Moderator: John Durham, CatalystSF
Panelists:
John Vincent, Eyewonder
Sean Finnegan, Starcom Mediavest
Randy Kilgore, Tremor Media
Tod Sacerdoti, Brightroll
Mike Henry, Veoh

Kilgore: Pre-roll has gone full cycle. It got its bad rap, and now its come back and is very popular. It got a bad reputation because it was being placed in front of content that people weren’t sure had any value. Now that it is associated with better content, the value proposition is clear. A :15 second pre-roll in front of two minutes of content is something people are very comfortable with. Now we’re focusing on tying it all together on the back-end with advanced reporting.

John Vincent, Eyewonder: People thing about pre-roll as repurposed TV, but the perception should be about the placement. Its an increadibly powerful spot, especially ahead of premium content. Pre-roll is the most valuable location. Understand the opportunity and then execute against it. Don’t think about it as repurposed TV spots.

Mike Henry, Veoh: I don’t know that the location makes it more valuable. Part of our own research has shown that the more time people spend with a video, the more engaged they become. They are more likely to rate it, to send it to a friend.

Tod Sacerdoti, Brightroll: We don’t see any ad unit as dominant as pre-roll. The two things we focus on a getting quality content at scale, and can we get pricing at rates that people are comfortable scaling their budgets. I’m bullish on pre-roll

Q: When can we get sustainable standards?

Sean: Standard metrics is still key. The ability to bridge the gap with the people who are buying TV is one of the ways to allow the ad dollars and inventory to flow. You also need to preserve the unique elements of online video, like the ability to track purchase intent and filtering down the funnel. But we need to align these universes and understand that it is the same user across multiple platforms. In the digital industry, we tend to stay down in the weeds a little too much.

John Vincent: Until recently, it has been technically impossible for publishers to have the same tracking and interaction metrics. So we’ve rolled out a universal metric that Adobe and Microsoft are adopting.

Kilgore: I don’t understand why we even need to have this conversation. Before digital, we were still aggregating audiences across platforms and figuring out how they work together. Maybe its because in 2001 we needed to show how different and special we were.

Sean: My point is that we just need to be able to find a way to do more of it. But there are some fundamental hurdles.

Tod: The reason I think measurement is so important is that ads have ways of finding themselves in places that advertisers don’t want them to be. Campaigns tend to be optimized for a number of different metrics, but we need to be able to give advertisers the trust that the placements are way they should be.

Mike: High CPMs are going to need to be justified, especially in the short run. But if you wan to compete with the scale of TV, you wont be able to charge those high CPMs that will finance and support the industry. I’d expect that the CPMs will go through the roof because we can narrowcast our message to the audience that is relevant and measure its impact.

John: You can measure what you get on TV, and then all the interactivity on top of it.

Is the money following the video? Why aren’t we getting $75-$100 CPMs for targeted campaigns?

Tod: We need to show the efficacy. And the interoperability isn’t there yet.

Mike: I’m skeptical that the CPMs will be higher than TV. You could argue that TV is overpriced right now. The dollars will flow when the pricing is more competitive. But there’s a tendency to hold on to those higher CPMs.

Kilgore: I think the issue is slightly different. The money comes from the marketer to the agency for planning. And then the portions get sent to digital or other places, but that hasn’t really changed. There’s a reason that the money goes to TV first. They see the broadcaster’s digital extension programs, but they haven’t been exposed to the real online video market. Where the pricing will fall will be up to us to show the value of our audiences, our targeting, and our benefits.

Audience Q: We’re hearing that DRM is part of the problem shifting TV ads over to online.

Randy: We hear that about 10-15% of the time. I’m surprised at this point that people aren’t securing those rights.

Audience Q: Are the networks doing a better job building an ecosystem around their video content than the agencies are on a campaign basis?

Sean: I think the networks are odin ga fantastic job. My agency is there in lock-step with them and continue to work with them on multiple levels to find more opportunities. We’re big fans of pre-roll and buy it a lot, but we’re also interested in further, deeper innovation.

Audience Q: A pet peeve of mine is seeing auto play video on a home page. Are those ‘real’ streams or not? Would you buy them?

Sean: No. If we knew that was happening, we wouldn’t by that.

Mike: If we could prove that those units were less effective, it would be easier to weed them out of the mix.

What are you doing in your organizations to help people move away from the UGC perception of video?

Mike: What we’re trying to understand is the relative engagement and effectiveness of the different types of content. What is different about web content – not UGC – that is different from Lost of Heros online.

John Vincent: Risk vs Reward. You have marketers who are looking for an advantage. You look at costs and you look at downside risk. If the risk is greater than the incremental upside benefit, you just eliminate that from the buy.

What frustrates you most about our industry?

John V: I wouldn’t say frustrated, but I’m fearful about 2009 and losing all the progress we made in 2008. How do we learn from what we did in 08 and do more in ’09. Marketers can either cut costs.

Randy Kilgore: We’ve come so far, and we’re talking about a lot of the same things, but when you balance that against all of the great things going on, its hard to get frustrated at all. I’m more concerned about the things going on with Congress that could derail our whole industry.

Sean: I’m a bit more positive. In this tough economic time, I think we’re going to grow up as a business and see how we can advance while the pressure is on.

Mike: I’m also more positive and excited about what will happen in the next year.

What is an interesting website that you go to?

John Durham: SlideShare
Mike: Veoh obviously
Tod: Search for “retargeting” and see how often they find you over the next week.
Sean: There’s a new site called Facebook
Randy: SeatGuru.com.
John Durham: Hopstop.com

The Metropolitan Opera, through PermissionTV, is now offering Met Player, a new online subscription streaming service that continues to expand the Met’s use of digital media.

The Met Player will offer subscribers access to 170 full-length performances—including 13 operas shot in high-definition video, 37 standard-definition videos, and 120 historic audio recordings. Selections from the Met’s video and audio archives will be available to opera-lovers everywhere and at any time. Perfect for the audiophile and videophile crowd that classical fans tend to be (see DVD-A and SACD demographics).

In addition to online viewing, users can extend their Met Player experience by connecting their computers to HD TV sets and home-stereo sound systems. PermissionTV and the Met are leveraging Move Network’s technology to power the player.

Swarmcast, provider of multi-source video streaming which powers MLB.TV, TV Tokyo and a number of other online video sites announced today a new turnkey offering geared specifically toward delivering video for live sports.

Swarmcast for Sports offers media rights holders an end-to-end solution including acquisition, DRM, content delivery, comprehensive reporting and an open platform enabling codec-agnostic delivery. The offering brings the company into greater competition with Move Networks which delivers video for ESPN360 and recently made an announcement highlighting their recent success in delivering live video.

“Swarmcast For Sports fills a massive need in the industry by providing the technology and infrastructure to capture sports on the playing field, package that content with a variety of monetization tools and then seamlessly deliver to any broadband connected device” said Kelly C. Egan, SVP of Business Development for Swarmcast.

The major advantage of Swarmcast’s offering, like that of Move Networks is that the client-side protocol - a downloadable plugin enables the company to improve viewer experience for all users regardless of connection speed while at the same time using that network information to improve stability, do rights management, and get incredibly granular data on viewing and user interaction which needless to say is immensely valuable in advertising.

Unlike Move Networks which offers only a high end all-inclusive solution, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in most cases, Swarmcast offers broadcasters the flexibility to use their system to take advantage of any aspect of the value chain. By mixing and matching depending on their specific needs, the open platform offers a turnkey solution if desired. But it also allows media companies the flexibility to adapt to the fast changing digital media environment while minimizing switching costs.

Kevin Rose has posted a YouTube walkthrough of the new Qik application on the way to the iPhone. No word on when it will be released or how much it will cost, but it’s a pretty cool app that will put mobile video in the hands of millions of new users.

Now if only someone can figure out a way to pay for all that bandwidth…

Much hyped, much maligned video portal Joost is set to relaunch tomorrow, this time, sans download. Oddly, the logins from my previous accounts don’t seem to work, so I’m guessing there will be plenty of signing up again. Unfortunately, in my attempts to sign back up, I keep getting a “Something went wrong, please try again later” message.

Keep your fingers crossed for these guys. They can’t afford to botch another launch.

Looks like mashup makers Eyespot are shutting their doors. In an email to account holders, and on a page when users log in, members received the following message:

To Our Users and Customers

We deeply regret to inform you that Eyespot Corporation will no longer be able to continue serving you.

For our users at eyespot.com, we’re no longer allowing you to upload new videos. We’ll soon be providing you with a simple means of retrieving your uploaded videos and video mixes from within your account.

For our business customers in the eyespot video network, your site will continue operate unaffected for a limited period of time. We encourage you to migrate your video solution to one of our competing providers in the video mixing: Kaltura, and video publishing space: Fliqz immediately. We’ll soon be providing you with the means of downloading your community videos from within your dashboard at http://eyespot.com/partnerDashboard. Look for “Download: Click to save.” under each media thumbnail in your galleries.

We have spent three years providing over a hundred thousand of you with a unique video experience. We believed that by putting creative tools and rights-cleared media into the hands of influencers and connectors, Eyespot would enable social media and participation culture like no other company.

After playing over two hundred million of your video creations, we have to stop. After assembling possibly the most potent team in digital media ever, we’re now moving on.

Thank you all for being part of our community over the past three years.

Jim Kaskade
President & CEO

This is even better. The CA Democractic Party rented a digital billboard across from the Sarah Palin rally at LA’s Home Depot Center, where users can text questions to be displayed on the board.

To submit a question for our electronic billboard, text the keyword ASK then the question to the number 69866

For example, send to 69866: ASK You said you’d run a respectful campaign on the issues, what happened?

Keep your questions under 160 characters including spaces and remember to keep them family friendly since we’re showing them in public.

Watch live: (5pm EST, 2pm PST)

For anyone who missed it, Comcast laid out a new plan for managing the volume of its network traffic on Friday. (Ed note: Ben normally rants about this stuff, but he’s been swamped, so I’m crimping off an email from him.)

At first glance, it seems as if the new plan clearly violates the principles of net neutrality.

Comcast said on Friday that under the plan designed to give all users their “fair share” of bandwidth it would focus on managing the traffic of customers who are using most bandwidth when the network is congested.

It said it will use software on its network to determine if particular subscribers have been the source of high volume of traffic and will temporarily give traffic from those subscribers a lower priority status.

It said that when a subscriber’s traffic is assigned a lower priority status its traffic could be delayed if the network is congested but would not be delayed if there is no congestion.

Seems like they are punishing their users based on usage. The issues of usage-based pricing models has also been up for debate and tested in other markets by other providers, but will probably turn off heavy users. And what defines a “heavy user” anyway, especially in these days of P2P delivered legal content, Hulu, and streaming from Netflix?

However, upon further inspection and reading, the plan is much closer to what Vint Cerf has proposed - that usage only matters at peak times. If a network is getting close to capacity, and the top 5% are using more than 80% of the bandwidth, thus slowing down the entire network for everyone, the need to manage bandwidth outweighs the adherence to strict net neutrality.

As Ben said, “There needs to be balance between net neutrality and the need for ISPs to manage their networks to provide equal access. If it violates net neutrality then net neutrality is an impediment to quality of experience for internet users and needs to be adjusted accordingly.”

Well said, Ben.

Session Description:
When will supply of premium inventory become outstripped by demand? What effects will this have on the online video marketplace? Some advertisers would argue there is a glut of quality, premium inventory online. Some would say there is almost infinite inventory. Who is correct? Can premium video actually command a premium on price? Are video ad networks killing the price and creating a low cost marketplace for video that hurts the chances for growth? These will all be discussed in this session.
Moderator:
Jason Glickman, CEO, Tremor Media
Speakers:
Steven Comfort, YuMe, VP, Advertising Sales
Carrie Kelly, VP Ad Sales, Funny Or Die
Christine Peterson, VP Digital Media Director, Carat
Shoba Purushothaman, CEO, The NewsMarket
Lewis Rothkopf, Network Development, Brightroll

A: Peterson: The question isn’t whether or not it was produced by a professional company, but whether or not there is a technology to alieviate their fears of being associated with pornography or inappropriate language. They don’t really care about the resolution of the video.

Q: If the content were determined to be safe, would that warrant a higher CPM?

Peterson: Sure. If we could have the same reach, then yes. A consumer may be even more passionate about that content.

A: We also need to look at things in the broader context. The super-premium content is usually a byproduct of a broader TV deal, and not really a true measure of CPMs .

Christine: Some of the models for super-premium content is built around purchasing a block, as opposed to the majority of digital content which is purchased on CPM or per stream basis. While that sounds nice, it most cases, they are just repurposing their TV spots. We’re seeing frequency of 7 exposures per session, not just when they come back. We’re looking for 1-2 impressions in an in-stream environment. Overall, those super-premium buys have a negative impact. As someone who tried to catch up on a season of 30 Rock, I hope I never see an ad for super scrubber again.

Glickman: Publishers need to balance the frequency capping with their ability to make money.

Q: From a supply and demand standpoint, there is a lot of noise that all of the video inventory is UGC. When you look at the volume of video inventory on tier-two sites, often times it exceeds what you can find on top-tier sites. What is the roll of video ad networks in a supply demand and value?

A: Brightroll: You can’t possibly overstate the value of video ad networks in this environment. The goal is to supplement what the publisher is doing on their own, and help the agency get the buys across a broader array of quality publishers while avoiding the pitfalls that comes with trying to do that. But you’ve got all of these different player types, formats for them to deal with. As far is the publisher is concerned, you get very competitive CPMs, but not what you’d get if they sold it themselves. But what often happens is “The Spitzer Effect.” You get a huge spike in traffic, and then you have a ton of unsold inventory.

Carrie: As a publisher, there is a need for ad networks. When we did the Paris Hilton video, we had a 16x spike in traffic. But nobody has the chance to pre-sell something like that. What we need to figure out is how to have something in-house that we can use to take advantage of that, and work together to increase the efficiency. We need to open up the dialogue on how the publishers and agencies can work together.

The behind the scenes is that we have to think about the end user. As a start up, we’d rather sacrifice some revenue to make sure that user comes back to us again. We want the right brands because we are building an audience as much as we are building the site.

Q: Are video ad networks hurting the CPMs?

Glickman: I think most of us would disagree with that. For standard ad networks that may be true, but not for video.

Brightroll: The people who run the video networks have been there before, and seen what happens. So we are determined as both former publishers to not go down that road again. We only sell on a CPM basis to make sure that CPMs don’t go down.

YuMe: We give our technology to the publishers we work with, and 99% of the time it is better technology than they already have. And that gives their sales team the ability to sell formats and analytics that they couldn’t deliver on their own.

Q: When it comes to formats, price and inventory, formats obviously play a role. How do we see the formats play into the conversation?

Carrie: On the day I started at Funny or Die, we said that there will be no pre-roll on our site, ever. We have to go back to the user experience. As Christine said, she was so annoyed that she’ll never buy a product. So we need to keep the user in mind and how we protect that experience.

Christine: Just to play devil’s advocate, the advertisers spend an enormous amount of money creating a :30 second spot. Not to say that it is the end all and be all, but they are still working. They still drive a brand message, equal to and above the performance on TV. Users are less annoyed than they are with TV, and we don’t see TV changing their ad model. When I say to an advertiser, “I need you to spend more money for the web,” they say “Forget it,” and spend the money where they know it is working.

Brighroll: One of the things that is really tense right now is the :30. In terms of branding and recall, they are the most effective unit out there. So you have the opportunity to do more than repurpose what you’ve got on TV. If you are targeting techies, they know the benefits of having more RAM, so you can exploit that opportunity to spend the time with them because you can deliver a much more targeted opportunity.

Christine: Coming from a media buying perspective, there’s only so much you can do and say to get them to test the waters in the space. Now we’re seeing interactive video, and we can create ad units for the space. But we need to create more case studies to prove that they work.

Q: How do we feel about formats as they pertain to the content? YouTube said they wouldn’t do pre-roll but would do overlays.

Christine: its less about who created it and more about length.

YuMe: The biggest problem is seeing a :30 second ad before a :15 second piece of content. But it is rare that we get more than one piece of creative. But technically we have the ability to do that.

Q: If you can create content that is an ad, but also something that is content and can stand on its own, is that something we see as the next big thing or is it a fad?

Carrie: It will continue, but it is really difficult. If you, the publisher, are doing everything from the script to the talent to the editing, then we are playing the agency, the producer and the publisher and then we need to go do the distribution as well. It’s a lot easier, like with the Dove campaign, where the agency did it, and seeded it. We can’t try to trick the consumer.

Brightroll: Trailers are a great example. They are entertainment, they are high def. There’s a burgeoning market for literary trailers, where they hire actors to create a commercial. Its entertainment that meets everyone’s need at once.

Q: Content doesn’t exist just on one site anymore. How does syndication, and hyper syndication, affect price?

A: YuMe: When you look at the widget world, where content appears on a blog or on facebook, the issue will become addressability. Can you tell who I am?

Q: Do top-tier sites warrant a higher rate than the same content farther down the tail?

Carrie: yes. If you can buy a targeted audience, if you can buy them in that bullzeye, then you should pay a premium for reaching them in a premium environment.

Brightroll: If you are having your content associated with premium, adjacent content, then you should pay for that association. But advertisers don’t necessarily see it that way.

Why?

Brightroll: One is safety. Advertisers pay to be associated with your brand.

YuMe: Demand and true scarcity will play a huge roll. Auto content, business and finance, travel, that will support higher prices across the board.

Q: With regards to TV, there is a comparison of CPMs. In general, people think that online CPMs are higher than TV. Should they be?

Christine: No. We don’t have the metrics to prove that we should pay higher prices for online. But you can’t compare them. Broadcast buyers buy cost-per-point.

Brightroll: Broadband should always be higher CPMs than TV. You have a lean forward audience. On TV, you have a cost-per-maybe. On the interactive side, someone is actively engaged.

Glickman: We’ve heard that the CPMs on TV have been watered down to address that cost-per-maybe.

Q: Is it an issue of education?

Peterson: Maybe, but what we hear from TV buyers is that they turn on the TV faucet, and the sales come in.

YuMe: When I worked in TV, we knew that we’d get exactly how many number of calls into a call center, exactly what time the spot will air. TV can be extremely precise. But when you are looking at an ad that is in a video player, you are waiting for that content to play, and you are very engaged. With TV, the push has been on to move away from show ratings and towards commercial ratings, and that cracked about two years ago. They are getting close to figuring out who watched the ad vs. who watched the show. But if you are on the Web, you are one click away from engaging with the advertiser. On TV, you have to get up, turn on the computer, etc., You are much farther away from that engagement.

Audience Q: What about convergence when TV and the Web come together?
Brightroll: All of the set top boxes run off of basic IP video. But there is no barrier to getting the same kind of ads and metrics off of the living room TV than off the computer. The technology is there. The convergence has happened. Its just a matter leveraging the data.

Audience Q: What goes into CPM rates, and why are they so much lower for UGC? What are the other inputs?

Christine: There is definite value to the body of content that we can trust. A lot of the established rates for the super premium placements happened because they were bought by broadcast buyers without being negotiated. They were set without any real rationale. There is also a lot of value added research that can help you prove whether or not something worked. With a lot of the premium content, you can do a lot more than with UGC. You can brand the entire environment if you’d like, which has a much longer impact than a UGC environment.

Is the flip side of better ad targeting a nosier, intrusive marketer who knows more about us than we care to share? It seems clear now that digital media must confront and resolve its natural tensions with privacy and security concerns before the industry can move forward. The weird science of behavioral tracking now snoops into our browsing, search, shopping, e-mail, and perhaps even online social network habits and physical location. Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL are consolidating networks and technologies in order to link together many of these user habits into deep profiles that allow precise targeting with scale. Have private companies ever been entrusted with so much information about private citizens? Despite industry assurances that personally identifiable data are not involved, marketers now have privacy advocates, the FTC, and legislators taking a hard look at whether a new age of marketing science requires new levels of regulation. What hurdles will the industry need to vault? Could digital marketing really survive if the fully opt-in system that many advocates propose is adopted? Are the best laid plans of marketing science going to hit a wall called privacy rights?

MODERATOR:
Wendy Davis, Senior Writer, MediaPost’s OnlineMediaDaily
SPEAKERS:
Eileen Harrington, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Jeff Hirsch, President & CEO, Revenue Science
Frank Pasquale, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School
Ari Schwartz, VP and Chief Operating Officer, The Center for Democracy and Technology
Mike Zaneis, Vice President, Public Policy, Interactive Advertising Bureau
Q: For years, BT campaigns have collected data anonymously, and used it to serve people ads. If it is anonymous, whats the problem?
A: Ari: We don’t consider it to be anonymous. If you have data about someone over time, that isn’t anonymous. The consumers show interest, and the debate is about how much data is being collected about them.
A: Frank: The tailoring of the user experience is important. Users want to know they have control over what is being collected about them. Users should have a persistent opt-out opportunity to maintain privacy for as long as they want.
A: Mike: There is a danger in collected info about people. Just because you can track someone over time doesn’t mean that its not anonymous. If it is not trackable back to a specific individual, there is less to be concerned about.

Q: Aren’t there instances where people who have been identified?
A: Mike: Yes, but lets not brand an entire industry because there is a potential for that to happen.
A: Hirsch: The debate is about what is PII and what isn’t. And that’s where the line is.

Ari: But you are taking your business model and applying it to policy. I’m suggesting that there are business models that definitely have something to fear. And that’s where you start to run afowl of the benefits of interactive media.
Q: Who owns the data? And does it matter from a privacy point of view?
Hirsch: Who owns it is partially a business issue. Whoever created the data should own it.
Eileen: The issue is also about control, not just privacy. The issue in the policy arena is that the facts are obscured. Congress and the FTC have continued to try to collect really good factual information about exactly what is being collected and how it is being used. Businesses that do this are obviously reluctant to be forthcoming in ways that have been meaningful. And the practice is constantly changing. Trying to define what is PII is a red herring. We just want to know what is being collected, how it is being used, and how it can be combined with other data. Those are the questions. The longer the debate goes on without really good, candid, reliable information, the more probable it is that policy wont be made. There’s a game of chicken being played. The longer businesses refuse to come forward, the more likely it is that policy will develop that people will complain about.
Frank: but there is also an issue about what is information and what are business and trade secrets in order to conduct business. There needs to be a lot more computer scientists and engineers in order to get at the guts of this.
Eileen: The FTC has a pretty good record for maintaining the confidentiality of trade secrets.
Mike: The process the FTC has undertaken has been the right one, and has been very deliberative. Private meetings and town halls have been a deliberative process, and been focused on what the business model is and what is the right approach. We get in to trouble when we start to speculate what might be possible in the future. There are a lot of things that are possible in an open-architecture environment. We need to focus on what IS going on vs. what we can imagine in our wildest dreams.

Q: But who would have imagined that AOL would have released search data?
Mike: But people knew they were collecting it. They just didn’t expect that it would be released.
Jeff: My mother didn’t understand that AOL was tracking all of her searches.
Ari: its about user control. If you run a business model that is counter to user control, policy makers will look into it. I’m not picking a winner or a loser, that’s just the reality of the process.
Eileen: There are types of information that are very sensitive, like searching for information on health conditions and then serving ads against it. I don’t think that most people know much about how data is being collected and used, or that it is explained clearly in a privacy policy. The difference between online vs offline is the volume of data, and the potential of aggregation that simply isn’t possible offline. What has changed since we started looking at behavioral targeting? Everything. The volume, the usage, the techniques, all of it. This is a very juicy policy issue in Washington, and business models are going to develop in a way that give consumers clear notice and a meaningful choice or it is going to get dumped.
Q: There has been self regulation for years, so why are we still having this discussion?
Jeff: Not everyone follows the guidelines, and the new BT companies that leverage ISP data raised the issue again and proved that people weren’t following the guidelines.
Eileen: Meaningful self regulation means policing. There are excellent examples of meaningful policing. Most advertising policing is done through self regulatory policy with real sanctions.
Q: how do you sanction a company that says it isn’t going to follow that self regulation policy?
Eileen: If companies don’t comply, then we take enforcement action.
Frank: I have a lot of worries about self regulation. There are a lot of opportunities for a bottom to happen.
Eileen: The reason it makes sense, if it worked, is that the technology and practices change so quickly that the policy to regulate will be static and out of date.
Ari: We’ve had 8 years of self regulation, and we’re still having these problems. We’re going to need a backstop legislation. If we can get at a self regulatory model, and back that up, we’ll be much better off.
Mike: We have that already. We have that around email and children’s spaces. But it is a harm based model, and we haven’t come up with a definition of harm. But the industry recognizes that we have a relationship with customers, and we need their trust in order to have a business. That’s why we need a broader initiative than just the NAI.
Q: how do you compete with companies that don’t follow the practices?
Jeff: We see business models where the data is being used without a publisher’s knowledge. But that is a business issue, not a privacy issue.
Q: Does the technology involved change the standards? Does ISP targeting require different policy?
Mike: The same piece of data in the hands can be tracked back differently than if it is in the hands of another company.