Just a funny observation when reading this good Newsweek article about privacy, is that there are a lot of behavioral targeting pixels getting fired on that self-same page, including AudienceScience, Quantcast, and Doubleclick. Such is the world we live in:

http://pix04.revsci.net/B09806/b3/0/3/0902121/642641728.js?D=DM_LOC%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.newsweek.com
http://pix04.revsci.net/B09806/b3/0/3/0902121/997357272.js?D=DM_LOC%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.newsweek.com
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel;r=1520162946;fpan=0;fpa=P0-2043871114-1266555449664;ns=0;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F233773;ref=;ce=1;je=1;sr=1440x900x32;dg=P9940-W-MS-7;dst=1;et=1266555480477;tzo=480;a=p-1axiNKelAV3F-;labels=Business_Tech
http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel;r=1991808241;fpan=1;fpa=P0-2043871114-1266555449664;ns=0;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F233773;ref=;ce=1;je=1;sr=1440x900x32;dg=P9940-W-MS-7;dst=1;et=1266555449664;tzo=480;a=p-1axiNKelAV3F-;labels=Business_Tech
http://core.insightexpressai.com/adServer/adServerESI.aspx?bannerID=155498&siteID=N2958.Newsweek&creativeID=35286945
http://core.insightexpressai.com/adServer/adServerESI.aspx?bannerID=157152
http://core.insightexpressai.com/adServer/GetInvite2.aspx?esi=true&bannerID=157152&referer=www.newsweek.com
http://core.insightexpressai.com/adserver/showInvite.aspx?ImageOnly=true&bannerID=157152&esi=true
http://ads.revsci.net/adserver/ako?activate&csid=B09806&ko=2010_2_18__0
http://ads.revsci.net/adserver/ako?activate&csid=B09806&ko=2010_2_18__1
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/b?c1=2&c2=6972086&rn=0.11742583378751214&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F233773&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c10=&c15=&c16=&c8=Lyons%3A%20How%20Google%20%26%20Facebook%20Violate%20Your%20Privacy%20-%20Newsweek.com&c9=&cv=1.7
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/b?c1=2&c2=6972086&rn=0.6740785767349728&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2Fid%2F233773&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c10=&c15=&c16=&c8=Lyons%3A%20How%20Google%20%26%20Facebook%20Violate%20Your%20Privacy%20-%20Newsweek.com&c9=&cv=1.7
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=8&c2=6035585&c3=91900631&c4=autotag&c6=00000126655545776310180000106049048050
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=8&c2=6035585&c3=91900631&c4=autotag&c6=00000126655548607223311000000106054051
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=8&c2=6035585&c3=92068662&c4=autotag&c6=00000126655545933629473000000106050057
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=8&c2=6035585&c3=92068662&c4=autotag&c6=00000126655548713221232000000106053050
http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p2?c1=8&c2=6035585&c3=91900631&c4=autotag&c6=00000126655545776310180000106049048050
http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;src=2163259;met=1;v=1;pid=45108152;aid=221548926;ko=0;cid=35286945;rid=35304763;rv=1;&timestamp=1266555475555;eid1=2;ecn1=0;etm1=2;eid2=12;ecn2=1;etm2=0;eid3=254307;ecn3=1;etm3=0;eid4=11;ecn4=1;etm4=0;eid5=254300;ecn5=1;etm5=0;

I’m amazed that a senior executive at a major ad company like The Rubicon Project would write something like this (in their Q3 update):

“Many of these platforms ultimately value all inventory equally, from the New York Times or Sports Illustrated, to a niche WordPress sports blog,” [JT] Batson [,Rubicon’s EVP of Revenue and Global Development] said. “And for certain ads, that is OK. But publishers correctly argue that a reader seeing an ad against the trusted brand of a well-known site is more valuable than a reader seeing the ad on a site they don’t fully trust.”

Referencing the “agency-backed buying platforms” which presumably encompasses all demand-side aggregators. Any company on the demand side of the display ad business (agency-backed or not) that does value all inventory equally is surely going to fail. Having a set of well-known branded sites in a campaign is certainly going to create more confidence for brand-sensitive advertisers, but that is of course one of many determinants of the value of inventory. Audience, position on page, user frequency, number of other ads on the page — these are all certainly factors in valuing ad inventory.

As I mentioned on CPMa’s blog recently, some very well-known publisher brands appear to be giving themselves liberally to anyone with an ad to show. Those in our business who have real technology and a real understanding of media know that the way we make this business work is to get past the irrational, emotional responses that “nobody cares about my brand” and bring data to the table to support our suppositions.

I was trying to post a comment to this story on Mediapost about newspapers arguing for behavioral targeting online, but it crapped out on me. So i figured I’d post it here:

I believe there should be more disclosure around BT. I also believe if done properly it can provide a lot of lift for advertisers and the ability for publishers to make more money and have a more sustainable business online. There are, however, double standards as applied to online advertising versus what happens in the offline world. When I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times (or most publications), they make money on selling my name and address (PII) and the fact that I’m a subscriber to various third parties. When I get one of these third-party direct mailings sent to me at home based on my address and data-matched to other information about me in various databases out there, I don’t get to find out who gave it up and how.

Consumers already ignore irrelevant mailings offline and irrelevant ads online, and with silicon being cheaper than paper and BT being non-PII, why do we devote so much more attention it seems to this online side of the equation and make it extra hard for the publishers to stay in business?

Yikes – another newspaper site getting a bit discombobulated. This is what the Washington Post looks like today after Siemens got a hold of it…. this was in IE. Firefox looked similar so not a browser-specific issue.