to sales</a> compared with ads that aren’t behaviorally targeted, consumer sentiment is less universally positive. </p>
<p><a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/265851-poll-most-dont-find-privacy-tradeoff-of-social-media-acceptable">Older consumers</a> tend to be concerned about protecting their privacy and are more likely to view this type of advertising as intrusive. In contrast, younger consumers, including most of the college students that we teach, think it’s great – if they have to see ads, they prefer those that are personally relevant.</p>
<p>If people don’t universally love these ads, why are they so common and effective? We hypothesized that when someone receives an ad they realize is behaviorally targeted, they may recognize that the ad carries information about themselves. If so, we wondered, would they then change their self-perceptions to match that information, consistent with what psychologists call <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory">labeling theory</a>?</p>
<h2>Ads as social labels</h2>
<p>Social psychologists have long known that giving people a label can change their behavior. </p>
<p>For example, a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103173900371">classic study</a> found that being called “charitable” after donating makes someone more likely to make a second donation than someone who isn’t called charitable after donating. We act consistently with who we believe we are, and labels from others can shape our identity.</p>
<p>In a series of studies recently published in the <em><a href="http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/ucw012?ijkey=oVQEbEK11iMqdVu&keytype=ref">Journal of Consumer Research</a>,</em> we found that receiving a behaviorally targeted ad can shift a person’s self-perceptions to match personality traits associated with the product in the ad. </p>
<p>This is because behaviorally targeted ads act as implied social labels. When you receive a behaviorally targeted ad, it is the equivalent of a marketer saying “you are someone who cares about the environment” or “you have sophisticated tastes.”</p>
<p>In our studies, receiving an ad for an eco-friendly product or a sophisticated restaurant led consumers to feel more “green” and more sophisticated, respectively, when they thought the ad was behaviorally targeted, compared with a control condition in which they did not believe the ad was behaviorally targeted. Receiving a behaviorally targeted ad acts like a label because consumers understand that the ad is tied to prior behavior.</p>
<p>Receiving a behaviorally targeted ad can not only change how people see themselves, but also cause them to modify their behavior to be consistent with revised self-perceptions. Most directly, the ad implies that a recipient is someone who would like the product, and believing an ad to be behaviorally targeted increases interest in buying the product. However, this belief also affects additional behaviors. </p>
<p>In one <a href="http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/ucw012?ijkey=oVQEbEK11iMqdVu&keytype=ref">study</a>, we found that receiving an ostensibly behaviorally targeted ad for an environmental product caused people not only to see themselves as “greener” and to be more interested in buying that product, but also to be more interested in donating money to an environmental charity.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113447/original/image-20160301-31053-1qienm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Perhaps a sign you wouldn’t be interested in an ad for a sophisticated restaurant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">TV dinner via www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Accuracy matters</h2>
<p>Our findings have good news for readers worried that behaviorally targeted ads might make them believe all sorts of things about themselves. The results of our studies reveal that targeting has to be accurate to significantly affect self-perceptions.</p>
<p>If you have never engaged in any behavior online that would suggest that you are interested in upscale dining (maybe you Google “how to microwave dinner” and “fast food restaurants”), an ad for an upscale restaurant isn’t going to make you suddenly feel like someone with extremely sophisticated dining preferences. While you may recognize that the ad is targeting such a person, you are likely to reject it as an irrelevant label because it’s not tied in any way to your behavior.</p>
<p>Because the accuracy of targeting matters, marketing managers hoping to profit from the use of behavioral targeting have a vested interest in making sure their algorithms are good at identifying what kind of person a consumer truly is based on their click-stream data.</p>
<p>For consumers, it means that your particular search patterns and whether you share a computer may determine how much behaviorally targeted ads shape your behavior. If you spend a lot of time seeking information for other people (e.g., buying work supplies, finding information about a partner’s hobby, searching for gifts), your search history may produce less accurate ads. Targeted ads on mobile devices may be more accurate and likely to shape how you see yourself because mobile devices are commonly single-user.</p>
<p>For those concerned about receiving ads based on their tracked behavior, the best solution may be to opt out entirely. As part of the campaign around increasing awareness of the AdChoices icon, the Digital Advertising Alliance has made it easy for people to <a href="http://www.youradchoices.com/control.aspx">opt out</a>. A few quick clicks can get you most of the way back to the age of anonymous (and often irrelevant) online ads.</p>
<h2>The power of advertising</h2>
<p>The bottom line is that behavioral targeting is not only pervasive and effective at increasing click-through rates and purchases but may also be powerful in previously unexpected ways. </p>
<p>The AdChoices logo, instituted in part to help consumers feel more comfortable with behavioral targeting, may be a large driver of these effects, as it’s only when consumers know that an ad has been behaviorally targeted that it has the power to change how they see themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research shows that behaviorally targeted ads can do more than figure out what kind of person you are – they can also shape how you see yourself.Rebecca Walker Reczek, Associate Professor of Marketing, The Ohio State UniversityChristopher A. Summers, Marketing PhD Candidate, The Ohio State UniversityRobert W. Smith, Assistant Professor of Marketing, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456762015-08-07T10:03:34Z2015-08-07T10:03:34ZCalvin Klein’s new sexting ads are not only unethical, they may not even be effective<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90816/original/image-20150804-12028-3gr72l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Calvin Klein is known for its especially sexy ads.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/en321/3936917157/in/photolist-6ZTJj2-61UEpi-8rgjNs-8rdbCX-4zpyzY-2Dm5Dw-9ZtUJr-6oyFd-6ZTM9K-6ZXMVY-6ZTKCX-3XKEHo-5yzgUf-aBkna5-bot8J1-jUPiJT-4HE4ru-Lgi7z-ezHTG-7nAQn3-6525o7-RThVg-5Hni6K-6pvacC-7nxuFy-7ntzpM-RR64h-5HrBc5-7nwV9X-a5pjsB-a5scgf-Ka3ti-T3xD3-dDZoeQ-epidj-5dCqCC-6DQ6ea-7zmrTL-7ntAax-7nwVrB-7nAQem-d9SuKq-7nwVhr-7ntzcX-ezJ4e-d9SuhB-8PaHcA-7ntzPZ-RR5CU-5HnhA6">Susan Sermoneta/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A shirtless man lounges on a large couch while two attractive young women recline next to him. A text message appears: “Hahah a light threesome never hurt anyone.” Where might this scene be from? An adult novel, an X-rated movie?</p>
<p>No, it’s a new Calvin Klein ad. </p>
<p>The brand known for risqué promotion has adapted its advertising for the digital age with a <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/style/calvin-klein-takes-on-sexting-tinder-to-promote-125357644583.html">new jeans campaign</a> that features young people sexting, or sending sexually explicit text messages. </p>
<p>Each ad in the campaign contains a provocative picture, the words of a sexually charged text message and a tempting tagline: “raw texts, real stories.” </p>
<p>There’s little question from the ads that the company endorses more than denim.</p>
<p>In comparing ads from 100, 50 and 25 years ago with ones like the current Calvin Klein ads, it’s easy to see that sexual content has become more explicit. You also may have noticed that the number of such ads has risen. For instance, a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10641734.2012.675566#abstract">2012 study</a> from the University of Georgia that looked at advertising from 1983 to 2003 showed the share with sexual imagery almost doubled.</p>
<p>Such ads raise two questions: one, are they effective? And two, even if they are, do they cross a moral line that shouldn’t be crossed? </p>
<p>Through a 25-year career that’s spanned industry and higher education, I’ve had many opportunities to consider how marketing and ethics interact. Based on my experience, I’ve come to believe that what’s best for business and what’s moral are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>Rather, organizations can excel both economically and ethically. In fact, the two goals are often complementary. For instance, <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ethical-companies-shown-to-be-more-profitable-over-time-56555987.html">Corpedia’s Ethics Index</a>, comprising publicly traded companies rated high for ethical behavior, outperformed the S&P 500 by more than 370% during a recent five-year period.</p>
<h2>Does sex sell?</h2>
<p>First off, does more carnal creativity mean that “sex sells”? Not necessarily. For example, a <a href="http://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/abs/10.1027/1016-9040/a000016?journalCode=epp">2010 study</a> from Texas A&M International University did find that people were more likely to remember commercials that contained sexual or violent content. But that doesn’t mean they were more likely to make a purchase. </p>
<p>Memory doesn’t always predict purchase intentions or other positive behavior. While people remember positive experiences, they also remember things they’d rather forget, like car accidents, relationship breakups and kidney stones. Memory only leads to sales if it’s tied to a compelling reason for purchase.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3151194?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">classic study</a> conducted by Baker and Churchill in 1977 found that advertising models’ physical attractiveness increased viewers’ attention as well as their positive evaluations of the ads. But at the same time, it found that sexual content in ads did not affect respondents’ deeper cognitions, thus rendering physical attraction ineffective in gaining the target market’s acceptance of the advertising message.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1325/abstract">Parker and Furnham</a> in 2007 realized that sexual ad content had no effect on viewers’ abilities to recall details of television commercials. The study also found that women recalled ads without sexual content better than they did sexualized ads. </p>
<p>A more <a href="http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/07/sex-violence.aspx">recent study</a> conducted in July at Ohio State University discovered an even more conflicting effect. Violent and sexual content in ads again succeeded in grabbing attention, but it also overshadowed other important aspects of the marketing effort, including the product being promoted. As a result, the researchers concluded that sex and violence in ads actually impeded product memory and lessened purchase intentions. </p>
<p>But what if sex does “sell” for some companies? Maybe erotic advertising is effective for Calvin Klein and certain others who continue to use it for their target markets. Although companies may find exceptions for what works, there are no exclusions for what’s ethical.</p>
<h2>Why ethical advertising matters</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, some advertisers and other marketers have spurned morality for decades to the detriment of the industry.</p>
<p>For instance, when asked to “rate the honesty and ethical standards” of individuals in various fields, respondents to a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx">December 2014 Gallup poll</a> placed advertisers near the bottom of the list, only above car salespeople (another group of marketers) and members of Congress. Such disrepute, however, shouldn’t be the case. </p>
<p>Of course, most people don’t want to be thought of as unethical, so such a reputation can discourage morally minded people from entering the discipline. Also, people generally don’t want to do business with individuals they don’t trust.</p>
<p>Although I know <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2014/09/24/why-mindfulness-is-the-next-revolution-in-marketing/">many others</a> share this conviction, marketing unfortunately has lacked a common paradigm for identifying and addressing the field’s moral issues. For instance, each year Ethisphere announces its selections for “<a href="http://ethisphere.com/ethisphere-announces-the-2015-worlds-most-ethical-companies/">The World’s Most Ethical Companies</a>,” which many of the winners are eager to promote. The organization’s <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/03/19/the-worlds-most-ethical-companies-2015/">140-question application</a>, however, is hardly a tool that marketers can readily use to help make daily ethical decisions.</p>
<p>This absence convinced me last year to develop a straightforward model of marketing ethics called <a href="http://mindfulmarketing.org/">Mindful Marketing</a> to evaluate marketing strategies and tactics, including morally suspect ones like sexualized advertising. </p>
<p>Simply put, to be considered “mindful,” marketing practices must be two things: effective, that is, they accomplish their marketing-related objectives; and ethically sound, that is, they don’t invite any obvious moral compromise.</p>
<p>Together these two goals form the foundation of what I call the “<a href="http://www.mindfulmarketing.org/mindful-meter--matrix.html">mindful matrix</a>,” a visual representation of the concept and its four categories of marketing: mindful, single-minded, simple-minded and mindless.</p>
<h2>Like a bad case of food poisoning</h2>
<p>So where does sex in advertising fall within the mindful matrix? As mentioned above, there may be times when sexualized ads are effective at accomplishing their marketing goals. More often, however, the sensual promotion fizzles, distracting target market members from product benefits and failing to create stakeholder value. </p>
<p>In terms of societal values, the erotic images that such ads often employ undermine decency and respect by objectifying individuals (usually women), fueling unhealthy sexual appetites and reducing human existence to the satisfaction of sensual desires.</p>
<p>Yes, sexually charged advertising grabs attention, and it is often memorable, but so is a bad case of food poisoning. Like other mindless marketing, oversexualized ads leave an ill feeling for many consumers and may sicken an entire society.</p>
<p>Will there come a day when advertising is automatically considered honest and marketing tops the list for trustworthiness? That remains to be seen, but right now <a href="http://www.mindfulmarketing.org/">Mindful Marketing</a> invites marketers and consumers to share in this vision of ethical exchange and to help move forward to such a future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hagenbuch is the founder of Mindful Marketing (<a href="http://www.mindfulmarketing.org">www.mindfulmarketing.org</a>) and Professor of Marketing at Messiah College where he teaches marketing and ethics courses, integrating the Mindful Marketing paradigm. He offers consulting services in the areas of marketing and ethics, often to nonprofit organizations in partnership with his students.</span></em></p>Studies show sexualized advertising often isn’t effective, and may even have adverse consequences for the product being promoted.David Hagenbuch, Professor of Marketing, Messiah CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/455192015-08-04T14:19:48Z2015-08-04T14:19:48ZNow advertising billboards can read your emotions … and that’s just the start<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90658/original/image-20150803-6022-1ijhxi3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's a shame the adverts aren't displaying a real product. Bahio would've won over a mesmerised customer.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.clearchannel.co.uk/mc-saatchi-clear-channel-and-posterscope-unveil-londons-first-artificial-intelligence-poster-campaign/">Clear Channel</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Advertising giant <a href="http://mcsaatchi.com">M&C Saatchi</a> is currently testing advertising billboards with hidden Microsoft Kinect cameras that read viewers’ emotions and react according to whether a person’s facial expression is happy, sad or neutral. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/jul/27/artificial-intelligence-future-advertising-saatchi-clearchannel">test adverts</a> – which feature a fictitious coffee brand named <a href="http://bahio.coffee/">Bahio</a> – have already appeared on Oxford Street and Clapham Common in London. So we now have adverts that can read the reactions of those that view them and adapt accordingly, cycling through different images, designs, fonts and colours. With partners <a href="http://www.clearchannel.co.uk">Clear Channel</a> and <a href="http://www.posterscope.com">Posterscope</a>, Saatchi has made advertising history. When future media historians look back they will see 2015 as a landmark year.</p>
<p>There are three key things we should recognise: adverts can read our behaviour, this is based on our emotions rather than website browsing history, and that adverts use this to improve themselves.</p>
<p>What are we to make of this? Is it a bit creepy? The answer is both yes and no. What the campaign represents is an attempt to get closer to us, something that’s a defining characteristic of the advertising and audience research industries. They want to know us more intimately so as to be able to craft messages that will affect and resonate with us. It’s an example of what I call “empathic media” because, through reading facial expressions, adverts are able to bypass the guesswork and make direct use of our emotions. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JfpuqfqC-ts?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Evolution of the ad</h2>
<p>While uncanny and creative, Saatchi’s adverts are not a threat to privacy. After all, unlike our PCs, phones and tablets, these posters neither know nor care who we are. The adverts’ creators say they do not store images or data, and there is little reason to disagree. All their adverts do is react to facial shapes – the truly creepy stuff is online and in the mobile phone apps tracking our habits. For example, <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.06093v2.pdf">one study</a> records the Eurosport Player app as having 810 data trackers collecting hardware and software information, but also navigation (where a person visits online), behaviour, visit times, visitor actions and geolocation (where a person is located in real space).</p>
<p>The real genius of the new advert is in using our facial expressions to learn and alter the design of the advert. Through responding to our expressions the adverts have purpose – an evolutionary urge to improve and become more effective. </p>
<p>This idea of adaptable advertising was foreseen around 100 years ago by advertising luminaries such as <a href="http://adage.com/article/special-report-the-advertising-century/daniel-starch/140263/">Daniel Starch</a> and <a href="http://adage.com/article/special-report-the-advertising-century/claude-c-hopkins/140207/">Claude Hopkins</a>. They insisted advertising should be treated as a science based on collecting information, analysing it and using these insights to improve campaigns. Starch and Hopkins both sought to understand which techniques do and don’t work in order to make the business of advertising subject to laws of cause and effect. The grandfathers of advertising would be very pleased with today’s progeny. </p>
<p>Although the logic is old, processing feedback to self-correct in real-time is new. For years, Google has masterfully led the way in how adverts are automatically served based on our interests; self-improving adverts in the physical world are another step forward. </p>
<h2>Connecting with the subject</h2>
<p>Much of the media coverage surrounding M&C Saatchi’s adverts lauds it as an <a href="http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/watch-m-c-saatchi-launches-artificially-intelligent-outdoor-campaign/1357413">artificially intelligent campaign</a>. While this is true to an extent, the advert is actually quite mechanical: the advertiser has no understanding of why we are smiling, grimacing or straight-faced, or of what these expressions imply. They simply match the shapes, and react.</p>
<p>So what would intelligent advertising look like? It would have to be able to engage with the context of our lives, in real time. What that consists of is a somewhat philosophical question, but it might encompass our individual life histories, our natural spoken language, human values, politics, current affairs, popular culture, and aesthetic trends – all topics that human ad creatives consider when putting campaigns together. </p>
<p>Clearly, these adverts don’t – but others in the advertising business may have the technological muscle to do so. For an insight into tomorrow’s artificially intelligent advertising, have a look at <a href="http://deepmind.com">Google’s Deepmind</a> that promises to “combine the best techniques from machine learning and systems neuroscience to build powerful general‑purpose learning algorithms”. When we remember that Google is first and foremost an advertising company, Deepmind is one to watch.</p>
<p>Then there are the sensors. We will soon wear and carry more sensors and we will have more sensors around us. Empathic media will grant advertisers even more insight into our emotions through how we speak to our mobile devices, more granular facial recognition and emotional insights derived from our heart rates, respiration patterns and how our skin responds to stimuli. And if that sounds far-fetched, remember you’ve just read a true story about adverts that recognise your emotions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45519/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew McStay receives funding from ESRC and AHRC. He is affiliated with Open Rights Group.</span></em></p>M&C Saatchi’s new development signifies the dawn of a new age of real-time responsive advertisingAndrew McStay, Senior Lecturer in Media Culture, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/407962015-05-26T10:06:35Z2015-05-26T10:06:35ZWhy does social media advertising fall flat?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82731/original/image-20150522-32589-1yyi6a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many Facebook users view ads as a violation of their personal space.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=VpBZ0ABpL2V4e33ddWjoKQ&searchterm=facebook%20laptop&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=204633106">'laptop' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Social media use has exploded over the past five years, with nearly three-quarters of all online adults using <a href="http://wearesocial.net/tag/statistics/">some social media</a> network. Leading social media platform Facebook claims that <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/facebook-tops-1-billion-mobile-users-157209">more than one billion people</a> use its website. </p>
<p>Based on these numbers, advertisers and marketers have used communication philosopher Marshall McLuhan’s aphorism <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html">“The Medium is the Message”</a> when approaching this opportunity. McLuhan was talking about television, but social media sites have well outpaced television’s access to the buying public. </p>
<p>Advertisers and marketers are attracted to social media because they have a huge reach, and it’s relatively cheap to place ads on them.</p>
<p>In addition to these benefits, a <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full">2014 study</a> commissioned by Facebook stated that there is “experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks” – meaning users can pass on positive or negative emotions to others through the network.</p>
<p>The study goes on to point out that not only can these reactions be manipulated, but they can also be transferred to a friend subconsciously. </p>
<p>So it makes sense that advertisers would want to exploit these networks to sell their products. But the best advertisements are compelling and engaging; are those used on sites like Twitter and Facebook connecting with users?</p>
<p>In short: no. In the second of two studies conducted at the University of Florida, we found that most Facebook ads are seen as unappealing and not engaging.</p>
<h2>Diminishing appeal</h2>
<p>Our study measured reactions to the idea of advertising and marketing communications on Facebook, without measuring reaction to specific ads. </p>
<p>Using <a href="http://www.adsam.com">AdSAM®</a> – the Attitude Self-Assessment Manikin – we were able to measure reactions to five key Facebook marketing vehicles: Banner Ads, Suggested Posts (sometimes referred to as “promoted posts”), two types of newsfeed re-posts – referred to as either “I liked” or “my friends liked” – and Business Pages. </p>
<p>Respondents were then asked to evaluate their impressions of these ads, which appear regularly – in the forms outlined above – on their newsfeeds.</p>
<p>In addition to gathering key emotional response indicators (Appeal, Engagement and Empowerment) to the ads, this study also measured Credibility, Personal Relevance and Intrusiveness to determine the drivers of the emotions among the respondents. </p>
<p>Two hundred twenty-eight undergraduate students – a prime target of advertisers – participated in the online survey. </p>
<p>Although there are significant differences in the Appeal, Engagement and Empowerment results, none of the responses was high or promising. Overall, on a nine-point high scale, the average Appeal was 4.5. Engagement was 4.2, while Empowerment was 5.1. Previous AdSAM studies have shown that television advertising frequently has much higher scores on these dimensions of <a href="http://www.adsam.com/files/The%20Power%20of%20Affect.pdf">emotion.</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=245&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82714/original/image-20150522-32589-dlmlrx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=307&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The results of the survey (click to zoom).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Facebook users do, however, have significantly more positive emotional responses when exposed to ad and marketing messages re-posted by users (“I Liked,” “My Friends Liked” and the “Business Pages”) than ads originating directly from marketers (“Banner Ads” and “Suggested Posts”).</p>
<p>The more positive reactions to the user re-posts (versus the direct advertiser posts) seem to be related to the third dimension of emotion: empowerment. When users feel like they have control, they respond better to the idea of these ads. In addition, ads placed directly by advertisers are seen as less credible, less personally relevant and more intrusive than those re-posted by Facebook users.</p>
<p>Overall, the emotional response to Facebook ads is below the midpoint on appeal and engagement. The only ad format reported to be slightly more positive is the Business Page. This may be due to the fact that this vehicle is more directly beneficial to users, because it comes to users through re-posts and promotions, and seems like it’s less blatantly trying to “sell” users products.</p>
<p>As previously mentioned, this study is a follow-up to a <a href="http://www.adsam.com/ckfinder/userfiles/files/FindUsOnFacebook_AdSAM-Research.pdf">study conducted in 2011</a>. Unfortunately for advertisers, the appeal, engagement and empowerment of these ads have actually fallen since the first study.</p>
<h2>Why is this the case?</h2>
<p>Social media marketing messages clearly have a different effect on user response than more traditional advertising. In some cases, social media users view sites like Facebook and Twitter as their personal space. Advertising into this space, then, can be perceived as an intrusion. This does not seem to be true for television, newspapers, magazines or radio.</p>
<p>One recommendation from our study is that marketers and advertisers focus more on advertisements that are designed for this medium – ads that actively promote re-posting. Another is to make marketing communications more entertaining and interactive. In other words, advertisers should direct more effort toward the developing engaging content.</p>
<p>Selling products with a content marketing approach is nothing new. Infomercials, native advertising, special advertising sections in news magazines and product-based TV shows have been around since before the middle of last century. John Deere even published an advertising/content-based magazine <a href="http://todaymade.com/blog/history-of-content-marketing">in 1895</a>. Food products have created and distributed cookbooks for their products for years. And, of course, there’s there <a href="http://www.asseenontv.com/ronco-veg-o-matic/detail.php?p=346520">Ronco Vegamatic</a>.</p>
<p>To that end, General Electric <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/business/general-electric-planning-television-series-covering-science-and-tech.html">recently announced</a> that it was hiring film director Ron Howard to develop new content marketing for the National Geographic channel. </p>
<p>And this approach is now making its way into social media. Some companies are <a href="http://www.convinceandconvert.com/content-marketing/9-best-from-buffer/">providing guidance</a> on how to enhance social media ads with engaging content.</p>
<p>However, in the realm of social media, content-based marketing is a risky venture. The audience is more resistant to sponsored content; if the efforts backfire, users could transfer these negative reactions to the products themselves. On the other hand, if advertisers can make the content seem more personally relevant, the feelings for intrusion may subside and the emotional reaction to the brand become more appealing, engaging and empowering.</p>
<p>Companies considering advertising on Facebook and other social media networks will be most effective if they direct their effort to making an emotional connection with their audience. Building brands is more than presenting facts about a product or conducting giveaways. It means making the benefits come alive for the consumer. </p>
<p>Employing creative strategies that are more entertaining or truly informative may be one method for making these ads appear less intrusive. Ron Howard and other well-known directors may be part of the solution, but they should remember that in the world of social media, they don’t have the luxury of a 90-minute presentation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40796/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jon D Morris consults to/owns shares in AdSAM Marketing LLC. He has received no funding for this study. This study was conducted under the auspices of the University of Florida and is a not-for-profit study. Some of the tools were borrowed with permission form AdSAM. </span></em></p>Facebook earned $3.6 billion in ad revenue last year. According to recent research, for advertisers this might not be money well-spent.Jon D Morris, Professor of Advertising, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/366872015-01-30T10:43:48Z2015-01-30T10:43:48ZPuppy love? Super Bowl ads zero in on elusive millennials<p>Millennials, that evasive group born from 1982 to 2002, featuring characteristics and dispositions unlike any other age segment, are increasingly becoming the target of <a href="http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/super-bowl-xlix-ad-chart-buying-big-game-commercials/295841/">Super Bowl advertisers</a>, as fans will see when the Seattle Seahawks battle the New England Patriots this weekend. </p>
<p>Unfortunately for marketers, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2015/01/27/the-super-bowl-is-a-missed-advertising-opportunity-with-millennials">engaging the group</a> hasn’t been easy. </p>
<h2>Just what is a millenial?</h2>
<p>Millennials, including anyone aged 13 to 33, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/millennials_report.pdf">are more numerous</a> (about 80 million), more affluent and better educated. They are more connected and technologically advanced, having grown up with the internet and come of age with smartphones. Their conversations center around social media (as a medium and a topic). </p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change/">Pew personality profile</a>, they are confident, self-expressive, liberal, less religious, upbeat and open to change, as well as more ethnically and racially diverse. </p>
<p>They are an age group that is clearly increasing in influence. Collectively, <a href="http://www.retailleader.com/top-story-consumer_insights-millennials__spending_power_to_increase_by_2017-1071.html">they’re expected to spend</a> more than $200 billion a year beginning in 2017 and $10 trillion over their lifetimes. </p>
<p>Added together, this makes them both a highly coveted target for companies of all stripes, from makers of iGadgets to sellers of soda – if highly amorphous. The point is that they cannot be ignored, and advertisers will have to learn to effectively court this group because they will be the most important target audience for many years to come – replacing their baby boomer parents. </p>
<p>It seems, though, that the Super Bowl – the biggest ad day of the year, in which a 60-second spot now goes for a cool US$9 million or so – isn’t doing so well. </p>
<p>Estimates suggest 23 million 18- to 34-year-olds watch the Super Bowl. But perhaps as many as four out of five of them think the ads are usually “just ok,” “disappointing,” “plain awful,” “offensive” and/or “not as good as they used to be,” according to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2015/01/27/the-super-bowl-is-a-missed-advertising-opportunity-with-millennials/">an informal survey by Forbes</a>. </p>
<p>At the same time, almost a quarter of 18- to 24-year-olds say the <a href="https://nrf.com/media/press-releases/184-million-americans-watch-2015-super-bowl-according-nrf-survey">commercials are the most important part of the game</a>, more than any other age group, according to a survey by the National Retail Federation. </p>
<p>What’s more, they spend more than average on their Super Bowl parties, with adults aged 18 to 24 planning to shell out $96 and those aged 25-34 expending $102, compared with $78 for all age groups. </p>
<h2>This Bud’s for millennials</h2>
<p>Anheuser-Busch InBev, for one, is taking this challenge head on and has designed a strategy this year that directly targets millennials, many of whom have never tasted Budweiser before. </p>
<p>In the ads, the self-proclaimed King of Beers will of course include its famous Clydesdale horses but also the little puppy that melted hearts last year – <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/01/07/anheuser-busch-super-bowl-advertising-marketing/21348759/">though this year the story line has it getting lost apparently</a>. </p>
<p>Currently Anheuser-Busch is the only beer advertiser in the Super Bowl ad program and plans to run three spots: two for Budweiser and one for Bud Light. </p>
<p>The focus this year will be to get millennials to engage digitally with those two core brands. That means no more celebrities, a digital “war room” to engage with consumers before, during and after the game, and more horses. </p>
<p>The company definitely has a lot of work to do. The company <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/budweiser-ditches-the-clydesdales-for-jay-z-1416784086">told the Wall Street Journal</a> last year that 44% of 21- to 27-year-olds have never tried a Budweiser.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theawsc.com/2015/01/19/the-3-ps-millennials-want-to-see-in-super-bowl-ads/">puppies may do the trick</a>, according to Advertising Week, which cited adorable young dogs as one of the three key “P’s” millennials will want to see this year, along with provocative content and progressive characters. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xAsjRRMMg_Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Making a hash of it</h2>
<p>Beyond the ads themselves, some companies are focusing on social networks and more specifically Twitter hashtags to engage the age group. </p>
<p>Hashtags, used to identify topics and themes on the social network, are popular with millennials and are being used to translate Super Bowl hype into social media status. Almost a third say if they can’t engage in social media during the game <a href="http://www.millennialmarketing.com/2014/01/brands-are-playing-to-millennials-this-super-bowl-sunday/">they’ll be upset</a>. </p>
<p>Loctite, a small glue maker based in Westlake, Ohio, for example, purchased a Super Bowl ad slot <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/01/westlake_glue_company_loctite.html">for the first time this year</a>. The half-minute slot, costing some $4.5 million, will eat up its entire advertising budget for 2015. But Loctite, owned by Germany conglomerate Henkel, hopes its hashtag #WinAtGlue will have a multiplier effect and make those seconds much more valuable. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sMMr9EMZX7U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Toyota is also in the social media game utilizing Twitter, <a href="http://marketingland.com/toyota-oneboldchoice-super-bowl-effort-invites-people-celebrate-dads-114631">calling on users</a> to tweet photos of their dad using the tag #OneBoldChoice. The Japanese carmaker is trying to engage millennials – who are less likely to buy cars than other age groups – ahead of the big game. Its Super Bowl ads will feature football-playing fathers and other professional athletes with their children to highlight the contributions of dads to their families.</p>
<h2>Leading the way</h2>
<p>Two brands <a href="http://www.millennialmarketing.com/2014/01/brands-are-playing-to-millennials-this-super-bowl-sunday/">said to be leading the way</a> in getting through to millennials are Kia cars and Axe deodorant. </p>
<p>Kia won them over when it introduced dancing hamsters, with ads structured around the four pillars of music, sports, pop culture and the connected life, and was successful with last year’s Matrix imitation. This year, the carmaker is skipping the hamsters and running a spot <a href="http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/watch-pierce-brosnan-s-action-parody-kia-super-bowl-ad/296815/">starring Pierce Brosnan</a> parodying his roles as an action film star. </p>
<p>Axe has also done a good job reaching millennials, with its tongue in cheek political “Make Love Not War” campaign that surprised audiences used to the company’s sexually charged advertisements. </p>
<h2>Not exactly lovin’ it</h2>
<p>McDonald has <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/10/27/mcdonalds-preps-new-ad-push-trip-to-super-bowl-sources/">plans to advertise</a> during the Super Bowl for the first time in years. But the fast-food joint has its work cut out for it in reaching health-conscious millennials. The company <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2015/01/27/mcdonalds-runs-the-emotional-gamut-in-its-super.html?page=all">released a teaser</a> that suggests one of its highlights will be a new payment system, which young people are far more likely to adopt than most people. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LnBAp_G3SyA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Beyond the big game, McDonald’s has been trying unsuccessfully to target millennials for some time. 18 to 33 year olds have tended to shun the “golden arches” and opt for Panera Bread and Chipotle instead. </p>
<h2>$150,000 a second</h2>
<p>Marketers are hoping the audience for Super Bowl XLIX will top last year’s record 112 million households, making all those precious seconds ($150,000 each) worth it. </p>
<p>While the audience will be broad, millennials will comprise a generous chunk and earn an ever increasing share of advertiser attention. With trillions of dollars in spending at stake, how well the content of those spots resonates with millennials could determine their companies’ futures. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HPR3PB_VGVs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/36687/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Cook does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Millennials, that evasive group born from 1982 to 2002, featuring characteristics and dispositions unlike any other age segment, are increasingly becoming the target of Super Bowl advertisers, as fans…George Cook, Executive Professor of Marketing and Psychology at Simon Business School, University of RochesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/341102014-11-25T10:11:05Z2014-11-25T10:11:05ZHard evidence: how will social networks boost earnings when users ignore their product?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/65391/original/image-20141124-19624-14cako1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Internet users are increasingly rejecting the advertisements used by social networks, even as those ads get ever more sophisticated. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-are-tech-shares-undervalued-or-is-there-a-bubble-thats-about-to-burst-32710">My last article</a> looked at how social media stocks like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter are overpriced unless these companies manage to boost their revenues several times over. Given their business model mostly involves selling online advertising, they have had to sell a lot more ads! </p>
<p>To accomplish this goal, they use a simple yet misleading pitch that’s beginning to lose its punch: their ads are better because they are targeted to the individual tastes and preferences of Internet users. If this pitch were true, the effectiveness of social network ads would be significantly higher than those of other mediums such as television or newspapers. </p>
<p>When we dig into the actual performance of these ads, though, a vastly different picture emerges. Faced with this realization, these companies are increasingly selling our personal data in new and creative ways to support their high valuations and turn a profit. </p>
<p>The basic metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of Internet advertising are the number of times an ad is seen (impressions), the number of times the ad is clicked on (clicks) and the number of sales/sign-ons/leads/etc that follow from those clicks (conversions). </p>
<p>The click-through rate (CTR) is a proxy measure that can be used to assess the effectiveness of online ads. This measure represents the number of clicks compared with the number of impressions, expressed as a percentage.</p>
<h2>Banner ads: the staple of online advertising</h2>
<p>Banner ads are the picture ads that you see typically at the top or side of the browser page. To assess their effectiveness over time, I put together some data on click-through rates from DoubleClick.</p>
<p>In 1996, click-through rates <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dir.10063/abstract">averaged</a> around 7%, or 7 out of 100 people clicked on them. Today, 0.15% is the norm, or just 1.5 in 1,000. </p>
<h2>Why have click-through rates fallen?</h2>
<p>Given that the click-through rate is the number of clicks divided by the number of views, it follows that the percentage fell for one of two reasons: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Fewer people see the ads (decreasing the denominator) and, concurrently, fewer people click on these ads. </p></li>
<li><p>More people see the ads (increasing the denominator) and, while overall clicks increase, their growth does not keep up with the rise in views.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>According to ITU statistics, from 2008 to 2013 the number of Internet users has increased in all countries in our sample. Whichever way the numbers are cut, the number of people seeing ads must have climbed during that period, eliminating explanation #1. </p>
<p>That leaves us with explanation #2: more people are seeing online ads, but fewer people are clicking on them, or what economists might call diminishing marginal effectiveness. </p>
<h2>Banner ads are yesterday’s news… now we have social networking!</h2>
<p>Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn tell potential clients that their ads are even better than banner ads because they are targeted to individual users based on a large collection of intimate personal details. How well does this claim hold up?</p>
<p>Surprisingly, for a company that is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-29/facebook-almost-doubles-earnings-on-rising-ad-revenue/5851236">raking in advertising dollars hand over fist</a>, Facebook does not publish its average click-through rates. I therefore had to cobble together some more data from three providers: <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Ff.cl.ly%2Fitems%2F2m1y0K2A062x0e2k442l%2Ffacebook-advertising-performance.pdf">Webtrends</a>, <a href="http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/client-showcase/tbg-digital">TBG Digital</a> and <a href="http://www.internetretailer.com/2013/10/17/facebook-ads-click-through-rates-soar-q3">Nanigans</a>.</p>
<p>The performance of Facebook ads from 2009 to 2012 averaged 0.08%, worse than banner ads. While the <a href="http://digiday.com/platforms/facebook-ads-are-killing-it-but-why">figures</a> trend up to as high as 0.2% in 2012 and 2013, the absolute gain this represents is tiny, translating to around 1 in 500 people clicking on the ads. </p>
<h2>The next generation of mobile, video and ‘native’ ads</h2>
<p>The great new promise in online advertising is the shift to mobile. Mobile ads consistently garner <a href="http://coull.com/our-blog/digital-advertising-click-through-rates">higher click-through rates</a> than their desktop equivalents. The newest generation of mobile and desktop video ads are getting click-through rates of 11.8% and 4.25% respectively, according to <a href="http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/research/16373.html">a report</a> by online video ad provider, Unruly Media. Coupled with mobile are “native” ads, which involve dressing up, or hiding, ads as content. The click-through rate for these ads is currently around 1.37%. </p>
<p>These results are impressive at first glance. Remember, though, that banner ads, in their late 90s heyday, had 7% click-through rates. Consider also that the video ads drop down over the content, which forces users to click on the ads to get rid of them (very different to banners, which sit innocently on the page). This click signifies a forced interaction – an annoyance. Native ads involve essentially tricking the users into clicking on them by disguising ads as content. </p>
<p>Over the 1990s and 2000s, users gradually stopped clicking on banner ads after realizing the ads weren’t of any interest. The same is likely to apply for video and native ads. Once users catch onto the game, they will stop clicking and start ignoring the ads once again. </p>
<h2>If our data can’t be used for targeting ads, what else could they be used for?</h2>
<p>Investors and marketing executives have poured billions of dollars into the social networks based on the belief that, one day soon, online ads will be so finely tuned that internet users won’t be able to resist the products and services on offer. They will increasingly want to see hard evidence of a return on this investment. For the moment, that evidence doesn’t seem to be there. </p>
<p>This is a major dilemma for the social networks. They need to multiply their earnings with a product that is becoming less and less effective. This realization is already taking us in new and concerning directions. Instead of charging users for access to their platforms, the social networks are finding alternative ways to re-package their users’ personal data and sell it. For instance, Facebook now <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/10/facebook-data-mining-for-political-sentiment-197933.html">mines user data</a> for media organizations to allow sentiment analysis on political issues. </p>
<p>In the search for return, the social media experience – and thus large swathes of the Internet – are quickly becoming less open and more invasive of individual privacy. Upcoming changes to the business models of some of the world’s most powerful companies are set to have huge political and social ramifications. It’s going to become easier and easier to ignore the ads we’re exposed to online, but harder and harder to ignore how the prevailing internet business model, one where users don’t pay, has turned our personal information into commodity that’s bought and sold beyond our control. </p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/hard-evidence">Hard Evidence</a> is a series of articles in which academics use research evidence to tackle the trickiest public policy questions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/34110/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin Dean does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>My last article looked at how social media stocks like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter are overpriced unless these companies manage to boost their revenues several times over. Given their business model…Benjamin Dean, Fellow for Internet Governance and Cyber-security, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/305172014-08-14T06:55:24Z2014-08-14T06:55:24ZWhat Facebook’s device tracking means for advertisers … and you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56500/original/hcz23wnb-1407997903.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Buying something through Facebook? Now the online giant knows if you did it on your computer or phone.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctep/14220890180">CTEP AmeriCorps</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook today unveiled the latest weapon in its digital arsenal: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/news/cross-device-measurement">cross-device tracking capability</a>. This enables advertisers to track individuals’ usage behaviours between devices. </p>
<p>This means that your Facebook (and related) usage patterns are being tracked and matched across devices whether you are using an old-world PC, your latest feature-packed smartphone or possibly even your internet-capable <a href="https://theconversation.com/smile-face-recognition-for-google-glass-is-here-thanks-to-hackers-16262">wearable technology</a>. </p>
<p>The common thread is your Facebook login.</p>
<p>This, in turn, will allow Facebook to offer its paid advertisers the added accuracy to track precisely who had been presented which specific advert, and when, where, how (such as which device you’ve used) and whether they accessed (or clicked) the advert. They will also be able to track your individual site or app usage patterns and behaviours.</p>
<p>In other words, your every move is constantly in the crosshairs of the online marketers and our globally dominant digital landlords.</p>
<h2>Ignore the hype – it’s old news</h2>
<p>Cross-device or cross-platform reporting is nothing new. Google <a href="http://adwords.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/estimated-total-conversions.html">announced last October</a> a similar cross-device capability for its AdWords paying customers, so the marketing hype around Facebook’s offering has more to do with attracting and keeping its paying advertisers, with you being the product.</p>
<p>Your online identity is the key that unlocks the doors to the online advertiser’s kingdom. By being able to attribute your purported Facebook identity such as user name, gender, age and so on to every online interaction through Facebook and related sites, irrespective of which device you are using, this will allow interested parties to stitch together and link these patterns to you and not just the device.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/56501/original/vxvjcht5-1407998019.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rutgerblom/4840216091">Rutger Blom</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the most part, and without being aware of it, the rules of the marketing jungle are continually being reshaped by the evolution of the underlying technologies, all tied together with our online identity.</p>
<h2>Face(book) the facts</h2>
<p>The fact that <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-life-in-their-hands-privacy-and-your-mobile-device-28458">privacy</a> and internet should not be used in the same sentence is nothing new. </p>
<p>What is new, though, is the increasing intensity of the arms race by marketers and commercial organisations in grabbing their share in the monetisation of your every step in cyberspace. As the capabilities of our technologies evolve, your every move on the internet is being increasingly scrutinised with finer and finer granularity. </p>
<p>The accelerating uptake of mobile computing devices such as tablets and smartphones together with the relentless push by organisations to have you preferably interact with them online, is further fuelling the global monetisation of our individual use of the internet.</p>
<p>The increase in people accessing the internet or using apps from their mobile devices means that there are more “views”, “hits” and “clicks”. These numbers are the fuel for the global digital marketing and advertising engine.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/03/05/if-youre-not-paying-for-it-you-become-the-product/">adage</a> that “if you’re not paying, then you’re the product” applies more now than ever before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30517/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Livingstone has no financial interests in, or affiliations with any organisation mentioned in this article. Other than his role at UTS, he is also the owner and principal of an independent Sydney based IT advisory and mentoring practice.</span></em></p>Facebook today unveiled the latest weapon in its digital arsenal: cross-device tracking capability. This enables advertisers to track individuals’ usage behaviours between devices. This means that your…Rob Livingstone, Fellow of the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.