How Generative Graphics AI Might Be Used to Embed Hidden Messages
November 3, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software required.
Subliminal advertising is back, now with an AI boost. At least that is the conclusion of one Tweeter (X-er?) who posted a few examples of the allegedly frightful possibilities. The Creative Bloq considers, “Should We Be Scared of Hidden Messages in AI Optical Illusions?” Writer Joseph Foley tells us:
“Some of the AI optical illusions we’ve seen recently have been slightly mesmerizing, but some people are concerned that they could also be dangerous. ‘Many talk about the dangers of “AGI” taking over humans. But you should worry more about humans using AI to control other humans,’ Cocktail Peanut wrote in a post on Twitter, providing the example of the McDonald’s logo embedded in an anime-style AI-generated illustration. The first example wasn’t very subtle. But Peanut followed up with less obvious optical illusions, all made using a Stable Diffusion-powered Hugging Face space called Diffusion Illusion HQ created by Angry PenguinPNG. The workflow for making the illusions, using Monster Labs QR Control Net, was apparently discovered by accident. The ControlNet technique allows users to specify inputs, for example specific images or words, to gain more control over AI image generations. Monster Labs’ tool was created to allow QR codes to be used as input so the AI would generate usable but artistic QR codes as an output, but users discovered that it could also be used to hide patterns or words in AI-generated scenes.”
Hidden messages in ads have been around since 1957, though they are officially banned as “deceptive advertising” in the US. The concern here is that AI will make the technique much, much cheaper and easier. Interesting but not really surprising. Should we be concerned? Foley thinks not. He notes the few studies on subliminal advertising suggest it is not very effective. Will companies, and even some governments, try it anyway? Probably.
Cynthia Murrell, November 3, 2023
Publishers and Remora: Choose the Right Host and Stop Complaining, Please
October 20, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb humanoid. No smart software involved.
Today, let’s reflect on the suckerfish or remora. The fish attaches itself to a shark and feeds on scraps of the host’s meals or nibbles on the other parasites living on their food truck. Why think about a fish with a sucking disk on its head?
Navigate to “Silicon Valley Ditches News, Shaking an Unstable Industry.” The article reports as “real” news:
Many news companies have struggled to survive after the tech companies threw the industry’s business model into upheaval more than a decade ago. One lifeline was the traffic — and, by extension, advertising — that came from sites like Facebook and Twitter. Now that traffic is disappearing.
Translation: No traffic, no clicks. No clicks and no traffic mean reduced revenue. Why? The days of printed newspapers and magazines are over. Forget the costs of printing and distributing. Think about people visiting a Web site. No traffic means that advertisers will go where the readers are. Want news? Fire up a mobile phone and graze on the information available. Sure, some sites want money, but most people find free services. I like France24.com, but there are options galore.
Wikipedia provides a snap of a remora attached to a scuba diver. Smart remora hook on to a fish with presence.
The shift in content behavior has left traditional publishing companies with a challenge: Generating revenue. Newspapers specialized news services have tried a number tactics over the years. The problem is that the number of people who will pay for content is large, but finding those people and getting them to spit out a credit card is expensive. At the same time, the cost of generating “real” news is expensive as well.
In 1992, James B. Twitchell published Carnival Culture: The Trashing of Taste in America. The book offered insight into how America has embraced showmanship information. Dr. Twitchell’s book appeared 30 years ago. Today Google, Meta, and TikTok (among other digital first outfits) amplify the lowest common denominator of information. “Real” publishing aimed higher.
The reluctant adjustment by “white shoe” publishing outfits was to accept traffic and advertising revenue from users who relied on portable surveillance devices. Now the traffic generators have realized that “attention magnet” information is where the action is. Plus smart software operated by do-it-yourself experts provides a flow of information which the digital services can monetize. A digital “mom” will block the most egregious outputs. The goal is good enough.
The optimization of content shaping now emerging from high-technology giants is further marginalizing the “real” publishers.
Almost 45 years ago, the president of a company with a high revenue online business database asked me, “Do you think we could pull our service off the timesharing vendors and survive?” The idea was that a product popular on an intermediary service could be equally popular as a standalone commercial digital product.
I said, “No way.”
The reasons were obvious to me because my team had analyzed this question over the hill and around the barn several times. The intermediary aggregated information. Aggregated information acts like a magnet. A single online information resource does not have the same magnetic pull. Therefore, the cost to build traffic would exceed the financial capabilities of the standalone product. That’s why commercial database products were rolled up by large outfits like Reed Elsevier and a handful of other companies.
Maybe the fix for the plight of the New York Times and other “real” publishers anchored in print is to merge and fast. However, further consolidation of newspapers and book publishers takes time. As the New York Times “our hair is on fire” article points out:
Privately, a number of publishers have discussed what a post-Google traffic future may look like, and how to better prepare if Google’s A.I. products become more popular and further bury links to news publications… “Direct connections to your readership are obviously important,” Ms. LaFrance [Adrienne LaFrance, the executive editor of The Atlantic] said. “We as humans and readers should not be going only to three all-powerful, attention-consuming mega platforms to make us curious and informed.” She added: “In a way, this decline of the social web — it’s extraordinarily liberating.”
Yep, liberating. “Real” journalists can do TikToks and YouTube videos. A tiny percentage will become big stars and make big money until they don’t. The senior managers of “shaky” “real” publishing companies will innovate. Unfortunately start ups spawned by “real” publishing companies face the same daunting odds of any start up: A brutal attrition rate.
Net net: What will take the place of the old school approach to newspapers, magazines, and books. My suggestion is to examine smart software and the popular content on YouTube. One example is the MeidasTouch “network” on YouTube. Professional publishers take note. Newspaper and magazine publishers may also want to look at what Ben Meiselas and cohorts have achieved. Want a less intellectual approach to information dominance, ask a teenager about TikTok.
Yep, liberating because some of those in publishing will have to adapt because when X.com or another high technology alleged monopoly changes direction, the sucker fish has to go along for the ride or face a somewhat inhospitable environment, hunger, and probably a hungry predator from a bottom feeding investment group.
Stephen E Arnold, October 20, 2023
The Google: Dribs and Drabs of Information Suggest a Frisky Outfit
October 10, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-2.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I have been catching up since I returned from a law enforcement conference. One of the items in my “read” file concerned Google’s alleged demonstrations of the firm’s cleverness. Clever is often valued more than intelligence in some organization in my experience. I picked up on an item describing the system and method for tweaking a Google query to enhance the results with some special content.
“ How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet” appeared on October 2, 2023. By October 6, 2023, the article was disappeared. I want to point out for you open source intelligence professionals, the original article remains online.
Two serious and bright knowledge workers look confused when asked about alleged cleverness. One says, “I don’t understand. We are here to help you.” Thanks, Microsoft Bing. Highly original art and diverse too.
Nope. I won’t reveal where or provide a link to it. I read it and formulated three notions in my dinobaby brain:
- The author is making darned certain that he/she/it will not be hired by the Google.
- The system and method described in the write up is little more than a variation on themes which thread through a number of Google patent documents. I demonstrated in my monograph Google Version 2.0: The Calculating Predator that clever methods work for profiling users and building comprehensive data sets about products.
- The idea of editorial curation is alive, just not particularly effective at the “begging for dollars” outfit doing business as Wired Magazine.
Those are my opinions, and I urge you to formulate your own.
I noted several interesting comments on Hacker News about this publish and disappear event. Let me highlight several. You can find the posts at this link, but keep in mind, these also can vaporize without warning. Isn’t being a sysadmin fun?
- judge2020: “It’s obvious that they design for you to click ads, but it was fairly rocky suggesting that the backend reaches out to the ad system. This wouldn’t just destroy results, but also run afoul of FCC Ad disclosure requirements….”
- techdragon: “I notice it seems like Google had gotten more and more willing to assume unrelated words/concepts are sufficiently interchangeable that it can happily return both in a search query for either … and I’ll be honest here… single behavior is the number one reason I’m on the edge of leaving google search forever…”
- TourcanLoucan: “Increasingly the Internet is not for us, it is certainly not by us, it is simply where you go when you are bored, the only remaining third place that people reliably have access to, and in true free market fashion, it is wall-to-wall exploitation.”
I want to point out that online services operate like droplets of mercury. They merge and one has a giant blob of potentially lethal mercury. Is Google a blob of mercury? The disappearing content is interesting as are the comments about the incident. But some kids play with mercury; others use it in industrial processes; and some consume it (willingly or unwillingly) like sailors of yore with a certain disease. They did not know. You know or could know.
Stephen E Arnold, October 10, 2023
YouTube and Click Fraud: A Warning Light Flashing?
September 13, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I spotted a link to a 16 minute YouTube long form, old-fashioned video from Lon.TV titled YouTube Invalid Traffic. The person who does Lon.TV usually reviews gadgets, but this video identifies a demonetization procedure apparently used by the non-monopoly Google. (Of course, I believe Google’s assertion that almost everyone uses Google because it is just better.)
The creator reads an explanation of an administrative action and says, “What does this mean?” Would a non-monopoly provide a non explanation? Probably a non not. Thanks, MidJourney, the quality continues to slip. Great work.
Lon.TV explains that the channel received a notice of fraudulent clicks. The “fix”, which YouTube seems to implement unilaterally and without warning, decreases a YouTuber’s income. The normal Google “help” process results in words which do not explain the details of the Google-identified problem.
Click fraud has been a tricky issue for ad-supported Google for many years. About a decade ago, a conference organizer wanted me to do a talk about click fraud, a topic I did not address in my three Google monographs. The reports for a commercial company footing the bill for my research did get information about click fraud. My attorney at the time (may he rest in peace) advised me to omit that information from the monographs published by a now defunct publisher in the UK. I am no legal eagle, but I do listen to them, particularly when it costs me several hundred dollars an hour.
Click fraud is pretty simple. One can have a human click on a link.l If one is serious, one can enlist a bunch of humans using an ad in Craigslist.com. A more enterprising click fraud player would write a script and blast through a target’s ad budget, rack up lots of popularity points, or make a so-so video into the hottest sauce pan on the camp fire.
Lon.TV’s point is that most of his site’s traffic originates from Google searches. A person looking for a camera review runs a query on Google. The Google results point to a Lon.TV video. The person clicks on the Google generated link, and the video plays. The non-monopoly explains, as I understand it, that the fraudulent clicks are the fault of the YouTuber. So, the bad actor is the gadget guy at Lon.TV.
I think there is some useful information or signals in this video. I shall share my observations:
- Click fraud, based on my research a decade ago, was indeed a problem for the non-monopoly. In fact, the estimable company was trying to figure out how to identify fraudulent clicks and block them. The work was not a path to glory, so turnover often plagued those charged with stamping out click fraud. Plus, the problem was “hard.” Simple fixes like identifying lots of clicks in a short time were easily circumvented. More sophisticated ones like figuring out blocks of IP addresses responsible for lots of time spaced clicks were okay until the fraudsters figured out another approach. Thus, cat-and-mouse games began.
- The entire point of YouTube.com is to attract traffic. Therefore, it is important to recognize what is a valid new trend like videos of females wearing transparent clothing is recognized and clicks on dull stuff like streaming videos of a view of an erupting volcano are less magnetic. With more clicks, many algorithmic beavers jump in the river. More clicks means more ads pushed. The more ads pushed means more clicks on those ads and, hence, more money. It does not take much thought to figure out that a tension exists between lots of clicks Googlers and block those clicks Googlers. In short, progress is slow and money generation wins.
- TikTok has caused Google to undermine its long form videos to deal with the threat of the China-linked competitor. The result has been an erosion of clicks because one cannot inject as many ads into short videos as big boy videos. Oh, oh. Revenue gradient decline. Bad. Quick fix. Legitimize keeping more ad revenue? Would a non monopoly do that?
- The signals emitted by Lon.TV indicate that Google’s policy identified by the gadget guy is to blame the creator. Like many of Google’s psycho-cognitive methods used to shift blame, the hapless creator is punished for the alleged false clicks. The tactic works well because what’s the creator supposed to do? Explain the problem in a video which is not pushed?
Net net: Click fraud is a perfect cover to demonetized certain videos. What happens to the ad money? Does Google return it to the advertiser? Does Google keep it? Does Google credit the money back to the advertiser’s account and add a modest “handling fee”? I don’t know, and I am pretty sure the Lon.TV fellow does not either. Furthermore, I am not sure Google “knows” what its different units are doing about click fraud. What’s a non-monopoly supposed to do? I think the answer is, “Make money.” More of these methods are likely to surface in the future.
Stephen E Arnold, September 13, 2023
Google: An Ad Crisis Looms from the Cancer of Short Videos
September 7, 2023
The weird orange newspaper ran a story which I found important. To read the article, you will need to pony up cash; I suggest you consider doing that. I want to highlight a couple of key points in the news story and offer a couple of observations.
An online advertising expert looks out his hospital window and asks, “I wonder if the cancer in my liver will be cured before the cancer is removed from my employer’s corporate body?” The answer may be, “Liver cancer can be has a five year survival rate between 13 to 43 percent (give or take a few percentage points).” Will the patient get back to Foosball and off-site meetings? Is that computer capable of displaying TikTok videos? Thanks, Mother MJ. No annoying red appeal this banners today.
The article “Shorts Risks Cannibalising Core YouTube Business, Say Senior Staff” contains an interesting (although one must take with a dollop of mustard and some Dead Sea salt):
Recent YouTube strategy meetings have discussed the risk that long-form videos, which produce more revenue for the company, are “dying out” as a format, according to these people.
I am suspicious of quotes from “these people.” Nevertheless, let’s assume that the concern at the Google is real like news from “these people.”
The idea is that Google has been asleep at the switch as TikTok (the China linked short video service) became a go-to destination for people seeking information. Yep, some young people search TikTok for information, not just tips on self-harm and body dysmorphia. Google’s reaction was slow and predictable: Me too me too me too. Thus, Google rolled out “Shorts,” a TikTok clone and began pushing it to its YouTube faithful.
The party was rolling along until “these people” sat down and looked at viewing time for longer videos and the ad revenue from shorter videos. Another red alert siren began spinning up.
The orange newspaper story asserted:
In October last year, YouTube reported its first-ever quarterly decline in ad revenue since the company started giving its performance separately in 2020. In the following two quarters, the platform reported further falls compared with the same periods the previous year.
With a decline in longer videos, the Google cannot insert as many ads. If people watch shorter videos, Google has reduced ad opportunities. Although Google would love to pump ads into 30 second videos, viewers (users) might decide to feed their habit elsewhere. And where one may ask? How about TikTok or the would be cage fighter’s Meta service?
Several observations:
- Any decline in ad revenue is a force multiplier at the Google. The costs of running the outfit are difficult to control. Google has not been the best outfit in the world in creating new, non ad revenue streams in the last 25 years. That original pay-to-play inspiration has had legs, but with age, knees and hips wear out. Googzilla is not as spry as it used to be and its bright idea department has not found sustainable new revenue able to make up for a decline in traditional Google ad revenue… yet.
- The cost of video is tough to weasel out of Google’s financial statements. The murky “cloud” makes it easy to shift some costs to the enabler of the magical artificial intelligence push at the company. In reality, video is a black hole of costs. Storage, bandwidth, legal compliance, creator hassles, and overhead translate to more ads. Long videos are one place to put ads every few minutes. But when the videos are short like those cutting shapes dance lessons, the “short” is a killer proposition.
- YouTube is a big deal. Depending on whose silly traffic estimates one believes, YouTube is as big a fish in terms of eyeballs as Google.com search. Google search is under fire from numerous directions. Prabhakar Raghavan has not mounted much of a defense to the criticisms directed at Google search’s genuine inability to deliver relevant search results. Now the YouTube ad money flow is drying up like streams near Moab.
Net net: YouTube has become a golden goose. But short videos are a cancer and who can make fois gras out of a cancerous liver?
Stephen E Arnold, September 7, 2023
An Existential Question: When Everything Is Advertising, What Is Advertising?
August 21, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
A goldfish in a fish bowl lives in a constrained environment. Most fish — with the exception of the fish able to climb out of the water and draw a bead on a French bulldog — stay in the fish bowl. In a world in which information flows in streams, waves, and geysers, what constitutes advertising.
The fish understands only that the bowl defines the world. The outside-the-bowl world is not well understood. What does this say about the fish? What if an advertising professional does not understand the world outside of the ad deal? How much can the fish or the advertising professional be able to understand? Thanks for the fish, MidJourney.
The LinkedIn user promoting one’s past achievements in order to get a job is advertising in my book. The local bar providing data to Google Local is advertising. The posts on BlueSky, Threads, and X are advertising as well. For example, search for #osint on X.com and you see posts similar to this one:
The Cyber Detective is advertising expertise in performing or advising individuals about reverse face image look ups. Why? Presumably it is to advertise the skill and knowledge of the individual. I believe if that anonymous Cyber Detective were asked, “Why are you posting high value information for free?” the answer might be a statement like this: “I want to help the community.” I accept this rationalization, but I recall a college lecture about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At the top was something to do with the “self.” Therefore, the do-good argument is secondary to the action for the benefit of the person doing the posting.
“Made-for-Advertising Sites Lack a Clear Definition, Causing Confusion among the Advertising Industry” makes clear that those who are advertising professionals are struggling to define advertising in a world which is chock full of messaging, self-promotions, influencer TikToks which Amazon is desperate to add to its shopping service, and the old chestnut, the LinkedIn post with the little phrase “OpenToWork.”
The article explains:
Marketers say they’re concerned about made-for-advertising (MFA) sites, but the industry lacks a clear consensus on what an MFA actually is. Consider this response when Digiday asked one media buyer for their stance on including MFAs in clients’ programmatic campaigns: “My mind immediately goes to clickbait. Am I using that in the right context?”
I interpret this as an signal that the world is essentially advertising. Consider advertising in an environment increasingly populated by messages generated by smart software (AI). Are these messages non-advertising? Certainly not. A person instructed a system to generate messages presumably to cause a change in thought or action. When we consider the motive of self-interest, the blurring of “factual” with “marketing” is understandable.
Consider this statement about the Web sites which exist to accept advertising. The quote allegedly is from Chris Kane, founder of Jounce Media. (“Jounce” means to move in an up-and-down manner. Link to definition.) He states:
“It’s all about the advertising experience. If the advertising experience is ridiculous, that’s made-for-advertising.
Okay, I think I understand.
Do advertisers know that everything is now advertising? Apparently not. Is YouTube now made for advertising? Is X.com made for advertising? Is Yahoo.com made for advertising? I get the advertising angle. I am worrying about the weaponizing of information on a global scale.
Stephen E Arnold, August 21, 2023
Google Mandiant on Influence Campaigns: Hey, They Do Not Work Very Well
August 18, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
“AI Use Rising in Influence Campaigns Online, But Impact Limited – US Cyber Firm” is a remarkable report for three reasons: [a] The write up does not question why the report was generated at this time, the dead of summer. [b] What methods were used to determine that online “manipulative information campaigns” were less than effective, and [c] What data substantiate that the “problem” will get “bigger over time”.
The speaker says, “Online information campaigns do not work too well. Nevertheless, you should use them because it generates money. And money, as you know, is the ultimate good.” MidJourney did a C job of rendering a speaker with whom the audience disagrees.
Frankly I view this type of cyber security report as a public relations and marketing exercise. Why would a dinobaby like me view this information generated by the leader in online information finding, pointing, and distributing as specious? One reason is that paid advertising is a version of “manipulative information campaigns.” Therefore, the report suggests that Google’s online advertising business is less effective than Google has for 20 years explained as an effective way to generate leads and sales.
Second, I am skeptical about dismissing the impact of online manipulative information campaigns as a poor way to cause a desired thought or action. Sweden has set up a government agency to thwart anti-Sweden online information. Nation states continue to use social media, state controlled or state funded online newsletters to output information specifically designed to foster a specific type of behavior. Examples range from self harm messaging to videos about the perils of allowing people to vote in a fair election.
Third, the problem is a significant one. Amazon has a fake review problem. The solution may be to allow poorly understood algorithms to generate “reviews.” Data about the inherent bias and the ability of developers of smart software to steer results are abundant. Let me give an example. Navigate to MidJourney and ask for an image of a school building on fire. The system will not generate the image. This decision is based on inputs from humans who want to keep the smart software generating “good” images. Google’s own capabilities to block certain types of medical information illustrate the knobs and dials available to a small group of high technology companies which are alleged monopolies.
Do I believe the Google Mandiant information? Maybe some. But there are two interesting facets of this report which I want to highlight.
The first is that the Mandiant information undercuts what Google has suggested is the benefit of its online advertising business; that is, it works. Mandiant’s report seems to say, “Well, not too well.”
The second is that the article cited is from Thomson Reuters. The “trust principles” phrase appears on the story. Nevertheless ignores the likelihood that the Mandiant study is probably a fairly bad PR effort. Yep, trust. Not so much for this dinobaby.
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2023
Research: A Suspicious Activity and Deserving of a Big Blinking X?
August 2, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
The Stanford president does it. The Harvard ethics professor does it. Many journal paper authors do it. Why can’t those probing the innards of the company formerly known as Twatter do it?
I suppose those researchers can. The response to research one doesn’t accept can be a simple, “The data processes require review.” But no, no, no. The response elicited from the Twatter is presented in “X Sues Hate Speech Researchers Whose Scare Campaign Spooked Twitter Advertisers.” The headline is loaded with delicious weaponized words in my opinion; for instance, the ever popular “hate speech”, the phrase “scare campaign,” and “spooked.”
MidJourney, after some coaxing, spit out a frightened audience of past, present, and potential Twatter advertisers. I am not sure the smart software captured the reality of an advertiser faced with some brand-injuring information.
Wording aside, the totally objective real news write up reports:
X Corp sued a nonprofit, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), for allegedly “actively working to assert false and misleading claims” regarding spiking levels of hate speech on X and successfully “encouraging advertisers to pause investment on the platform,” Twitter’s blog said.
I found this statement interesting:
X is alleging that CCDH is being secretly funded by foreign governments and X competitors to lob this attack on the platform, as well as claiming that CCDH is actively working to censor opposing viewpoints on the platform. Here, X is echoing statements of US Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the CCDH of being a “foreign dark money group” in 2021—following a CCDH report on 12 social media accounts responsible for 65 percent of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, Fox Business reported.
Imagine. The Musker questioning research.
Exactly what is “accurate” today? One could query the Stanford president, the Harvard ethicist, Mr. Musk, or the executives of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. Wow. That sounds like work, probably as daunting as reviewing the methodology used for the report.
My moral and ethical compass is squarely tracking lunch today. No attorneys invited. No litigation necessary if my soup is cold. I will be dining in a location far from the spot once dominated by a quite beefy, blinking letter signifying Twatter. You know. I think I misspelled “tweeter.” I will fix it soon. Sorry.
Stephen E Arnold, August 2, 2023
Google: Users and Its Ad Construction
June 28, 2023
![Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1-33.gif "Vea4_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
In the last 48 hours, I have heard or learned about some fresh opinions about Alphabet / Google / YouTube (hereinafter AGY). Google Glass III (don’t forget the commercial version, please) has been killed. Augmented Reality? Not for the Google. Also, AGY continues to output promises about its next Bard. Is it really better than ChatGPT? And AGY is back in the games business. (Keep in mind that Google pitched Yahoo with a games deal in 2004 if I remember correctly and then flamed out with its underwhelming online game play a decade later which was followed by the somewhat forgettable Stadia game service. ) Finally, a person told me that Prabhakar Raghavan allegedly said, “We want our customers to be happy.” Inspirational indeed. I think I hit the highlights from the information I encountered since Monday, June 25, 2023.
The ever sensitive creator MidJourney provided this illustration of a structure with a questionable foundation. Could the construct lose a piece here and piece there until it must be dismantled to save the snail darters living in the dormers? Are the residents aware of the issue?
The fountain of Googliness seems to be copious. I read “Google Ads Can Do More for Its Customers.” The main point of the article is that:
Google’s dominance in the search engine industry, particularly in search ads, is unparalleled, making it virtually the only viable option for advertisers seeking to target search traffic. It’s a conflict of interest, as Google’s profitability is closely tied to ad revenue. As Google doesn’t do enough to make Google Ads a more transparent platform and reduce the cost for its customers, advertisers face inflated costs and fierce competition, making it challenging for smaller businesses with limited budgets to compete effectively.
Gulp. If I understand this statement, Google is exploiting its customers. Remember. These are the entities providing the money to fund AGY’s numerous administrative costs. These are going just one way: Up and up. Imagine the data center, legal fines, and litigation costs. Big numbers before adding in salaries and bonuses.
Observations:
- Structural weakness can be ignored until the edifice just collapses.
- Unhappy customers might want to drop by for a conversation and the additional weight of these humanoids may cross a tipping point.
- US regulators may ignore AGY, but government officials in other countries may not.
Bud Light’s adventures with its customers provide a useful glimpse of that those who are unhappy can do and do quickly. The former Bud Light marketing whiz has a degree from Harvard. Perhaps this individual can tackle the AGY brand? Just a thought.
Stephen E Arnold, June 28, 2023
Canada Bill C-18 Delivers a Victory: How Long Will the Triumph Pay Off in Cash Money?
June 23, 2023
News outlets make or made most of their money selling advertising. The idea was — when I worked at a couple of big news publishing companies — the audience for the content would attract those who wanted to reach the audience. I worked at the Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Co. before it dissolved into a Gannett marvel. If a used car dealer wanted to sell a 1980 Corvette, the choice was the newspaper or a free ad in what was called AutoTrader. This was a localized, printed collection of autos for sale. Some dealers advertised, but in the 1980s, individuals looking for a cheap or free way to pitch a vehicle loved AutoTrader. Despite a free option, the size of the readership and the sports news, comics, and obituaries made the Courier-Journal the must-have for a motivated seller.
Hannibal and his war elephant Zuckster survey the field of battle after Bill C-18 passes. MidJourney was the digital wonder responsible for this confection.
When I worked at the Ziffer in Manhattan, we published Computer Shopper. The biggest Computer Shopper had about 800 pages. It could have been bigger, but there were paper and press constraints If I recall correctly. But I smile when I remember that 85 percent of those pages were paid advertisements. We had an audience, and those in the burgeoning computer and software business wanted to reach our audience. How many Ziffers remember the way publishing used to work?
When I read the National Post article titled “Meta Says It’s Blocking News on Facebook, Instagram after Government Passes Online News Bill,” I thought about the Battle of Cannae. The Romans had the troops, the weapons, and the psychological advantage. But Hannibal showed up and, if historical records are as accurate as a tweet, killed Romans and mercenaries. I think it may have been estimated that Roman whiz kids lost 40,000 troops and 5,000 cavalry along with the Roman strategic wizards Paulus, Servilius, and Atilius.
My hunch is that those who survived paid with labor or money to be allowed to survive. Being a slave in peak Rome was a dicey gig. Having a fungible skill like painting zowie murals was good. Having minimal skills? Well, someone has to work for nothing in the fields or quarries.
What’s the connection? The publishers are similar to the Roman generals. The bad guys are the digital rebels who are like Hannibal and his followers.
Back to the cited National Post article:
After the Senate passed the Online News Act Thursday, Meta confirmed it will remove news content from Facebook and Instagram for all Canadian users, but it remained unclear whether Google would follow suit for its platforms. The act, which was known as Bill C-18, is designed to force Google and Facebook to share revenues with publishers for news stories that appear on their platforms. By removing news altogether, companies would be exempt from the legislation.
The idea is that US online services which touch most online users (maybe 90 or 95 percent in North America) will block news content. This means:
- Cash gushers from Facebook- and Google-type companies will not pay for news content. (This has some interesting downstream consequences but for this short essay, I want to focus on the “not paying” for news.)
- The publishers will experience a decline in traffic. Why? Without a “finding and pointing” mechanism, how would I find this “real news” article published by the National Post. (FYI: I think of this newspaper as Canada’s USAToday, which was a Gannett crown jewel. How is that working out for Gannett today?)
- Rome triumphed only to fizzle out again. And Hannibal? He’s remembered for the elephants-through-the-Alps trick. Are man’s efforts ultimately futile?
What happens if one considers, the clicks will stop accruing to the publishers’ Web sites. How will the publishers generate traffic? SEO. Yeah, good luck with that.
Is there an alternative?
Yes, buy Facebook and Google advertising. I call this pay to play.
The Canadian news outlets will have to pay for traffic. I suppose companies like Tyler Technologies, which has an office in Vancouver I think, could sell ads for the National Post’s stories, but that seems to be a stretch. Similarly the National Post could buy ads on the Embroidery Classics & Promotions (Calgary) Web site, but that may not produce too many clicks for the Canadian news outfits. I estimate one or two a month.
Bill C-18 may not have the desired effect. Facebook and Facebook-type outfits will want to sell advertising to the Canadian publishers in my opinion. And without high-impact, consistent and relevant online advertising, state-of-art marketing, and juicy content, the publishers may find themselves either impaled on their digital hopes or placed in servitude to the Zuck and his fellow travelers.
Are these publishers able to pony up the cash and make the appropriate decisions to generate revenues like the good old days?
Sure, there’s a chance.
But it’s a long shot. I estimate the chances as similar to King Charles’ horse winning the 2024 King George V Stakes race in 2024; that is, 18 to 1. But Desert Hero pulled it off. Who is rooting for the Canadian publishers?
Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
