So Google launched Ad Planner yesterday at an Advertising Research Foundation event in New York City. Ad Planner is an online analytical tool that gives advertisers deep information on which sites their targeted audience is visiting. Designed to make media buying more efficient, it puts Google in direct competition with comScore and Nielsen Online. A key difference here is that Ad Planner is free.

Ad Planner allows users to enter demographics of target audiences along with potential sites on which to advertise into its system.  The system then, presumably through data gleaned from web servers, will then spit out sites that an advertiser should consider for a media plan.  It would seem that it is an easy to use, inexpensive system to use.

Subscription fees from survey based services such as comScore and Nielsen can be exorbitant.  This further democratizes the web.

But free can come with a cost and that’s what others are worried about.

Google, in this capacity, may not be acting as an independently-owned third party delivering unbiased information.  There’s always a chance that the system may be tweaked to produce results that favor Google-owned property.  And, and the launch yesterday, Google product manager told a questioner that Google will get its data from a “fusion” of different data sources.  A follow up question as to whether or not Google will accept external audits was left unanswered.

That’s not a great sign.  But Google is now powerful enough that they can get away with not answering that while it brings in users.  Users like, quite frankly, me.

Thus is the nature of the web.

Take a look at the online connection stats of the six remaining presidential candidates:

I got the above graph from a post on the Bivings Report from Hosam el-Aker.

While a lot can be derived from it, I’m going to make a quick observation on Ron Paul’s campaign. As you can see, he’s one of the most visited, connected, and friended online presences of all the candidates. Yet he lags far behind in the polls. Some will then question the power of the internet because of this.

I say that view is shortsighted and mistaken.

I bet that if you gauge they percentage of Ron Paul supporters who are involved with his campaign in some way online, said percentage would be astronomic as compared to the other candidates. The point there is that the other candidates have support both online and offline.

This likely means the demographics of his supporters are both internet savvy but not very influential. And his message, while unique and compelling, doesn’t resonate beyond his base. Digital strategies aren’t going to change that.

So I’d suggest that the Paul situation is not indicative of the power of or the weakness of a candidate, it just merely reflects the way support flows and ebbs in the offline arena as well.

The seemingly out-of-whack stats here are about passionate followers of a unique candidate who has a limited appeal.

Penny Crosman wrote a pretty good review of a book I hadn’t heard of,  Web Dragons, by Ian H. Witten, Marco Gori and Teresa Numerico, which seems like a pretty :

‘How do search engines work? Howare PageRanks calculated? WebDragons, by Ian H. Witten, Marco Gori and Teresa Numerico, takes a textbook approach to such questions using historical analogies. “In Oriental folklore, dragons not only enjoy awesome grace and beauty, they are endowed with immense wisdom,” the authors note. “But in the West, they are often portrayed as evil — St. George vanquishes a fearsome dragon.” Search engines, too, are large beasts and have the capacity for wisdom, good and evil.”In addition to celebrating the joy of being able to find stuff on the Web, we want to make you feel uneasy about how everyone has come to rely on search engines so utterly and completely.”‘ –Penny Crosman of Intelligent Enterprise

Check out the article in last Thursday’s Times, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, that addresses how to handle consumers who develop a personal vendetta against your company. Well, you could send lawyers but legal cease-and-desists generally just make the customer madder than hell and it isn’t hard to just start yet another attack site.

I hate to say it, sucking less always helps. Start with treating your customers better. Also, be sure to register lots of domain names and work on your online reputation aggressively before it becomes a problem.

Online, the best defense is a good offense and an ounce of online promotion is worth a pound of cure. Here are some great commented-by-me excerpts from the article, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, so you can get a gist:

Read more…

With the issue of reputation management in the news, I’ve been thinking a lot about the recent discovery that many of the Mattel toys made in China were painted with lead-based paints. This had followed several other unrelated incidents that had previously caused embarrassment to either Mattel or to China.

A company such as Mattel needs to have a proactive online strategy that could meet the negativity head on, to help suppress those damaging rumors that could hurt the company both immediately and permanently. A company needs to understand what is being said about them in online forums, on blogs, and, if necessary, it needs to help blunt and diminish the negativity headed their way.

Read more…