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.

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…

This past Thursday featured what looks to be the first of several “Presidential Candidate Dialogues” jointly hosted by MySpace and MTV. The event, held at the University of New Hampshre, featured former U.S. Sen. John Edwards talking to and taking questions from and audience of up to 300 attenedees, primarily made up of Univesity of New Hampshire Students, MTV viewers, and MySpace users. Read more…

The other day Chris Abraham asked, via a comment on a previous post:

Are “transparency” and “full disclosure” the same, similar, or different? Are they peas-in-a-pod or can they be mutually-exclusive? Can you have transparency without disclosure? Can you have full-disclosure without transparency? Is full-disclosure a child of transparency?

These are good questions. It got me to thinking about what they are meant to be about. As an industry, we seem to have come to the conclusion that these are all important, that they are vital for the future success of marketing and PR. But sometimes key concepts such as transparency and full-disclosure become overused and get turned into buzzwords.

From where I sit, transparency and full disclosure are different.

Read more…

Great advice from WOMMA and the Search Engine Guide, “know your audience and to contact receptive bloggers and encourage transparency.” Bravo to WOMMA and the industry.

“Follow WOMMA’s ethics guidelines and this can guide you in a successful campaign to promote your new products, brands or services. The key is to know your audience and to contact receptive bloggers and encourage transparency.” Via Search Engine Guide