Monday, August 2, 2010

Microsoft Quashed Effort to Boost Online Privacy

http://stb.msn.com/i/72/6A17A1F9F01AF0A6A8E20742204A.jpg

The online habits of most people who use the world's dominant Web browser are an open book to advertisers. That wasn't the plan at first.

In early 2008, Microsoft Corp.'s product planners for the Internet Explorer 8.0 browser intended to give users a simple, effective way to avoid being tracked online. They wanted to design the software to automatically thwart common tracking tools, unless a user deliberately switched to settings affording less privacy.

That triggered heated debate inside Microsoft. As the leading maker of Web browsers, the gateway software to the Internet, Microsoft must balance conflicting interests: helping people surf the Web with its browser to keep their mouse clicks private, and helping advertisers who want to see those clicks.

In the end, the product planners lost a key part of the debate. The winners: executives who argued that giving automatic privacy to consumers would make it tougher for Microsoft to profit from selling online ads. Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software.

Microsoft's original privacy plans for the new Explorer were "industry-leading" and technically superior to privacy features in earlier browsers, says Simon Davies, a privacy-rights advocate in the U.K. whom Microsoft consulted while forming its browser privacy plans. Most users of the final product aren't even aware its privacy settings are available, he says. "That's where the disappointment lies."

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith says that in developing the new browsers, the company tried to "synthesize" both points of view about privacy "in a way that advanced both the privacy interests of consumers and the critical role advertising plays in content."

Microsoft's decision reveals the economic forces driving the spread of online tracking of individuals. A Wall Street Journal investigation of the practice showed tracking to be pervasive and ever-more intrusive: The 50 most-popular U.S. websites, including four run by Microsoft, installed an average of 64 pieces of tracking technology each onto a test computer.

It's rarely a coincidence when you see Web ads for products that match your interests. WSJ's Christina Tsuei explains how advertisers use cookies to track your online habits.

As online advertising grows more sophisticated, companies playing prominent roles in consumers' online experiences have discovered they have access to a valuable trove of information. In addition to Microsoft, such companies include search-engine giant Google Inc., iPhone maker Apple Inc., and Adobe Systems Inc., whose Flash software makes much of the Internet's video, gaming and animation possible. These companies now have a big say in how much information can be collected about individual users.

Many also have big stakes in online advertising. Microsoft bought aQuantive, a Web-ad firm, in 2007 for more than $6 billion, to build a business selling best ads online. Google, already a giant in online marketing, in September 2008 launched a Web browser, Chrome, that gives it new insight into Internet users' habits. Apple has launched an ad network, iAds, for its iPhone and iPad. And Adobe last year paid $1.8 billion to buy Omniture, which measures the effectiveness of online ads.

Executives in Microsoft's new ad business were upset when the designers of Internet Explorer hatched the plan to block tracking activity, say people involved in the debate. At a meeting in the spring of 2008, Brian McAndrews, a Microsoft senior vice president who had been chief executive of aQuantive before Microsoft acquired it, complained to the browser planners. Their privacy plan, he argued, would disrupt the selling of Web ads by Microsoft and other companies, these people say.

Mr. McAndrews was taken aback that Explorer planners seemed unwilling to accept input from advertising executives, given that Microsoft had spent $6 billion on a Web-ad firm, according two people who participated in the meeting.

Mr. Smith, the general counsel, says Microsoft weighed both sides of the argument in its debate. He says the company was concerned about the effect strict privacy features might have on free sites supported by advertising, including newspaper sites. Such sites, including WSJ.com, use information derived from tracking to sell targeted ads, an important revenue source.

Web browsers like Internet Explorer can play an important role in protecting privacy because the software sits between consumers and the array of technologies used to track them online. The best-known of those technologies are browser "cookies," small files stored on users' computers that act as identification tags for them when they visit websites.

Some cookies, such as those installed when a user asks a favorite website to remember his password, don't do tracking.

Others are installed on computers by companies that provide advertising services to the websites a user visits. These "third-party" cookies can be designed to track a user's online activities over time, building a database of personal interests and other details.

The Journal's examination of the top 50 most popular U.S. websites showed that Microsoft placed third-party tracking devices on 27 of the top 46 sites that it doesn't itself own.

All the latest Web browsers, including Internet Explorer, let consumers turn on a feature that prevents third-party browser cookies from being installed on their computers. But those settings aren't always easy to find. Only one major browser, Apple's Safari, is preset to block all third-party cookies, in the interest of user privacy.

"Only browser developers have the resources and large user bases necessary to create a privacy-friendly version of the Web," says Peter Eckersley, staff technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights advocacy group.

Because Internet Explorer is used by so many people—nearly 60% of all Web users—the 2008 decision by planners of the new version to make it easy for users to block tracking could have had a big effect on the marketplace.

At the time, the practice of tailoring best ads to consumers based on their browsing habits was taking off. Google was in the process of buying DoubleClick Inc., a leader in the placing and tracking of online ads, for $3.1 billion. A coalition of privacy groups was petitioning the Federal Trade Commission to develop stricter policies for preventing advertisers from tracking Web-browsing habits. Companies with stakes in Internet advertising were feeling heat to try to stave off government regulation by voluntarily protecting consumer privacy.

Microsoft also was trying to stem the erosion of its browser market share. Internet Explorer, which once had more than 95% of the market, hadn't kept up with competitors. Firefox, a Web browser overseen by the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, picked up more than 18% of the market by May 2008, helping knock Explorer to 76%, according to NetApplications.com, which tracks browser use.

The browser planners at Microsoft believed aggressive new privacy features could help differentiate the new Internet Explorer from rivals, according to several current and former Microsoft executives.

The planners, led by Microsoft veteran Dean Hachamovitch, came up with a concept for preventing consumer tracking. A new feature would monitor where each piece of content on a visited Web page was originating on the Internet—every picture, video or chunk of text. The feature would pay special attention to content from "third party" Internet addresses—addresses different from the one a user sees in the address bar at the top of the browser.

Some of that third-party content could be innocuous things like YouTube video clips displayed on the Web page, which viewers presumably wouldn't want to block. Other items might be tracking tools such as Web "beacons," snippets of code embedded in the page that can monitor the clicks of visitors, or even record their keystrokes. Users might want such tracking tools blocked automatically.

The Internet Explorer planners proposed a feature that would block any third-party content that turned up on more than 10 visited websites, figuring that anything so pervasive was likely to be a tracking tool. This, they believed, was a more comprehensive approach to privacy than simply turning off browser cookies, one that would thwart other tracking methods.

The group also planned to design the Internet Explorer set-up process so that it guaranteed the privacy feature would be used by most people.

When he heard of the ideas, Mr. McAndrews, the executive involved with Microsoft's Internet advertising business, was angry, according to several people familiar with the matter. Mr. McAndrews feared the Explorer group's privacy plans would dramatically reduce the effectiveness of online advertising by curbing the data that could be collected about consumers.

He heard about the proposal through back channels rather than directly from the browser planners, these people say, which surprised him given its implications. Some people who worked in the browser group acknowledge that they should have been more upfront about their intentions. Mr. McAndrews later left the company.

"We were worried it was going to cause a stampede" away from tracking technologies, says an executive who worked with Mr. McAndrews. "It was an act with the potential to reverberate across the industry."

The browser group and its manager, Mr. Hachamovitch, tried to hold their ground. They were reluctant to let advertising executives interfere with the new Explorer design, according to people involved in the debate. Microsoft said that Mr. Hachamovitch and other members of the planning group wouldn't comment on the matter.

The debate widened after executives from Microsoft's advertising team informed outside advertising and online-publishing groups of Microsoft's privacy plans for Explorer. Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer assigned two senior executives, chief research and strategy officer Craig Mundie and the general counsel, Mr. Smith, to help referee the debate, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy strategist.

The two men convened a four-hour meeting in Mr. Mundie's conference room in late spring 2008 to allow outside organizations to voice their concerns, including the Interactive Advertising Bureau, the Online Publishers' Association and the American Association of Advertising Agencies.

One of the attendees, Interactive Advertising Bureau Chief Executive Randall Rothenberg, says he was worried that Explorer's proposed privacy features would block not just the collection of consumer data, but also the delivery of some Web advertisements themselves. He says the features "seemed to equate the delivery of advertisements with privacy violations." He was especially troubled, he says, by the prospect of Microsoft turning the features on for all consumers, by default.

One other consideration: Some Microsoft executives were concerned that the preset-privacy plan might jeopardize support among ad-industry organizations that Microsoft wanted to rally against a proposed advertising deal between Google and Yahoo Inc., says a former Microsoft executive. A Microsoft spokeswoman declined to comment on that issue. U.S. regulators ended up blocking the deal.

The former Microsoft executive says he had never before experienced a debate at Microsoft "so driven by external influences and conflicting priorities to protect users" as the tussle over the Explorer privacy controls.

"It was a healthy debate," says Mr. Smith, the general counsel, with "well-informed views by people who are passionate."

When Microsoft released the browser in its final form in March 2009, the privacy features were a lot different from what its planners had envisioned. Internet Explorer required the consumer to turn on the feature that blocks tracking by websites, called InPrivate Filtering. It wasn't activated automatically.

What's more, even if consumers turn the feature on, Microsoft designed the browser so InPrivate Filtering doesn't stay on permanently. Users must activate the privacy setting every time they start up the browser.

Microsoft dropped another proposed feature, known as InPrivate Subscriptions, that would have let users further conceal their online browsing habits, by automatically blocking Web addresses suspected of consumer tracking if those addresses appeared on "black lists" compiled by privacy groups.

Mr. Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy strategist, says the input of outsiders helped Microsoft strike a balance between privacy and advertising interests. The browser, he says, "was a better product than when it came off the drawing-room floor of the Internet Explorer group."

Advertising groups say they were pleased, too. "They ended up with something pretty excellent," says Mr. Rothenberg of the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

IOC eyes rural market to expand its retail network



Foreseeing enhanced competition from private fuel retailers in aftermath of petrol prices decontrol, state-run

Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), will adopt a vertical growth plan to expand its retail network. This will be part of its plan to maintain market leadership position in fuel retailing segment.

IOC will now focus more on rural and semi-urban India. It plans to add 700-800 new fuel outlets to its existing network of nearly 19,000 stations in a year’s time from now.

IOC plans to take ‘rural market path’ as adopted by players in telecommunication, consumer durables and automakers among others. Private players will come out with their outlets mostly on highways and urban areas. We already have large network inside the cities. So, we will focus on ‘Kisan Seva Kendra’ kind of outlets

IOC sold 8,507 thousand million tonnes (TMT) of diesel through its retail outlets in 2009-10, while petrol sales were 5,647 TMT. When asked how much will be the growth in sales after setting up new outlets, the official said, “It’s little early to figure that out. We will know the growth once the positioning of retail stations is determined.”

Kisan Seva Kendra (KSK) is a retail outlet model pioneered by IOC to cater to the needs of customers in the rural market segment. At present, IOC operates over 2,700 KSK outlets.

KSK comes with non-fuel retail facilities such as convenience stores, which sells pesticides, vegetables, banking products and stationery items. IOC has tied up with Indo-Gulf for fertilisers, National Seeds Corporation for marketing seeds and agricultural inputs as well as alliances with Nabard, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Bank of Baroda for banking products. In addition, some KSKs have installed internet kiosks and communication facilities.

Setting up of single KSK outlet may cost anything between Rs 8 lakhs and Rs 10 lakh because of low land and real estate cost. However, an outlet in a metro or tier-I city may go up to Rs 1 crore or more.

Last month, Centre freed petrol prices from its control. Government will also make diesel prices market determined in the due course as announced by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. This has also given new hope to private fuel retailers such as Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), Essar Oil and Shell India, who are expected to aggressively come up with more number of retail outlets.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Job The Truth About a Marketing Job

The marketing jobs is on of the job titles that really explain what you are doing with the job you are getting. The marketing job will give you the opportunity to sell and advertise a product that a company is trying to sell to the consumer today. One thing with the marketing jobs that are out there is that you are going to be able to express your skills in what you are saying about a product and even how you are doing the presentation on the product that you are trying to sell for a company.

You are able to go to school to get a marketing degree so that everyone will see that you are qualified in what you are trying to do for a company's product. With the marketing degree, you are going to have the skills to work for a small and large company that is in the field of selling products or even selling their services.

No matter what the company is doing if they are in the need of someone that is able to make their product or service sound, great to potential clients they are going to want to get a hold of a marketing specialist. Then they are going to know that the product or service is going to be described right and is even going to be irresistible to the buyer.

The marketing job will be a little hard when you are first in the job market

. That is because of all the experience that the other people may have that is also trying to get the same job as you. If you see that this is happening you are going to want to put your marketing experience to the test and pretty much sell yourself to the companies that are looking for someone that is able to do marketing.

If you see that the company is not buying your pitch for you to be hired then you are going to want to work on your presentation a little more. That is one way that you are going to be able to work on your marketing skills that you did learn while you were in school. You know for yourself that if you are able to sell your self to a company then you are going to be able to sell any item or service that the company is trying to sell to potential buyer and clients.

If you are very ambitious and very energetic you are going to want to check into a marketing career because it is going to take a lot of energy and time to work in some of the marketing field that are out there. Plus if you are very ambitious you are going to be able to accomplish anything if you put your mind to it.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Advertising to Children

Children represent a great target for advertisers and marketers across the world. Not only are they easily swayed by advertising, they are great at encouraging parents to buy these products. If a child wants something in their kid's locker, they will prod and annoy their parents until their decorative shelving has what they want. Anyone who has seen a kid pester their parents knows the lengths kids can go to, and all it takes is a little suggestion from a single advertisement to send them on their way.

The food company of McDonald's at one stage advised employees to specifically target children. In a campaign titled, "Kid's are the Star" employees were encouraged to pay special attention to the children in the restaurant, and make sure they have a positive experience while they are eating at McDonald's. The reason for this, naturally, was not because the McDonald's corporation cares deeply about the well-being of children everywhere, but that the pester-power that children have is extraordinarily effective at bringing parents back.

The way that best advertisers target children is simple. Big, bright lights, happy people and animated characters are all that is needed to encourage children into thinking a certain product is something they want. This is because children are so naïve; they genuinely believe what an advertiser tells them about the place they are selling. They do not realise that Ronald McDonald is just a guy in a costume and make-up, and that out the back of every McDonald's are a bunch of kids working in uncomfortable conditions for low pay.

It brings up a real moral dilemma for those who make the advertising decisions, or at least it should. While manipulating children into believing lies, especially encouraging them to eat unhealthy foods, is obviously bad, the money that can potentially be made is just so good. How do you say no to an opportunity to have such a wide audience of children, who act as advertisers themselves when they encourage other children and their parents to use a certain product?

One of the problems with today's society is we think in terms such as those used in the paragraph above. There is a belief that the impact on children in experiencing damaging media can be "weighed up" against how much money can be made and power can be gained. When thinking like this is involved, it is no wonder the world of today is rife with so many problems.

The superficial reactions they get from eating McDonald's last about as long as they are at the place. This is not a coincidence; it is a deliberately created ploy. The goal is that kids arrive and consume high amounts of caffeine, salt, sugar and fat. Their body gives an instant positive reaction, and by the time they're "coming down", you're on the way home.

If you want what's best for your kids, keep them away from the television as much as you possibly can. It is bad for their brain, and ultimately bad for your wallet! Take them outside, not to McDonald's but to the beach or somewhere they can enjoy life.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Online Marketing Methods - Cost Per Action Video Advertising

Internet marketing is a network of advertising techniques that bears a multitude of technical jargon. This is the main reason why common internet users are unable to derive optimum advantage of its commercial benefits. There are many online businessmen who make millions out of a single idea, but they take the pains to circumvent the marketing barriers by their own will and interest to learn different aspects of this fast evolving system.

Currently, Cost Per Action or CPA video advertising has emerged as one of the most popular online advertising system. It is actually a pricing model where the advertisers pay the medium only when some action in their favor is recorded. It is a more sensible form of advertising pricing system when compared to Pay Per Click and Pay Per View advertisement models.

Most of the direct-response ads are often CPA ads because the advertisers find the method more feasible than any other alternative strategy. Many companies have introduced CPA video advertising to support and enhance their online marketing activities. Also, many affiliate marketers use this method to develop their own marketing endeavors. And many of them are finding the system more profitable and economical than other advertising methods. They reach this conclusion by comparing the cost effectiveness exhibited by each type of advertising. Although, CPA advertising is considered as more targeted form of marketing, it can be expensive in certain cases. The reason is simple. CPA advertisers have to pay more as compensation for every action than that demand for Pay Per Click or Pay Per View advertisements.

In CPA video advertising, the advertiser has to pay when the viewer or audience takes some kind of action after watching their CPA ads. The action depends on the content and purpose of the ad. Some companies or advertisers make payments on the basis of Cost Per Lead. Here the cost is counted on the basis of each business lead acquired by way of an ad. For instance, if an interested viewer leaves his or her name and email address or phone number and other details in the form provided by the advertiser, it is recorded as an effective lead. Cost Per Lead can be viewed as a different form of Cost Per Action or something that comes under CPA advertising.

The abbreviation CPA is also used in the same context for something known as Cost Per Acquisition. It is also a powerful internet marketing tool, wherein the advertisers pay only if someone acquires or purchases the product or service promoted through a CPA ad. Cost Per Acquisition is a more filtered pricing system and the cost for each acquisition is far higher than that quoted by Cost Per Action advertisin

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Marketing vs. Advertising: What's the Difference?

http://api.ning.com/files/THxun1RsLDGj3pMe4krQlw1WQ7A7l2NMJSU1KIKFzoyAk37XyVuna-TK3dXcLTIvtrAlpnC6RMwF0vYQ7MBDVurguTZQD-rR/marketing.jpg

You will often find that many people confuse marketing with advertising or vice versa. While both components are important they are very different. Knowing the difference and doing your market research can put your company on the path to substantial growth.

Let's start off by reviewing the formal definitions of each and then I'll go into the explanation of how marketing and advertising differ from one another:

Advertising: The paid, public, non-personal announcement of a persuasive message by an identified sponsor; the non-personal presentation or promotion by a firm of its products to its existing and potential customers.

Marketing: The systematic planning, implementation and control of a mix of business activities intended to bring together buyers and sellers for the mutually advantageous exchange or transfer of products.

After reading both of the definitions it is easy to understand how the difference can be confusing to the point that people think of them as one-in-the same, so lets break it down a bit.

Advertising is a single component of the marketing process. It's the part that involves getting the word out concerning your business, product, or the services you are offering. It involves the process of developing strategies such as ad placement, frequency, etc. Advertising includes the placement of an ad in such mediums as newspapers, direct mail, billboards, television, radio, and of course the Internet. Advertising is the largest expense of most marketing plans, with public relations following in a close second and market research not falling far behind.

The best way to distinguish between advertising and marketing is to think of marketing as a pie, inside that pie you have slices of advertising, market research, media planning, public relations, product pricing, distribution, customer support, sales strategy, and community involvement. Advertising only equals one piece of the pie in the strategy. All of these elements must not only work independently but they also must work together towards the bigger goal. Marketing is a process that takes time and can involve hours of research for a marketing plan to be effective. Think of marketing as everything that an organization does to facilitate an exchange between company and consumer.