Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Is ClickZ News' Retargeting Article on Google simply 'Beating around the Bush'?

It's not surprising that the occupywallstreet (global) movement have had enough of today's corporate world. (And If you haven't yet heard of those representing 'the 99%, do a pretty good job in chart form, in explaining a lot of what the movement is about: -

[Cough - Daily Kos: CEO who laid off thousands gets $37 million retirement package]

Lack of transparency can be deemed to fall under the umbrella of SPIN (Deceit), yet at times, the ignorance of the author penning an article, can often be apportioned the blame. Not withstanding the fact (and in a still, emerging world of digital advertising), that it was the CEO of Triggit (an RTB and DSP supply Co) who most famously said, that "ALL Warfare is based on Deception" []

But is it? Is selling a product or, service what you would call, warfare? Is that what is meant by 'caveat emptor', I wonder? (All about 'stitching a buyer up'?)  Perhaps we have reached a stage where any corporate use of a 'spin factory' will now, more than likely work in reverse. In planting what are now 'land-mine like', seeds - that can quickly blow-up, on them?

There's an Urgent need for Change.

'Occupy-ers' (representing the 99%) would be 1st to say that "win-win" type deals (where a  customer or, client gets what he/she is buying) can establish long lasting (repeat type) relationships, that benefit all concerned. Besides the (almost always) happy kind of messages that (more so, these days), are so often passed on viraly by satisfied clients. (Yes. Social media 'talks'.)

One would be entitled to feel that this is fundamental to most transactions, yet it's clear that a 'head in the sand' mentality (in this regard) clearly still exists

It still remains the case (with many Corporate stories told these days), thatIf you tell a big enough lie [or, DECEIVE].and tell it [or, continue to DECEIVE people] frequently enough, it will then be believed”?

My feeling is, with the advent of the Internet (in particular, social media) it's clear, that the times have changed and many people are so much more aware. (Watch for the15th, Oct,) - I'm sure the 'occupy' message will be a whole lot louder and become clearer.
( )

"Inside Google's Debate Over Search Retargeting" -

In the above ClickZ (Zachary Rodgers') article, the writer makes the point, that:

Google sits on a huge pile of search intent data, but does not use it directly to improve display ad targeting - a business the company admits is integral to its future. What gives?

Privacy concerns perhaps? Within the article, the writer introduces the fact that the FTC are currently looking into Google. - And, just as [Adotas tells us] Facebook’s Tracking Cookies have THEM in enough trouble, no doubt Google, surely wouldn't want to see themselves being involved, in any similar investigation.

< Page's reticence has been exacerbated by heightened regulatory interest in his company. The Federal Trade Commission is conducting an antitrust investigation of Google, exploring whether the company has used its outsized search market share (nearly 70 percent in the U.S.) to advance its own products. >

But what if Google (& Microsoft's Bing - plus any/all other search engines) were to fully explain to the FTC - that should they use an 'independent' middle-man - of their prized 'search intent data' (resulting in what becomes a kind of 'black box' where confidentiality can always be maintained for users wherever they may go on the web), wouldn't privacy concerns issues then be resolved? No?

Just the ONE independent company (that has a marketplace that's already been purely set up for advertisers to 'blindly' reach users - those encapsulated within or, across it's entire marketplace) & with full use of a 'combination' of all their (search engine's) "search intent data".

Where publishers in those that contribute intent data can then so easily be accessed by each other's advertisers and agencies? In what then becomes a, (that) "win-win" for all kind of deal, (Where Users can then get more relevant ads, Advertisers will then enjoy much better 'ad-spend' results, Publishers get much higher bids/payment for available impressions (monetised in all markets, across the web) and a 'bonus' for the Search Engines is that they all enjoy an 'added value', coming from their search engines.

This then becomes that one, huge global performance marketplace that Publishers could/would then confidently join and readily make their impressions available to be bid on, knowing full well that their own data would then, always be gauranteed to be treated as, being 'sacrosanct'? This shared data (& according to the ClickZ article under the heading - Search Retargeting by Another Name), is about 'a cookie that can be dropped [via search engines] linking the visitor to that search query, and ads can be served [from that point on or,] later in a person's Internet travels' throughout the Open Marketplace -.then providing an ultimate (with a 'one fits all' - totally honest), consistant data 'solution' - and of a 'win-win' kind that was talked of earlier in this post. A huge 'level terms' marketplace where advertisers get to all blindly compete for these performance based user impressions - and never ever have any problems relating to overlap or duplication, with their message.

Google's Advertisers on Facebook

Approval by the FTC of an Open performance marketplace (as out-lined) will then see Google advertisers on Facebook & vice versa -- in allowing Facebook's own advertisers to find users - who land on Google publisher partner's pages. Globally. And it is my gut feeling that this is where it's all heading. (I do like to think so)

From my previous post we were told that the cost of Facebook's CPC [targeted, performance] ads had increased by 54% in recent times.
... UHMmm?

Could this have been some kind of "trial", to then table before the FTC, I wonder? I mean, the Efficient Frontier.Facebook "Performance Report" does mention that just 16 advertisers participated and, that there was only 20M/700M of Facebook "users" who were being "tested". (Where there's smoke - there's often fire'?)

While Zachary Rodgers was asking the $64 question, (with his - What gives?),. I can't help but feel that he may be kind of 'front running' the above concept, as it could be said. - In my previous instapost I had 'put' a question to readers, that I will ask once more:

Does user Intent Data on 3 Billion Search Queries/day (extracted from both the Google/Yahoo search engines) constitute "user behavior", I wonder?


Yes ........ I love to speculate.  

Re; "the 99%" and "the 1%"??? - - Well ...this question has been asked before today, but... - - Want to put your hand up for your Children's and their own Kidz' futures?


ps; Of interest: Removing the 'You' In Online Targeting

pps; (Author Dax Hamman mentioned in Clickz article)

<Today, major brands invest hundreds of thousands per month on evergreen and seasonal campaigns in search retargeting thanks to the results that in-house DSP bidding technology allows for true keyword level granularity.  - - - Machine learning, dynamic creative and lots of experience means that version 3.0 is upon us and growing.>

And, todays (total) 'coarse of sales' on the Nasdaq Exchange. Impressive!!
LookSmart, Ltd.
LookSmart, Ltd.
NLS Time (NYSE:ET) NLS Price NLS Share Volume
15:54:30  $ 1.30  100
12:15:44  $ 1.3792   275
11:37:29  $ 1.38  100
11:12:02  $ 1.3216   2,000
10:27:26  $ 1.3799  100
09:36:55  $ 1.28   200
Read more:

Disclosure: Long LOOK