Can books fill the
news media’s gaps? 10/1/2007
The
senseless practice of media mobbing - 9/17/2007
Casualties of the Larry
Craig affair - 9/3/2007
My beef with
the media - 8/20/2007
Curbing
Murdoch - 8/6/2007
A little
story, easily overlooked - 7/23/2007
Can trickery
by reporters be right? - 7/9/2007
Journalism’s
coming war on privacy - 6/25/2007
All the news
that fits the plan - 6/11/2007
The new
world order comes to news - 5/28/2007
An ironic
curtain-raiser as Murdoch goes for the gold - 5/14/2007
On holding
back ugly realities - 4/30/2007
Why the
silence from our northern neighbor matters - 4/16/2007
The murky
world of conflicts of interest - 4/2/2007
‘If it’s OK
with you, I’m going to spoil your day…’ - 3/19/2007
When good
stories come from bad sources - 3/5/2007
The
vanishing art of standing firm - 2/19/2007
Flying high
with the Money Honey - 2/5/2007
Taking out
Saddam - 1/22/2007
The
insidious corruption of beats - 1/8/2007
2006
Columns
2005 Columns
2004 Columns
2003 Columns
|
Making online
news sell
by Edward Wasserman
Week of
November 12, 2007
Very soon, here’s how it will work: You’ll open up a story from a news
site and it will come with advertising. The ads aren’t random. They’re
selected for you based on your interest in that story, on prior Internet
activity — maybe another site you visited, something you bought or even
a comment you e-mailed to a friend — and on other, offline information
that the ad network associated with the news site has gathered about
you.
You’re “served” with customized advertising that has an uncanny relation
to your interests. Say you’ve clicked on a story about climate change,
the ad network pulls down data on your Zip code, driver license, age and
demographic cluster, and you end up with an ad for a Prius and an appeal
to donate to Greenpeace. You read an article about pregnancy health and
next time you log on you’re getting baby formula ads.
Thanks to the precision with which you’ve been sorted, sifted and
targeted - which supposedly increases the chances that the ads will work
- the publisher running the website can charge advertisers top dollar.
What’s more, suppose you’re a member of a social networking site such as
the wildly popular Facebook and My Space. They are eagerly grooming
themselves into advertising conduits so that your shopping preferences
can be smoothly, even automatically, broadcast to people in your network
as personal endorsements. Your choice of reading or viewing goes out to
your friends, who also get promotions related to your brand choices.
They find out what movie you just saw and get an ad for it to boot.
This is the next big thing. Everybody’s fitted with sandwich boards.
Such is the promise that Internet advertising holds out to the news
business. It’s the promise that all news, features, commentary,
analysis, whether in print, sound or pictures — in fact, the full range
of topical fact and opinion that constitutes online journalism — will be
minutely inventoried and laden with commercial pitches calibrated to
specific individuals.
It’s the promise of journalism as a perfect selling machine.
Plainly, this requires a vast industry to monitor what we each do
online, and that, to put it mildly, raises privacy issues. That’s why
the Federal Trade Commission hosted a two-day workshop in Washington
early this month on behavioral targeting.
The FTC has been looking at Internet privacy issues for nearly a decade.
In a report to Congress last year it reiterated core principles related
to online profiling: that people be told what data is being recorded,
that they have some choice in the matter, that they get access to the
information themselves, and that its security be safeguarded.
Does any of this bother ordinary people? “Most consumers are clueless,”
wrote Seana Mulcahy, who runs the Online SPIN blog. In an article
titled, “Do consumers care about online privacy?” Advertising Age
decided the outrage wasn’t there yet, and until it was, marketers would
proceed.
Some are almost defiant. Dave Morgan, head of Tacoda, a top behavioral
targeting firm, writes: “Consumers understand that they have gotten
something of a free content lunch for over a decade and have said in
lots of studies that they’d rather see ads than pay for online content.”
Morgan’s Tacoda, it’s worth noting, sold in July for an estimated $275
million. The buyer was AOL, which is busily scrapping its reliance on
subscription fees and moving to an ad-supported model. Other news sites
have done the same – among them Slate, the pioneering online magazine
launched as a subscription service in 1996, The Economist, CNN.com and
the New York Times, which had its commentators behind a subscription
wall for a time. Even the Wall Street Journal, with 983,000 online
subscribers, is near certain to scrap its fees and embrace advertising
support.
With the reliance on ad support becoming nearly universal in online
news, it is odd that apparently no news media spoke at the FTC sessions,
which may yet yield rules restricting the reach and effectiveness of
online advertising and exert powerful influence over the entire future
of the news business.
Nor was there much coverage. That enables Internet users to persist in
the comfortable fiction that the information they’re getting is actually
free, when it is, in fact, purchased at an extravagant price with the
personal information they are unwittingly giving up.
|