If you are looking for information about the Digital Publishing Report, please visit the Joss Group corporate Web site and visit the newsletter section.
Here we present the last of the articles which relate to the horrors Facebook has helped unleash on the world that my company, the Joss Group, published in the now defunct Digital Marketing Report newsletter. In this article, originally published in the January 2017 issue, we present a harrowing tale of theft on a dizzying scale.
When you read the article, I want you to think about what Putin might be doing with this money and how the same approach used to steal advertising dollars could be used to attack social media networks and followers. I promise you, too, that anything you come up with is nothing compared to what is really going on. Harrowing is the watch word…
I have pasted in below a JPEG of each of the pages from the issue with this article. Please let me know if you’d like to see a PDF of the issue. In addition, please do read the full report from WhiteOps; here is the link to the background information: https://www.whiteops.com/methbot. The link for accessing the full report is in the background information.
Our article begins, “If this story had broken a few years ago, the company which broke open the story might have called it Ad Theft on Steroids or some such. Given the changes in popular culture, the reference made to methamphetamine in the WhiteOps special report on the latest, and most devastating to-date, of digital advertising theft operations is entirely current and apt. What WhiteOps first told the world about in late December 2016 is, indeed, theft on a dizzying scale.”
Last week several news outlets, including the Washington Post, ran articles saying the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating Facebook, and a few days later the FTC officially confirmed the reports. Most of the articles said the FTC is looking into how Facebook has been butchering an agreement the FTC reached with the company back in 2011 regarding Facebook’s mis-use of user data back then. If the FTC concludes Facebook ignored the agreement, it could fine the company tens of thousands of dollars for each incident.
First, though, let me make my position clear. I am not a fan of Facebook and have long consider it a digital blight on the world. I do not and never have had a presence on Facebook as I realized, years and years ago, the main function of the company and its main source of revenue is gathering and selling information about people using the social media platform. I have been telling people about my reasoned suspicions for years, too.
Mark my words: there is nothing good about Facebook.
I support, completely, the #DeleteFacebook movement.
I am convinced more and more and more information will be coming out in the next few days, weeks, and years about how Facebook has been collecting and selling information about people and also using that information on behalf of nefarious clients to help persuade and yes, even deceive, Facebook users.
We have only glimpsed, so far, the top of the tip of the iceberg on what has been going on with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica (CA), and this is only one of Facebook’s clients of this ilk.
Back to the FTC: I believe the FTC will also come to the conclusion Facebook has been involved in deceptive advertising practices, and once it does, I hope the agency takes considerable legal action against Facebook.
In January 2016 we published an article in the Digital Marketing Report newsletter about the FTC’s warning for advertisers and publishers about deceptive online advertising. Did Facebook deliberately provide advertising disguised as content to certain Facebook users on behalf of certain nefarious operators such as CA and perhaps the NRA? I am sure the FTC wants to know the answer to this question!
Here is the lead-in to our article:
The FTC Issues Deceptive Advertising Warning and Native Advertising Guide
On December 22, 2015 the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an enforcement policy statement explaining how the consumer protection principles the FTC has established and enforced for decades apply to different advertising formats—including native ads which look like surrounding non-advertising content. While the FTC statement did not point the finger of blame only at digital advertising, the agency did make sure comments about such advertising were mentioned early and often in the statement.
The agency made it clear in the press release announcing the statement its long-standing policies apply to digital media, “The FTC’s policy applies time-tested truth-in-advertising principles to modern media,”said Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “People browsing the Web, using social media, or watching videos have a right to know if they are seeing editorial content or an ad.”
The same day the FTC released the Enforcement Policy Statement, it issued a much shorter statement entitled Native Advertising: A Guide for Business. This guide, the FTC says, was written and released “to help companies understand, and comply with, the policy statement in the context of native advertising.
The business guidance gives examples of when disclosures are necessary to prevent deception and FTC staff guidance on how to make clear and prominent disclosures within the format of native ads.”
I have placed JPEGs of each page of the article below. This article is relevant and important information regarding a significant line of inquiry the FTC should undertake, if it has not already, regarding Facebook.
Bots are digital robots programmed to do something online. Okay, there is a lot more to what bots are and what they do, but for now let’s just go with this quick definition.
Bots are doing a lot of bad things online. One of the most costly things they do online (costly for advertisers and marketers) is pretend to be human and to look at digital advertising. Several times we wrote in the Digital Marketing Report about such misdeeds and how bot fraud is one of the industry’ dirtiest and not-so-little secrets. Here is one such article, originally published in the March 2016 of the newsletter.
In mid-January 2016, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and White Ops released a report on the extent to which bots have infested and are sucking the life out of digital advertising efforts in the United States. Clearly, the bots are winning.
“The level of criminal, non-human traffic literally robbing marketers’ brand-building investments is a travesty,” said Bob Liodice, ANA president and CEO. “The staggering financial losses and the lack of real, tangible progress at mitigating fraud highlights the importance of the industry’s Trustworthy Accountability Group in fighting this war. It also underscores the need for the entire marketing ecosystem to manage their media investments with far greater discipline and control against a backdrop of increasingly sophisticated fraudsters.”
Forty-nine ANA member companies participated in the 2015 Bot Baseline study. Those participants deployed White Ops detection tags on their digital advertising to measure bot fraud. Data was collected from nearly 10 billion online advertising impressions across 1,300 campaigns over 61 days (from August 1 through September 30, 2015).
Here are JPEGs of the pages of the article:
What Facebook has been caught out doing is bad, really, really bad. And, there is much more to this horrible story to come out in the news, much, much more.
Meanwhile, here is a story we published in the February 20, 2017 issue of the Digital Marketing Report newsletter. I have uploaded it here as two JPEG images.
Here, though, is some of the text from the article (in case you cannot enlarge the page images enough to read them):
Starting in 2014, Vizio made TVs that automatically tracked what consumers were watching and transmitted that data back to its servers. Vizio even retrofitted older models by installing its tracking software remotely. All of this, the FTC and AG allege, was done without clearly telling consumers or getting their consent.
What did Vizio know about what was going on in the privacy of consumers’ homes? On a second-by-second basis, Vizio collected a selection of pixels on the screen it matched to a database of TV, movie, and commercial content.
What is more, Vizio identified viewing data from cable or broadband service providers, set-top boxes, streaming devices, DVD players, and over-the-air broadcasts. Add it all up and Vizio captured as many as 100 billion data points each day from millions of TVs.
Vizio then turned that mountain of data into cash by selling consumers’ viewing histories to advertisers and others. And, let us be clear: we are not talking about summary information about national viewing trends. According to the complaint, Vizio got personal.
The company provided consumers’ IP addresses to data aggregators, who then matched the address with an individual consumer or household. Vizio’s contracts with third parties prohibited the re-identification of consumers and households by name, but allowed a host of other personal details, for example: gender, age, income, marital status, household size, education, and home ownership. And, Vizio permitted these companies to track and target its consumers across devices.
This is what Vizio was up to behind the screen, but what was the company telling consumers? Not much, according to the complaint. Vizio put its tracking functionality behind a setting called Smart Interactivity. But, the FTC and New Jersey AG say the generic way the company described the feature—for example, “enables program offers and suggestions”—did not give consumers the necessary heads-up to know Vizio was tracking their TV’s every flicker. Oh, and the Smart Interactivity feature did not even provide the promised “program offers and suggestions.”
I have decided, in light of the shocking disclosures about Facebook which have come to light during the past few days, to share some of the content from a Digital Marketing Report, a monthly newsletter for digital marketing professionals we published for two years (May 2015 through May 2017).
For various reasons I made the decision in 2017 to stop publishing the report. One of the reasons, admittedly, was disappointing subscription numbers. But, as I suspected then and now, many (not all) digital marketing professionals are not concerned with the moral and ethical aspects of what they do. Rather, they focus unwaveringly on the money they make.
I knew then, and I know now, that most people do not understand how much information various companies are collecting–and selling to anyone who comes up with the cash–about what people do and say online. While there are benign uses for such data, there are some very sinister and even evil uses. I hope, in the coming months and years, this knowledge will spread widely, and people will demand the situation change dramatically.
Enough preaching for now…here a few of the statements from the article.
Editor’s note: in June 2015, the Annenberg School for Communication, which is part of the University of Pennsylvania, published a report entitled The Trade-off Fallacy: How Marketers are Misrepresenting American Consumers and Opening Them up to Exploitation. The basis for the report,written by three respected and well-known professors, is survey results from discussions with more than 1,500 adult consumers in the United States.
New Annenberg survey results indicate marketers are misrepresenting a large majority of Americans by claiming Americans give out information about themselves as a trade-off for benefits they receive. To the contrary, the survey reveals most Americans do not believe “data for discounts” is a square deal.
It is evident the amount of information marketers have already collected is enormous. For example, the Forrester Research consultancy estimated in 2014 database marketing firm Acxiom has about 1,500 data points for each of over 500 million active Internet users, most of them in the United States. Another 2014 Forrester report looked to not-too-distant circumstances where marketers would routinely make decisions based on “a customer’s circle of social relationships and influencers…sensor data [from in-store technologies], streaming real-time data, acquired data [from firms such as Acxiom]…anything.”
We also found widespread suspicion: 72% of Americans reject the idea “what companies know about me from my behavior online cannot hurt me.” When we combined the people who are resigned with those who believe what firms know can hurt them, we found 41% of Americans are not only resigned, they hold a dark concern the basic dynamics of the emerging marketplace will cause them injury—and that they cannot control it.
Marketing and retailing executives have typically played down any concerns about their use of shopper data. One way has been to depict an empowered public accepting the notion it is releasing data willingly as a trade-off for benefits it receives. Our survey challenges marketers’ typical cost-benefit analysis defense by showing quite clearly most Americans do not accept the fairness of getting discounts in trade for their data.
Please read and share with others this post and the full Annenberg School for Communication report, located here: https://www.asc.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/TradeoffFallacy_1.pdf
I am so excited to share this special Joss Group publication with you! We are calling it Books for Graphic Artists, and we plan to publish quarterly this year (February, May, August, and November). For years now I have been thinking about adding book announcement to the Seybold Report newsletter, but there are so many great new titles coming out we wanted to do more than run a brief announcement. In this format, we can share much more.
The theme for this launch issue is Books for Graphic Arts Professionals, and we talk about five books–give you a brief description of each title along with the basic facts (price, length, publication date, etc.) and a link to buy the title from Amazon. As we explain on the back page of this issue and below, Amazon has promised to send the Joss Group a small (very small) commission on each book purchased through the link in the issue. That’s how we get paid to do this. At least, that’s our plan.
With this objective in mind, we are not charging for this supplement, and feel free to share it on social media and via e-mail to well, just about anybody and everybody you think would like to read it.
The theme for the next issue is Books for Graphic Arts Teachers/Instructors, so please let me know if you want us to add anyone to the distribution list for that issue. We may even have the sign-up form and page for this up on the Joss Group Web site by then, so stay tuned. And, if you want to suggest a book for that issue, please get in touch.
Here is the access link to access this issue of Books for Graphic Artists:
Thanks so much! So happy to share this with you!
Principal, the Joss Group
About the Amazon Links
The Joss Group is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for companies to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
No advertising ever appears in any Joss Group newsletters, including the Seybold Report and the Digital Publishing Report, but we have included Amazon links in this document. The Joss Group will receive a small commission from Amazon sales resulting from clicks on the links in this supplement.
However, the Joss Group does not accept or seek remuneration directly from any book publishers, nor does the company accept or seek payment for writing about, or mentioning, a book in any newsletter, supplement, or white paper.
The Joss Group welcomes news releases or sample copies of books related to the graphic arts. Please use the contact information on this blog to get in touch and suggest or offer book-related information or review copies.