Gannett: Allegedly Manipulating Online Advertising for Gain
March 16, 2022
What? Online advertising subject to manipulation? I thought this was impossible. The players have the highest ethical standards. The online services make the leaders of a half dozen major religions look like moral slackers.
“Doman Spoofing on Gannett Sites” suggests that one of the brightest lights in the galaxy of highly regarded “real news” outfits may have been putting its thumb on the grocer’s scale. The write up asserts:
Domain spoofing — where ad inventory is misrepresented as being from a different site — is often talked about as a solved problem by adtech insiders. Despite this, USA Today and hundreds of local newspapers owned by Gannett were sending spoofed bid requests to multiple ad exchanges for over 9 months.
The write up marshals evidence which will be impenetrable to those who are not familiar with Web coding and advertising mechanisms. Nevertheless, the main point is that Gannett is in the center of something that looks to the author (braedon.dev_) suspicious.
The write up adds:
This is unlikely to be the only case of this kind of authorized spoofing in the wild. Exchanges, DSPs, and anti-fraud vendors need to take a good look at why it seemingly went undetected for so long, and where else it might be happening.
My goodness, is domain spoofing and digital bait and switch widespread? Of course not. Ad sales are infused with the integrity of the MBA and coders who do what seems like fun.
Stephen E Arnold, March 16. 2022
Google Speak: The Map Thing
February 9, 2022
I have a Kia and I have an old TomTom. I do not use maps from any of the mom and pop providers like Apple or Google. Why? I appreciate these alleged monopolies efforts to make my life so much better, I am okay muddling along as I have for the past 77 years.
I read “How Reviews on Google Maps Work.” The word “work” when employed by Google troubles me. For example, I don’t want a “work” space which requires me to figure out how to disable tracking which seems to forget my preferences. So “work” is a red flag at least for me.
The explanation is a good example of Google speak, the language of the Googley and those whom Google has misdirected. I have one old chestnut anecdote about Google Maps. Several years ago, I was giving a talk at a conference in Washington, DC. My team had met with the slightly frazzled conference organizer to suggest some topics for future conferences. After the meeting, I said I had to run an errand and floated the idea to eat at a restaurant called Cuba Libre. My colleagues and the big conference person whipped out their phones to figure out where the restaurant was. In fact, at that time Cuba Libre was two blocks from the hotel.
I arrived at the restaurant and waited outside for the three other people. None showed up. I called and said, “Where are you?” The answer from two was, “We’re looking for the restaurant. It’s not on Google Maps.” I gave verbal directions and called the super important conference fellow who said, “I couldn’t find the restaurant. I am on the way home. Maybe next time?” (There never was a next time.)
The two members of my team walked up to me and said, “Google did not have a listing for Cuba Libre.” I said, “No problem.” When I returned to my office, I poked around. Cuba Libre was not listed. I called the restaurant and asked for the manager. I asked that person, “Do you advertise via Google or list yourself in Google Local?” The answer was, “No.” I concluded that Google’s definition of “keep the information on Google relevant and accurate” means, “No ads. You don’t exist.”
The phrase “keep the information on Google relevant and accurate” comes from the write up “How Reviews on Google Maps Work.” To achieve relevance and accuracy, Google goes to great lengths. I learned:
As the world evolves, so do our policies and protections. This helps us guard places and businesses from violative and off-topic content when there’s potential for them to be targeted for abuse.
Well, if a business is not listed that is a sure fire way to solve the problem of reviews.
Google, with its one main revenue stream, relies on machine learning to absolve those tireless Googlers of certain tiresome tasks; for example, editorial controls, researching businesses in the heart of Washington, DC, and doing the accuracy thing.
The write up explains this deep diving, snorkel infused mechanism:
Machines are our first line of defense because they’re good at identifying patterns. These patterns often immediately help our machines determine if the content is legitimate, and the vast majority of fake and fraudulent content is removed before anyone actually sees it.
Okay.
I liked the lingo in the final paragraph of the write up:
With more than 1 billion people turning to Google Maps every month to navigate and explore, we want to make sure the information they see — especially reviews — is reliable for everyone. Our work is never done; we’re constantly improving our system and working hard to keep abuse, including fake reviews, off of the map.
Except for some businesses.
Stephen E Arnold, February 9, 2022
The FLoc Disperses: Are There Sheep Called Topics?
February 9, 2022
It looks like that FLoC thing is not working out for Google after all, so now it is trying another cookie-alternative called Topics. According to Inc., with this move, “Google Just Gave You the Best Reason Yet to Finally Quit Using Chrome.” Writer Jason Aten explains:
“Google said it would introduce an alternative known as Federated Learning of Cohorts, or FLoC. The short version is that Chrome would track your browsing history and use it to identify you as a part of a cohort of other users with similar interests. … The thing is, no one likes FLoC. Privacy experts hate it because it’s not actually more private just because the tracking and profiling happens in your browser. Advertisers and ad-tech companies don’t like FLoC because, well, they like cookies. They’d mostly prefer Google just leave things alone since cookies are what let them know exactly when you click on an ad, put something in your cart, and buy it. Now, Google is introducing an alternative it calls Topics. The idea is that Chrome will look at your browsing activity and identify up to five topics that it thinks you’re interested in. When you visit a website, Chrome will show it three of those topics, with the idea that the site will then show you an ad that matches your interest.”
Of course, all Chrome users will be enrolled in Topics by default. Google will provide a way to opt out, but it is well aware most users will not bother. If privacy is really important, why not just do away with targeted advertising altogether? Do not be silly—ad revenue is what Google is all about, even when it tries to pretend otherwise. Aten notes that Safari and Brave both allow users to block third-party cookies and neither had planned to support FLoC. Other browsers have ways to block them, too. According to this write-up, it is time to give up on Chrome altogether and choose a browser that actually respects users’ privacy.
Cynthia Murrell, February 10, 2022
How Not to Get Hired by Alphabet, Google, YouTube, Et Al
January 21, 2022
I have a sneaking suspicion that the author / entity / bot responsible for “Unreddacted Antitrust Complain Shows Google’s Ad Business Even Scummier than Many Imagined.” For the record, I want to point out this definition of scum, courtesy of none other than Google:
a layer of dirt or froth on the surface of a liquid. “green scum found on stagnant pools” Colorful, particularly the dirt combined with the adjective green and stagnant
It follows that the context and connotation of the article views Google as a less than pristine outfit. I ask, “How can that be true?”
The write up states:
… the complaint paints a damning picture of how Google has monopolized all of the critical informational choke points in the online ad business between publishers and advertisers; as one employee put it, it’s as if Google owned a bank and the New York Stock Exchange, only more so. Google shamelessly engages in fraud…
These are words which an Alphabet, Google, YouTube, et al attorney might find sufficiently magnetic to pull the legal eagles to their nest to plot a legal maneuver to prevent the author / entity / bot responsible for the write up from having a day without a summons and a wearying visit to a courthouse for months, maybe years.
If you want to know how one of Silicon Valley’s finest does business, you will want to check out the cited article. Some of the comments are fascinating. I quite liked the one that suggested the matter would be a slam dunk for prosecutors. Ho ho ho.
Personally I find Alphabet / Google / YouTube et all the cat’s pajamas. However, I do not think the author / entity / bot creating the write up will get a chance to apply for a job at the online ad company and its affiliated firms.
Stephen E Arnold, January 21, 2022
Amazon Allegedly Deceives: Another Side of the Online Bookstore
December 10, 2021
I think Jeff Bezos, the designer of the Bezos bulldozer and its other market moving equipment, has some interest in the Washington Post. Maybe I am wrong. Will and editorial Zoom call be convened to discuss “Amazon’s Search Results Are Full of Ads Unlawfully Deceiving Consumers, New Complaint to the FTC Claims.” The story could have been given a bit more zing. (Not surprisingly, one will have to pony up some hard cash to read this Bezos related story in the Bezos associated source. What? You want something free from the Bezos centric products?) As it is, it reports:
More than a quarter of search results on Amazon are paid ads.
Yep, selling digital ad inventory is a heck of a lot easier than keeping the AWS warehouse and product fulfillment system online. And those employees? Wow. Just use scripts and smart software to plug in ads for stuff people want to buy. How does Amazon know what sells? I assume it is one of those black electronic control units found in modern vehicles and possibly the Bezos bulldozer line of market shapers.
The write up points out:
Ad sales are one of Amazon’s fastest-growing businesses, and the complaint alleges the lack of disclosures around these practices runs afoul of consumer protection law. The company delays labels indicating a search result is sponsored for several seconds after a page loads, the group claims, a practice that “deliberately obfuscat[es]” ads. The coalition’s researchers determined the company was “substantially or entirely out of compliance” with all of the federal guidelines to ensure ads can easily be distinguished from organic search results.
Like the newspapers grousing about Facebook and Google and those estimable firms’ approach to advertising, perhaps Amazon’s executives have been studying these companies’ methods. And why not? The write up says:
The research firm eMarketer estimates that Amazon’s digital ad business will hit $24.47 billion this year, up 55.5 percent from 2020, and will capture 11.6 percent of the digital ad market.
With Facebook facing headwinds and the Google getting into healing, Amazon may sense an opportunity to grows its ad market share.
Is this desire good or bad? For stakeholders, Amazon’s push into ads is good news. For those who are horrified that the online bookstore continues to diversify its revenue streams, Amazon is a dangerous driver of a Bezos branded piece of heavy equipment.
Now about that editorial meeting?
Stephen E Arnold, December 10, 2021
A Xoogler May Question the Google about Responsible and Ethical Smart Software
December 2, 2021
Write a research paper. Get colleagues to provide input. Well, ask colleagues do that work and what do you get. How about “Looks good.” Or “Add more zing to that chart.” Or “I’m snowed under so it will be a while but I will review it…” Then the paper wends its way to publication and a senior manager type reads the paper on a flight from one whiz kid town to another whiz kid town and says, “This is bad. Really bad because the paper points out that we fiddle with the outputs. And what we set up is biased to generate the most money possible from clueless humans under our span of control.” Finally, the paper is blocked from publication and the offending PhD is fired or sent signals that your future lies elsewhere.
Will this be a classic arm wrestling match? The winner may control quite a bit of conceptual territory along with knobs and dials to shape information.
Could this happen? Oh, yeah.
“Ex Googler Timnit Gebru Starts Her Own AI Research Center” documents the next step, which may mean that some wizards undergarments will be sprayed with eau de poison oak for months, maybe years. Here’s one of the statements from the Wired article:
“Instead of fighting from the inside, I want to show a model for an independent institution with a different set of incentive structures,” says Gebru, who is founder and executive director of Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research (DAIR). The first part of the name is a reference to her aim to be more inclusive than most AI labs—which skew white, Western, and male—and to recruit people from parts of the world rarely represented in the tech industry. Gebru was ejected from Google after clashing with bosses over a research paper urging caution with new text-processing technology enthusiastically adopted by Google and other tech companies.
The main idea, which Wired and Dr. Gebru delicately sidestep, is that there are allegations of an artificial intelligence or machine learning cabal drifting around some conference hall chatter. On one side is the push for what I call the SAIL approach. The example I use to illustrate how this cost effective, speedy, and clever short cut approach works is illustrated in some of the work of Dr. Christopher Ré, the captain of the objective craft SAIL. Oh, is the acronym unfamiliar to you? SAIL is short version of Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. SAIL fits on the Snorkel content diving gear I think.
On the other side of the ocean, are Dr. Timnit Gebru’s fellow travelers. The difference is that Dr. Gebru believes that smart software should not reflect the wit, wisdom, biases, and general bro-ness of the high school science club culture. This culture, in my opinion, has contributed to the fraying of the social fabric in the US, caused harm, and erodes behaviors that are supposed to be subordinated to “just what people do to make a social system function smoothly.”
Does the Wired write up identify the alleged cabal? Nope.
Does the write up explain that the Ré / Snorkel methods sacrifice some precision in the rush to generate good enough outputs? (Good enough can be framed in terms of ad revenue, reduced costs, and faster time to market testing in my opinion.) Nope.
Does Dr. Gebru explain how insidious the short cut training of models is and how it will create systems which actively harm those outside the 60 percent threshold of certain statistical yardsticks? Heck, no.
Hopefully some bright researchers will explain what’s happening with a “deep dive”? Oh, right, Deep Dive is the name of a content access company which uses Dr. Ré’s methods. Ho, ho, ho. You didn’t know?
Beyond Search believes that Dr. Gebru has important contributions to make to applied smart software. Just hurry up already.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2021
Want High-Value Traffic? Buy Ads
November 15, 2021
I read a number of stories pivoting on “Apple Quietly Buying Ads Via Google For High-Value Subscription Apps To Capture App Publisher Revenue.” The main idea is that someone — maybe Apple — is buying ads for hot services; for example, Babble and HBO. The user clicks on the ad and is promptly delivered to the App app store. Who is buying the ads? The information is not the type that convinces me that Apple is punching buttons directly.
The main point for me is that “organic” traffic and the baloney about search engine optimization is filled with ground up pine cones. If Apple can’t generate “organic” traffic from its walled garden orchard, who can?
Answer: Those with the money to buy ads, make them look as if the Bumblers and HBO wizards were behind the ads. The customer gets conveyed to the Apple store where those tasty fruits are marked up.
How does one find “objective” ads? The same way one finds “objective” information. One doesn’t unless one invests considerable time and money in research and analysis.
Disinformation, misinformation, and reformation are the currency of success perhaps?
Stephen E Arnold, November 15, 2021
Learning about Advertising Executives: A Google Lesson
October 27, 2021
I spotted a story about Google’s systems and methods for capturing advertising revenue. “Ad Execs Dismayed, But Not Surprised by Tactics Google Allegedly Used to Control Digital Ad Dollars.” The information about Google was not particularly interesting. The company has been operating in ways which make it difficult for those who just love free services and the Googley glitz to discern what’s shakin’ in the management meetings.
The write up states one point which I found intriguing:
Trade bodies are quiet while industry insiders shrug as if to say “what did you expect.” They’ve long accepted the harsh truths of online advertising in the platform era.
Notice the words “insiders,” “shrug,” “harsh truths,” and “platform.”
I interpreted these two sentences to suggest ad execs know the game is rigged. Why, pray tell? Commissions, the value of being Google certified, and getting the insider scoop on opportunities to help ad execs’ customers sell their products (at least one hopes something besides ad inventory sells).
This article adds little to the Google ad lore, but it says quite a bit about the brokers or facilitators of ad sales.
Commissions, consulting fees, and the lure of search engine optimization runways to for fee Google ads — yep, the ad execs are in the game.
Perhaps the hot topic of ad fraud will be discussed? Perhaps not?
Stephen E Arnold, October 27, 2021
A Sporty Allegation: One Person Is Two on the Zuckmetabook Thing?
October 25, 2021
If you are interested in an “indie hacker’s” view of Zuckbook. Ooops. Sorry. I meant Facebook, you will want to read “Facebook Will Count One Person as Two on Its Platform.” I found the write up interesting. Darko has a way with words.
Here’s the statement from the Zuckbook which caught his attention:
Starting today, if someone does not have their Facebook and Instagram accounts linked in Accounts Center, we will consider those accounts as separate people for ads planning and measurement.
Darko then clarifies this corporate Zuck speak:
Essentially, Facebook will count one person as two on its platform for advertisers, unless the users have explicitly linked their accounts in “Account Center”. [Emphasis in the original text}
The write up identifies other murkiness; for example, the machinations of the “Account Center” and how the Zuckbook presents some ad effectiveness data.
Darko points out that the Zuckbook may be doing the Darwin adaptation to the Tim Apple privacy play. Plus, Zuckbook ad rates are “skyrocketing” to use Darko’s term.
What’s the impact of the Zuckbook’s new ad finery? Darko says:
Fortunately, there are new channels that are emerging and some founders already started having success with them. These recent interviews I did on using TikTok influencers to grow a SaaS and using Reddit outreach are just some examples. Decentralized social networking is also on the way, according to people like Naval, and is just waiting for its Satoshi moment.
I think I understand. Bad news for the Zuckbook. Maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, October 25, 2021
Useless Search Results? Thank Advertising
September 17, 2021
We thought this was obvious. The Conversation declares, “Google’s ‘Pay-Per-Click’ Ad Model Makes it Harder to Find What You’re Looking For.” Writers Mohiuddin Ahmed and Paul Haskell-Dowland begin by pointing out “to google” has literally become synonymous with searching online via any online search platform. Indeed, Google has handily dominated the online search business, burying some competitors and leaving the rest in the dust. Not coincidentally, the company also rules the web browser and online advertising markets. As our dear readers know, Google is facing pushback from competition and antitrust regulators in assorted countries. However, this article addresses the impact on search results themselves. The authors report:
“More than 80% of Alphabet’s revenue comes from Google advertising. At the same time, around 85% of the world’s search engine activity goes through Google. Clearly there is significant commercial advantage in selling advertising while at the same time controlling the results of most web searches undertaken around the globe. This can be seen clearly in search results. Studies have shown internet users are less and less prepared to scroll down the page or spend less time on content below the ‘fold’ (the limit of content on your screen). This makes the space at the top of the search results more and more valuable. In the example below, you might have to scroll three screens down before you find actual search results rather than paid promotions. While Google (and indeed many users) might argue that the results are still helpful and save time, it’s clear the design of the page and the prominence given to paid adverts will influence behavior. All of this is reinforced by the use of a pay-per-click advertising model which is founded on enticing users to click on adverts.”
We are reminded Google-owned YouTube is another important source of information for billions of users, and it is perhaps the leading platform for online ads. In fact, these ads now intrude on videos at a truly annoying rate. Unless one pays for a Premium subscription, of course. Ahmed and Haskell-Dowland remind us alternatives to Google Search exist, with the usual emphasis on privacy-centric DuckDuckGo. They conclude by pointing out other influential areas in which Google plays a lead role: AI, healthcare, autonomous vehicles, cloud computing, computing devices, and the Internet of Things. Is Google poised to take over the world? Why not?
Cynthia Murrell, September September 17, 2021, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
