Topic
The plan: track our every digital move, and sell, sell, sell.
Why Google gobbled YouTube
Under the radar of all but the most savvy Internet users, powerful commercial forces are rapidly creating a digital media system for the United States that threatens to undermine our ability to create a civil and just society. The takeover of YouTube by Google announced October 9 and the 2005 buyout by Rupert Murdoch of MySpace are not just about mega-deals for new media. They are the leading edge of a powerful interactive system that is being designed to serve the interests of some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet.
Aware that social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube are attracting the key youth audience, and aiming to maintain their influence over future generations of consumers, marketers are aggressively seizing the initiative. Leveraging existing relationships with Yahoo!, Microsoft, phone and cable companies, Google and other large players, the advertising industry is developing an array of immersive online experiences -- like MTV's Virtual Laguna Beach and Studio.com's Go Deep -- that seamlessly blend relationships with products and brands.
Advertisers are harnessing technology that targets and follows Internet users on their journeys through cyberspace, collecting data and tracking behaviour. Virtual software marketing tools will be deployed across the digital landscape so that wherever we go, whatever we do -- e-mail, instant messaging, mobile communications or searches -- we will be immersed in enticing content for the lifelong sell: witness the work of Oddcast, a New York-based immersive media company, whose "conversational character products" represent a new medium for marketing to get inside consumers' heads.
'User created' ad machine
YouTube capitalizes on the growing proclivity of Internet users to be creators of information, as well as consumers. And as the network television and cable audiences age, advertisers are increasingly aware that "user-created content" -- be it a cute kitty video or clips from The Daily Show -- are key to attracting young audiences. But as the Goo-Tube model develops, behind each video will be a powerful connection to an ad, targeted to the user's online behaviour, as well as the stealth collection of personal data. As Ross Levinsohn, president of Fox Interactive, noted about his company's acquisition of MySpace, "the digital gold inside of MySpace wasn't the number of users, but the information they're providing." [Google, it should be noted, now also represents the interests of Rupert Murdoch's U.S. empire. In August, Google became Fox's principal online advertising agent for MySpace, Fox TV and Fox Interactive.]
Given this emerging marketing model, the U.S. broadband infrastructure may well become one giant "brandwashing" machine. The most powerful communications system ever developed by humans is increasingly being put in the service of selling, commercialization and commodification. And it will lead to an inherently conservative and narcissistic political culture, in which the interests of the self and the consumption of products are the primary, most visible, media messages. And unless we begin to challenge it now, the emerging digital culture will seriously challenge our ability to effectively communicate, inform and organize.
A handful of companies now dominate much of the U.S. new-media market. Five corporations -- Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest -- control the wires and cable lines delivering us broadband, digital TV and, soon, much wireless service. The viral "Singing Puppy" campaign from Nokia is an early warning that soon even our phone calls will become platforms for commercials. A few other major players -- especially Google, News Corp., Viacom and Microsoft -- have done the necessary deals to strategically grow their broadband content businesses (buying gaming sites and other programming to ensure they ensnare the key youth market). Even if the pending update to the Communications Act of 1996 preserves the core principle of network neutrality, the voices of these most powerful media companies are likely to be the loudest.
More mergers in coming years will continue the consolidation of old media giants with the new. It's only a matter of time before a handful of companies will own TV, radio and newspaper properties along with key online services. This further interferes with the ability of mainstream news media to serve as an effective watchdog on government and big business.
Preserving the public interest
Though the Internet was originally envisioned to serve the public interest, there is no guarantee it will continue to do so. Like radio, broadcast TV and cable, it will continue to be shaped by politics, telecommunication policies and the market. Web activists envision a medium that will always support social change and can serve as a platform to distribute diverse points of view. But if the economic relationships between the old and new media are allowed to dominate online culture, what guarantees do we have that the Internet will continue to be the "people's" medium? Events are moving quickly; media and telecommunications giants already have a powerful hold on members of Congress; regardless of which party is in power, it is unlikely our elected officials will deliver a federal policy that puts the needs of citizens ahead of corporations.
That's why I suggest that progressives begin to get real -- and get smart -- about digital media. While, in the U.S., reliable outlets include Democracy Now!, Alternet, Huffington Post and The Nation, the progressive community lacks a reliable well-connected broadband infrastructure that will deliver an array of news and cultural content to national and community audiences. I'm not talking about the wires and connections but about building a coalition of tech-savvy content providers that will deliver to PCs, TVs and cellphones a flow of alternative news and information challenging the status quo.
Imagine progressive organizations making smart deals with a variety of providers to carry this content deep in the heart of the digital distribution system. Imagine nimble, creative enterprises willing to experiment with new business models. Imagine having the courage to go beyond foundation grants and pledge drives and becoming adept at paying your own way. Imagine developing socially responsible advertising that respects personal privacy, is transparent about how data is collected and used, allows consumers to opt out of immersive experiences, fosters independent identity, builds community and supports social justice.
Foundations and the so-called Democracy Alliance have the potential to be the economic engines for such experiments and do the organizing necessary to patch together a content-challenge to the status quo.
As YouTube, Google, MySpace and immersive media marketing reshape the digital landscape, we need to be sure that public interest remains in the picture. And as tech-savvy progressive media find their place in that landscape, we must work together to build an online culture that not only pitches products but works for equity, social justice and the riches of a civil society.
Jeffrey Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. This article is distributed by Alternet.org. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
19
Login or register to post comments
ianmack
6 years ago
Comments on "The Goo-Tube Threat"
interesting piece but seems a little one-sided. i'm absolutely against media consolidation, but i believe the "goo-tube" takeover is a bit different. mark cuban was quoted as saying no one would be "stupid enough to buy youtube" because of all the impending lawsuits for copyrighted content. well google bought them anyway, knowing copyright battles would get messy. but they have the money to set a new precedent for distributing copyrighted content on the web, and it remains to be seen the model that wins out. it's quite possible they will open up the stranglehold big media corporations have on their content, if only to capitalize on providing the content themselves. that said, i can think of worse companies leading the charge than Google...
Stump
6 years ago
I think the tinfoil hats are on a little tight with this article too.
User-created content means less corporate control not more.
The genie is out of the bottle and the last thing we need to fear are developments such as these. There's no profit to be had in censorship... controlling the flow of information sure, but that is a losing proposition in this day and age.
Grumpy
6 years ago
Taking off my tinfoil hat, I think that there is way too much information on the net for the corporation to control. We can only read so much.
I read somewhere that over 90% of internet usage is for viewing porn! If this is true, we don't have much to worry about. I rather be playing Rugby anyways!
Putting my tinfoil hat back on again.
alive
6 years ago
tinfoil hat or not, this reminds me about 1984 where big brother was watching everyone!
Sure they are "only" watching maketing trends! says who?
Is this so much different than wondering if your phone is tapped?
Every time Yahoo has a new update, like magic, I need to go back and again remove the tracers they automatically put on.
At times i wonder if those updates serve any other purpose, than getting more subscribers to allow their moves to be recorded by default?
darcy.mcgee
6 years ago
Huh? Is this news? Google's been tracking you for years now.
It's how you get all that free stuff.
Ever noticed the ads on gmail? Ever noticed how they relate to the conent of your message?
For a good test, make some reference to kilts in your email...you'll get a bunch.
Ever noticed how I no longer use my gmail for much personal communication anymore?
IAMC
6 years ago
I tell you what scares me is that Google is a Democratic Party supporter big time. And as an interesting side note, You Tube was questioned last week for censoring a political add, that was rejected by the Republican Party. The add showed the inept way the Clinton administration conducted themselves with N.Korea by spoofing Madeline Albright and Jimmy Carter in their appeasement and naivety towards the N.Korean administration.
There was no swearing or sex in this production. There are many more raunchy videos shown on You Tube. This was a blatant attempt at censoring conservative thoughts.
FOX News is going through the same kind of thing. They decided not to show a political add that showed the ineptness of Clinton dealing with Osama.
I could talk about Google bombs, where a special interest group can flood a particular subject, with an organised blog against a particular subject, as the DMC did to the ABC production 'Path to 911'.
The mainstream media [MSM] is liberal, no doubt about it.
SharingIsGood
6 years ago
whether google is run by a kindly soul or not, if big brother really wanted to find out about any of us Canadians, the Patriot Act allows him to snoop through virtually everything that we have done that crosses into US cyberspace - every site we have visited, every email we have sent, every product we have purchased. Everytime we have ever been on a US server for anything.
IAMC
6 years ago
So big brother is America. What bank do you deal with? What video rental store do you deal with? Do you have a Safeway or Save-On client card. Do you deal with Revenue Canada? Do you have a library card? Do you have a life? Do you have relatives that have your email address? Do you even think about what you are saying? Obviously not.
dangrice.com
6 years ago
If you are concerned about your privacy, look into using a proxy server. If you have nothing to hide, why worry. (From a self-proclaimed libertarian)
Everywhere I go, I'm surrounded by advertising, marketing, branding. Its a choice I make for using a computer, watching TV, and being a geek. There are places I can go to regain my sanity, by following some Henry Thoreau, and going for a wander in the woods, a walk, or a wander.
I for one am a fan of immersive advertising and tailored advertising, I've long hoped for the day when I, a 20ish male, can enjoy TV and Newspapers without seeing ads for Women's pharmaceuticals, diapers, and items which I have no desire to purchase, nor would ever consider it. Perhaps I'm alone, and actually enjoy the advertisements in my GQ magazine and Snowboarding magazine that are relevant to me and reflect my interests. I know my preferences are being tracked, but I'll be glad when I'm not shoved irrelevance down my throat. Instead of searching for what I want, I have my computer deliver it for me.
The wonder of the modern web is its predictive and adaptive characteristics. The reason YouTube, Amazon, Google and others have done so well is that they have wonderful math formulas that look at trends and deliver information that consumers want. They don't waste our time, but get to the point. If I want a suggestion for a book, I can go to Amazon and search a book that I read last and it will make suggestions based on what others with a similar experience enjoyed.
You have the right to opt out of google, to not use Myspace, or YouTube, but some of us choose the Flickrs, the Web 2.0s out of the world because they always feel familiar...
kurt
6 years ago
Google, myspace, etc. are trying to sell me something, including partisan memberships? How shocking and frightening. Who'da thunk?
Passaglias Left Foot
6 years ago
As others mention here, being hit with targeted ads on the web isn't a big deal (and barely qualifies as a story). I'm a little worried about who the "we" actually is that Jeffrey Chester mentions in his last para.
"As YouTube, Google, MySpace and immersive media marketing reshape the digital landscape, we need to be sure that public interest remains in the picture. And as tech-savvy progressive media find their place in that landscape, we must work together to build an online culture that not only pitches products but works for equity, social justice and the riches of a civil society."
I'd rather have a few ad execs trying to target market than some sort of social justice committee deciding what should be on the web. And besides, it is really easy to dodge all ads and targeting using various browser plugins, script controls and firewall/IP screening. The big story about the Google deal for YouTube is how much they overpaid and how stupid they are. They are human after all....
rkewen
6 years ago
Remember when TV came through the air and we had to watch advertisments to "pay" for enjoying the content. Then along came pay TV, delivered by cable or sattelite dish. I guess I was kinda dumb to think that "pay TV" would mean no commercials.
I don't really mind advertising, even targeted advertising, in fact I think the 20ish reader of GQ above has a point. All the info collection is somewhat worrying, but ultimately our salvation might lie in the sheer size of the mass of info out there for those with undesirable motives to intercept. There needs to be an immense army of wheat from the chaff sifters. Remember these are the same guys that couldn't keep track of a so-called 9/11 hi-jacker
whose landlord was an FBI agent. Of course some folks think that grave error may have been no accident.
Stump sez above:
I think Rupert Murdoch and Faux News would disagree!
rkewen
6 years ago
I am totally amazed that this article seems so irrelevant to the readers of the Tyee. I mean, here we are, only united by the fact that we care about progresive causes, or not. But we are an internet community and there is so much working against us even having this forum to connect, yet all the usual Tyee posters can't seem to be bothered to even comment. Oh well, I guess the world won't end in fire or ice it will just disappear from lack of interest.
If anyone really cares a good companion article to this one is at Alternet today. It was written by Bill Moyers, perhaps one of the last of his species concerning Net-Neutrality and the danger that it is in. Here's the link:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=209476313&url_num=18&url=http://www.alternet.org/stories/43127/
if the link doesn't work just go to Alternet and check out the article called:Fighting the 'Imperial' Internet
The apathy is breathtaking!
jwstewart
6 years ago
The problem is not corporations, since they are just trying to sell something, and one can always say no.
The real e-problem is thieves, crooks, cheats and the wife of the former Mongolian President, who wants me to shelter $10Million of ill gotten gain.
I've been a repeated "victim" of identify theft, my credit rating has a list of loans dating prior to my birth, and several credit cards issued to me prior to their invention.
But since it was the banks money that was stolen, I don't mind too much.
However, what terrifies me is that they will figure out a way to steal my actual hard-earned money, what little of it there is.
Goo-tune is irrelevant, I want reasurance that web site with my kid's RESP is safe.
rkewen
6 years ago
jwstewart, the wife of the Mongolian Prez is not a threat to you unless you get sucked into her little trap for money. The fact is though, your financial information is online whether you bank online or not. How do you think the banks communicate with each other. This isn't even considering the fact that our dear "ledurs" in Victoria have put all of our personal medical, electitrical and who knows what else data under the "protection" of the Patriot Act in the "Land of What Used To Be the Free."
North of Hope
6 years ago
rkewen, Bill Moyers will be hosting a show tonight on PBS at 9 PM to 10:30 called "The net at Risk."
darcy.mcgee
6 years ago
Ok, there is just no call for that.
Madeline Albright doesn't deserve to be spoofed. She's hot.
Bailey
6 years ago
It's not about selling. Advertizing hasn't been primarily about selling since the days of the three word slogan.
It's about creating a designed environment where unspoken assumptions create false perceptions. Inside your head.
It's astounding success at influencing the real 'myspace', that is the space between my ears, has brought more money, more talent, more research than any other human endeavor in the last hundred years.
And it works a treat. I recall a cigarette ad, jingle. You can take Salem out of the country, but (ding!) but you can't take the country out of Saaaaalem.
The 'ding' was a little Pavlovian triangle bell. I think sixteen repititions in a 45 second repetitive spot in prime time. The commercial ended with the first half of the jingle, the bell rang and the commercial was over. Except inside your head, where it was not possible for a human brain, conscious or not, to not finish the jingle. Essentially, the last part of the commercial was played on your brain, instead of your screen.
That was 1966. They've gotten way better since then.
We believe things that are manifestly, obviously untrue, even ludicrously untrue, because our brains have been conditioned to perceive false signals and reason from false premises. By Rupert Murdoch.
It's probably a mistake to allow him to hide himself and still have access to unwitting human eyes and ears.
steerpike
6 years ago
Go to the News & Blogs section of YouTube and look at the most popular videos.
Theres a ton of left wing stuff there, people calling out Bushes lies, calling Bush a war criminal, etc.
I think if the left wants to Ghettoize itself, and make their own mini-youtube with left-only videos, all they will be doing is cutting out a huge audience for their points of views.