How Apps Use Your Data: Just a Half Effort
April 28, 2022
I read an quite enthusiastic article called “Google Forces Developers to Provide Details on How Apps Use Your Data.” The main idea is virtue signaling with one of those flashing airport beacons. These can be seen through certain types of “info fog,” just not today’s info fog. The digital climate has a number of characteristics. One is obfuscation.
The write up states:
… the Data safety feature is now on the Google Play Store and aims to bolster security by providing users details on how an app is using their information. Developers are required to complete this section for their apps by July 20, and will need to provide updates if they change their data handling practices, too.
That sounds encouraging. Google’s been at the data harvesting combine controls for more than two decades. Now app developers have to provide information about their use of an app user’s data and presumably flip on the yellow fog lights for what the folks who have access to those data via an API or a bulk transfer are doing. Amusing thought forced regulation after 240 months on the info highway.
However, what app users do with data is half of the story, maybe less. The interesting question to me is, “What does Google do with those data?”
The Data Safety initiative does not focus on the Google. Data Safety shifts the attention to app developers, presumably some of whom have crafty ideas. My interest is Google’s own data surfing; for example, ad diffusion, and my fave Snorkelization and synthetic “close enough for horseshoes” data. Real data may be to “real” for some purposes.
After a couple of decades, Google is taking steps toward a data destination. I just don’t know where that journey is taking people.
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2022
NCC April A Golden Oldie: YouTube Will Do Its Bestest
April 28, 2022
As tech companies receive continued pressure to contain misinformation on their platforms, MakeUseOf ponders, “Is YouTube Doing Enough to Tackle Misinformation?” The short answer—no. After all, removing content means removing ad revenue. Writer Aya Masango observes:
“Although YouTube has been working to tackle misinformation, the company realizes the importance of evolving to ensure that it stays ahead of those measures and that it continues to remain effective in that pursuit. And although that is the case, YouTube is still facing some challenges in tackling misinformation. In a YouTube blog post, the company’s Chief Product Officer, Neal Mohan, admitted that the platform is still struggling with thwarting misinformation before it goes viral, addressing cross-platform sharing of misinformation, and advancing misinformation efforts on a global scale. As noted by Mohan, ‘… As misinformation narratives emerge faster and spread more widely than ever, our approach needs to evolve to keep pace.’ This shows that YouTube is aware that it still has a long way to go in its efforts to tackle the spread of misinformation on its platform.”
Since Mohan is so interested in doing the right thing, Masango offers three suggestions for him and his company: First she advises partnering with independent fact checkers, pointing to an informative open letter from The International Fact-Checking Network. The company should also set up native teams in foreign lands, where YouTube’s misinformation management is especially weak, and bring local expertise to bear. Finally, the write-up calls for banning channels that persist in peddling misinformation. Since that would mean fewer adds sold, however, we suspect the company considers that obvious measure a last resort.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2022
Online Advertising: A Yesterday Business? What?
April 12, 2022
Heresy, sour grapes, truth? It is often difficult to tell even with experts explaining disinformation without stumbling over baloney in college textbooks, news in esteemed entities’ publications, and outputs from Facebook’s chief truth stater.
I read “I Stopped Advertising Everywhere and Nothing Happened.” I thought some of the information was pretty close to dead center; for example, the title of the article. The key phrase was “nothing happened.”
Now things did happen; these events were not visible to the author of the write up. The sales professional handling the account had to report a downturn in spend. That person had to explain the downturn. Maybe the sales professional found him- her- them-self invited to find his her them future elsewhere? (I do struggle with New Speak.)
The write up points out:
Some multi-national organizations have turned off hundreds of millions of pounds of advertising, and seen, no discernible change in sales or conversion.
I underlined this passage:
be aware that in the direct to consumer market, instant conversions are hard.
Do the vendors of online advertising opportunities explain that online advertising may not work as the advertisers’ believe? Nope. The reason in my opinion is that online advertising like full page print ads in a Wall Street Journal type of publication is an artifact from the ruins of Madison Avenue. The chatter about data and hard numbers disguises a simple shift: TikTok-type influencers, athletes wearing stuff after the game, and nudges from YouTube-type outputs are carrying the water. Online advertising has to look as if it is objective and influencer approved to work. Your mileage may vary, particularly if you are the 20 something charged with buying online advertising run by old managers who are living in a world described in a brain filled with accounting tricks and MBA baloney.
Here’s a test: Name the SUV model advertised on YouTube when you searched for “suv.” Give up?
Stephen E Arnold, April12, 2022
An Ad Agency Decides: No Photoshopping of Bodies or Faces for Influencers
April 11, 2022
Presumably Ogilvy will exempt retouched food photos (what? hamburgers from a fast food outlet look different from the soggy burger in a box). Will Ogilvy outlaw retouched vehicle photographs (what? the Toyota RAV’s paint on your ride looks different from the RAV’s in print and online advertisements). Will models from a zippy London or Manhattan agency look different from the humanoid doing laundry at 11 15 on a Tuesday in Earl’s Court laundrette (what? a model with out make up, some retouching, and slick lighting?). Yes, Ogilvy has standards. See this CBS News item, which is allegedly accurate. Overbilling is not Photoshopping. Overbilling is a different beastie.
I think I know the answer to my doubts about the scope of this ad edit as reported in “Ogilvy Will No Longer Work with Influencers Who Edit Their Bodies or Faces for Ads.” The write up reports:
Ogilvy UK will no longer work with influencers who distort or retouch their bodies or faces for brand campaigns in a bid to combat social media’s “systemic” mental health harms.
I love the link to mental health harms. Here’s a quote which I find amusing:
The ban applies to all parts of the Ogilvy UK group, which counts the likes of Dove among its clients. Dove’s global vice president external communications and sustainability, Firdaous El Honsali, came out in support of the policy. “We are delighted to see our partner Ogilvy tackling this topic. Dove only works with influencers that do not distort their appearance on social media – and together with Ogilvy and our community of influencers, we have created several campaigns that celebrate no digital distortion,” El Honsali says.
Several observations:
- Ogilvy is trying to adjust to the new world of selling because influencers don’t think about Ogilvy. If you want an influencer, my hunch is that you take what the young giants offer.
- Like newspapers, ad agencies are trapped in models from the hay days of broadsheets sold on street corners. By the way, how are those with old business models doing in the zip zip TikTok world?
- Talking about rules is easy. Enforcing them is difficult. I bet the PowerPoint used in the meeting to create these rules for influencers was a work of marketing art.
Yep, online advertising, consolidation of agency power, and the likes of Amazon-, Facebook (Zuckbook), and YouTube illustrate one thing: The rules are set or left fuzzy by the digital platforms, not the intermediaries.
And the harm thing? Yep, save the children one influencer at a time.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2022
TikTok: Search and Advertising
March 29, 2022
If life were not tricky enough for Amazon, Facebook, and Google, excitement is racing down the information highway. I read “TikTok Search Ads Tool Is Being Tested Out.” I learned:
This week, the famous short video application began beta testing for TikTok search ads in search results, allowing marketers to reach the audience utilizing the keywords they use.
Yep, a test, complete with sponsored listings at the top of the search result page.
Will this have an impact on most adults over the age of 65? The answer in my opinion, “Is not right away, but down the road, oh, baby, yes.”
Let’s think about the Big Boys:
- Amazon gets many clicks from its product search. The Google once dominated this function, but the Bezos bulldozer has been grinding away.
- Facebook or as I like to call it “zuckbook.” The combined social empire of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp has quite a bit of product information. Don’t you follow Soph Mosca’s fashion snaps on Instagram? Will TikTok search offer a better experience with search, ads, and those nifty videos? Yep.
- And Google. Now the GOOG faces competition for product search ads from the China linked TikTok. How will the company respond? Publish a book on managing a diverse work force or put out a news release about quantum supremacy.
The write up explains that the ads, the search angle, and the experience is in beta. Will TikTok sell ads? Okay, let me think. Wow. Tough question. My answer, “Does President Gi take an interest in the Internet?”
The write up includes a link to a Twitter post which shows the beta format. You can view it at this link.
I want to point out that TikTok is a useful source of open source intelligence, captures information of interest to those who want to pinpoint susceptible individuals, and generates high value data about users interested in a specific type of content and the creators of that content.
Now TikTok will be on the agenda of meetings at three of the world’s most loved companies. Yep, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Who loves these outfits the most? Advertisers!
Stephen E Arnold, March 29, 2022
Online Advertising: A Trigger Warning May Be Needed
March 18, 2022
I read “How Can We Know If Paid Search Advertising Works?” The write up is about Google but it is not about Google in my opinion. A number of outfits selling messages may be following a well worn path: Statistical mumbo jumbo and fear of missing out on a big sale.
Advertising executives once relied on the mostly entertaining methods captured in “Mad Men.” In the digital era, the suits have been exchanged for khakis, shorts, and hoodies. But the objective is the same: Find an advertiser, invoke fear of missing out on a sale, and hauling off the cash. Will a sale happen? Yeah, but one never really knows if it was advertising, marketing, or the wife’s brother in law helping out an very odd younger brother who played video games during the Thanksgiving dinner.
The approach in the article is a mix of common sense and selective statistical analysis. The selective part is okay because the online advertisers engage in selective statistical behavior 24×7.
Here’s a statement from the article I found interesting:
It was almost like people were using the paid links, not to learn about products, but to navigate to the site. In other words, it appeared like selection bias with respect to paid click advertising and arrival at the site was probably baked into their data.
The observation that search sucks or that people use ads because they are lazy are equally valid. The point is that online advertisers a fearful of missing a sale. These lucky professionals will, therefore, buy online ads and believe that sales are a direct result. But there may be some doubt enhanced by the incantations of the Web marketing faction of the organization who say, “Ads are great, but we have to do more search engine optimization.”
A two-fer. The Web site and our products/services are advertised and people buy or “know” about our brand or us. By promoting the Web site we get the bonus sales from the regular, non paid search findability. This argument makes many people happy, particularly the online ad sales team and probably the SEO consulting experts. The real payoff is that the top dog’s anxiety level decreases. He/she/them is/are happier campers.
Identifying causal effects does not happen with wishes.
I am no expert in online advertising. I think the write up suggests that the data used to prove the value of online advertising is shaped. Wow, what a surprise? Why would the leaders in selling online advertising craft a message which may not be anchored in much more than “wishes”.
Money? Yep, money.
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2022
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
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
