Business Week
June 2007
Is there life beyond Second Life? Companies ranging from Walt Disney to Wells Fargo are seeking alternative virtual worlds with both greater security against hackers and control over such things as brand messaging and participants. After all, the Web-based parallel universe is a messy marketplace where you're as likely to see a bare-chested, rabbit-headed avatar trolling for adult-themed entertainment or vandalizing a digital store as a corporate suit leading a training session. And some companies want to target age groups younger or older than the average 30-year-old denizen of Second Life. more
Forbes
June 2007
Google Maps' Street View may just bring the search and advertising giant down to earth. And it has also led to a debate about privacy and the ownership of information that is as important as it is difficult.
There's been some buzz recently about the new power of Street View--a common example has been the picture of a cat sitting in the window of a woman's residence--though others have discovered women's thongs showing (fairly unobtrusively) and a potential malefactor scaling a fence. Moreover, Google's readily accessible aerial shots were alleged to feature in the foiled terrorist attack against Kennedy Airport.
In fact, Street View is only one of many ventures that the company has embarked on--as its mission statement says--to organize the world's information. In addition to taking almost continual snapshots of the Internet and feeding them into its massive search engine, it is scanning entire libraries around the world, as well as storing the text of all the e-mails on its successful Gmail service.
Legal scholars, privacy experts and philosophers will no doubt argue about which, if any, lines Google has crossed. Economics--my shtick--can't settle these issues, but it can shed some light on them. To begin with, it is helpful to understand what business Google really is in, and for that, we have to follow the money trail. more
Ad Age
July 2007
What's the next killer search feature? Privacy protection!
As unsexy as that sounds, the major search engines are now engaging in one-upmanship to defend privacy. Ironically, they're doing so to get closer to searchers, in order to deliver targeted ads.
Google kicked things off in March, saying it would "anonymize" log data so search data couldn't be linked to individuals, and the other search engines soon did the same. It also declared that after 18 to 24 months, records would be wiped out. But then the other shoe dropped: In April, Google launched its Web History service, which monitors all the sites someone visits if they use the Google toolbar. Millions do.
This monitoring allows Google to flavor the search results you see, to match your tastes based on what sites you visit. Web History records are completely separate from the log records, so they won't be automatically wiped over time. (Nor should they, one could argue, since Web History is an opt-in program.) But Web History records are also far more personal than the log data.
Still, privacy advocates and government agencies care more about log data. Under European Union pressure, Google lowered its retention period to 18 months. Last week Microsoft announced it would anonymize data after 18 months and Yahoo, caught flat-footed, declared it would anonymize after 13 months.
Of course, the motive here is to get more personal. Microsoft wants to deliver ads based in part on search history as you surf the web. To avoid potential backlash, it needs better consumer controls in place -- or at least some industry cover to hide behind. Yahoo also has plans to behaviorally target across the web. If 18 months gives Microsoft and Google cover, 13 months lets Yahoo be seen as 30% more private than the others.
On the surface, the search engines seem to be doing the right things with privacy. Underneath, they're getting closer to searchers than ever before. The moves may mean that the rich-search-profile records so far ignored in all these announcements will come under greater scrutiny and regulation. And that's not bad for advertisers. If searchers have trust that their searches will indeed be kept private, then they may be more willing to stay in programs that allow for more targeted ads.