Marketing Pilgrim

Man, hardly a week goes by without the European Union getting after some Internet behemoth for bad business practices or invading individuals’ privacy, or both. Usually it’s Google on the receiving end, but this time it’s social networks that are getting scrutiny from the supranational regulator.

As Facebook begins testing greater and greater publicity, with user controls, the EU begins demanding more and more of social networks’ privacy policies—or, that’s what we think their vague regulations are trying to do, anyway.

There are several specific policies that social networks such as MySpace and Facebook, which both have large European audiences, will have to comply with: automatically setting users’ privacy to the highest level (giving users the option to opt out of that extreme level of privacy), allow users to limit the data shared with third-parties (including advertisers and applications), and limit the use of “sensitive information,” including race, religion and political views, in behavioral targeting.

Click here to continue reading...

It appears the Federal Trade Commission is continuing its sloth-like race to enact new standards for bloggers that don’t currently disclose compensated endorsements.

The AP does its best to make bloggers out to be "quite different" from the "journalists" that work for mainstream media–and therefore must all be on the up-and-up, right? So, I’ll spare you the fluff and cut to the chase:

New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

It would be the first time the FTC tries to patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online. The common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.

Click here to continue reading...

Almost 3 years after Italian authorities investigated two Google Italy employees–as part of an inquiry into how a violent video appeared on Google Video–criminal charges have now been brought against four Google executives.

According to the Financial Times, Italian prosecutor Francesco Cajani has brought criminal charges against four Google executives directly.

…David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, and Peter Fleischer, its top privacy executive, after footage of a disabled boy being bullied by other boys was broadcast on Google Video…George Reyes, former chief financial officer, has since retired from Google. The fourth is Arvind Desikan, a senior product marketing manager.

While the video sounds pretty heinous–four boys bullied another with Down’s syndrome, then posted the video to Google Video–it might be equally unjust that Google is being pulled into the court room. The European Union’s electronic commerce directive works in much the same way as US laws and basically protects internet service providers from being liable for the works published by others. In addition, Google pulled the video as soon as it was made aware of it.

Click here to continue reading...

How’s a modern search engine supposed to grow market share if it can’t rely on serving up internet pornography? </sarcasm>

Well, Google’s going to have to take on China’s leading search engine Baidu, without the help of those that use the search engine to locate naked flesh. According to AP, China’s main watchdog, the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Center, is unhappy that Google is not adequately conforming to its pornography ban.

The watchdog said that despite official warnings, Google was still failing to “filter pornographic contents from its search engine results according to China’s relevant laws and regulations.” It said tests found that the search engine provided links to a large number of lewd and vulgar pictures, videos and articles, though it gave no specific examples.

Google gives its typical “we’re working on it” response. “We have been continually working to deal with pornographic content, and material that is harmful to children, on the Web in China,” a statement from the company said.

Click here to continue reading...

It appears that North Carolina is about to follow New York’s lead and implement a tax collection scheme that will see Amazon.com shut down its Associates affiliate program in the state. Today, all Amazon Associates in NC received this gloomy email from the online retailer:

We regret to inform you that the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) appears ready to enact an unconstitutional tax collection scheme that would leave Amazon.com little choice but to end its relationships with North Carolina-based Associates. You are receiving this e-mail because our records indicate that you are an Amazon Associate and resident of North Carolina.

Please note that this is not an immediate termination notice and you are still a valued participant in the Associates Program. All referral fees earned on qualified traffic will continue to be paid as planned.

Click here to continue reading...

Just as Google is trying to secure friends in high places in the halls of Washington, DC it is hearing that its class action book settlement from October with various book publishing entities is getting the serious attention of anti-trust regulators. Good thing there are so many Googlers on the ground in the nation’s capital to try to douse this one, if they can. No one wants to be looked at as an evil big business these days trying to take advantage of free market opportunities. That’s bad for business.

According to the New York Times

The Justice Department has sent the requests, called civil investigative demands, to various parties, including Google, the Association of American Publishers, the Authors Guild and individual publishers, said Michael J. Boni, a partner at Boni & Zack, who represented the Authors Guild in negotiations with Google.

Click here to continue reading...

I’ve honestly lost track of the number of trademark lawsuits brought against Google, but how about we add one more to the pile?

Firepond is stepping up to the plate, but what’s interesting about its approach is not its claim that AdWords allows competitors to bid on its trademarks–although that is in there–but that the company is seeking class-action status.

In papers filed this week in federal court in the eastern district of Texas, software development company Firepond seeks class-action status on behalf of all Texas trademark holders whose names have been used to trigger search ads…this appears to mark the first time [Google] has faced a potential class-action suit about the issue.

Click here to continue reading...

Remove prostitution or face criminal charges. That’s what South Carolina’s Attorney General, Henry McMaster, threatened in a letter to Craigslist’s CEO, Jim Buckmaster. McMaster believes that Craigslist is “being used to facilitate harmful activities in South Carolina,” pointing out prostitution and people’s safety as his primary concerns.

McMaster even went further to accuse Craigslist of knowingly allowing their site to be used for illegal and unlawful activity, even after warnings from law enforcement officials. Craigslist danced around the issue on their blog, and they plan on speaking to the SC AG directly about it.

Craigslist has until 5pm EST on Friday, May 15 to remove portion of the site which “contain categories for and functions allowing for the solicitation of prostitution and the dissemination and posting of graphic pornographic material.”

More than likely Craigslist will remove the section to avoid investigation and the lawsuit, but do you think the Attorney General is right to demand this?

I can’t quite figure out why the Federal Trade Commission has decided to investigate Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s role on the boards of both Google and Apple.

Is the government truly trying to find a way to bring antitrust charges against Google? It wouldn’t be the first time, would it?

Or, is this simply the FTC "going through the motions" so as to appease those that feel Google’s too dominant, while using a platform–Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act–that’s rarely enforced?

I’m leaning towards the latter, for a number of reasons.

First, Eric Schmidt was recently named to President’s Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Sure, Obama wants to send a message that there are no "free passes" in his administration, but forcing Schmidt off the Apple board is hardly a victory for those against corporate conspiracies.

Click here to continue reading...

No, this power-to-the-people headline isn’t a belated April Fools’ joke. A Buckinghamshire neighborhood barred a Google Street View car from photographing its homes and streets with an impromptu mob.

The Times reports that after a string of robberies recently, residents had been on the watch for suspicious vehicles. Unsurprisingly, a car with a sphere of cameras mounted on its roof fit that bill.

Resident Paul Jacobs first saw the car. Jacobs went door to door alerting his neighbors, who gathered in the road. They blocked the Google car from passing and called the police. Eventually the driver turned around and left. Jacobs told the Times:

My immediate reaction was anger; how dare anyone take a photograph of my home without my consent? I ran outside to flag the car down and told the driver he was not only invading our privacy but also facilitating crime.

Click here to continue reading...

There are two things that are certain of 99.9% of bloggers.

1. We tend to write things that could get us in legal trouble
2. We can’t afford an attorney to help us understand libel laws

Public Citizen is aware of both of these certainties and has created a free document that should help us all stay out of libel courts: Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing With Libel in Mind.

Instead of wasting this April Fools day reading less than funny attempts to fool you, why not spend an hour reading this great primer on what you can and cannot say about a company or individual. I thought I had most of this stuff buttoned-up but after reading the guide, I’ve learned some things that I didn’t know. For example:

Click here to continue reading...

I think the moral of this story will end up being something about stones and glass houses. Apparently, Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently criticized the lack of transparency in the banking industry to the BBC. So what, you ask? Well, he concludes his point by saying “Things that are too big to fail, we want to know everything about them, so we don’t have to deal with this in the future.”

“Things that are too big to fail,” eh? I feel a flashback coming on.

You really want the government and the American public to know everything about businesses that are “too big to fail”? Really?

After the Yahoo deal was dragged out for months and finally killed over the DoJ’s scrutiny, after Google is pretty much one deal away from being sued as a monopoly and broken up, are you really advocating increased governmental involvement and oversight for large businesses? Really?

Click here to continue reading...