A look at how companies try to reach potential customers.
Advertising
Dark money, super PAC spending surges ahead of 2018 midterms
Outside groups, such as super PACs and their more secretive brethren politically active nonprofits, spent more money during the first eight months of the 2018 election cycle than over the same period in any previous cycle. Outside groups have spent nearly $48 million as of August 24 – or more than double the $20.7 million the groups spent at this point during the 2016 presidential elections and the $18 million doled out at this point in 2014, the last midterm cycle.
The record $48 million should be considered the minimum total, however, given the FEC doesn’t require groups to disclose spending on ads discussing issues and those mentioning candidates for office outside of the agency’s reporting windows (30 days before a primary election; 60 days before a general election). Some of the usual suspects are fueling the record spending. Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited contributions from wealthy donors, contributed $22.3 million – nearly doubling the $11.8 million they had spent at this point in 2014. Similarly, the $7.4 million spent by politically active nonprofits is nearly four times the roughly $2 million spent by those groups at this point in 2014.
Complaints Filed Against TV Stations for Public File Violations on Political Issue Ads
The Campaign Legal Center and Issue One, two political “watchdog” organizations, filed Federal Communications Commission complaints against two Georgia TV stations, alleging violations of the rules that govern the documents that need to be placed into a station’s public inspection file regarding political “issue advertising".
FCC rules require that stations place into their public files information concerning any advertising dealing with controversial issues of public importance including the list of the sponsoring organization’s chief executive officers or directors. Section 315 of the Communications Act requires that, when those issues are “matters of national importance,” the station must put into their public file additional information similar to the information that they include in their file for candidate ads, including the specifics of the schedule for the ads including price information and an identification of the issue to which the ad is directed. The complaints allege that, while the stations included this additional information in their public file, the form that was in the public file stated that the sponsors of the ads did not consider the issues to be ads that addressed a matter of national importance, despite the fact that they addressed candidates involved in the recent highly contested election for an open Congressional seat in the Atlanta suburbs.
Why Tech Giants Like Google and Amazon Are Spending Big On TV Ads
In recent months, industry pundits sat up and took notice when online advertising giant Google started doubling down on its TV advertising investment. The tech company more than doubled its TV ad spend during the 2016 holiday quarter, laying out $109.8 million for ads promoting its Google Pixel mobile device. Launching Google Home meant a further $5 million for a single 30-second spot in January.
What’s remarkable is that Google is one of the most prominent TV spenders. The company built on digital advertising seems to know something about TV advertising that other brands don’t: In many cases, there’s just no substitute for it.
Billboard ads target Republicans who want to roll back net neutrality
An advocacy group is launching an ad campaign targeting lawmakers who want to roll back the Federal Communications Commission’s network neutrality rules. Fight For The Future, a pro-net neutrality advocacy group, bought billboards in six states to target Sens John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), as well as Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Reps Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Tom Graves (R-GA). The billboards show the lawmakers’ faces with text criticizing their stance and urging the public to call their offices.
Telemarketer Fees to Access the FTC’s Do Not Call Registry to Rise Slightly in FY 2018
The Federal Trade Commission has announced FY 2018 fees for telemarketers accessing phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. The annual fees will increase slightly from FY 2017, and are set forth in a Federal Register notice. All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the Do Not Call Registry to ensure they do not call consumers who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free, and organizations that are exempt from the Do Not Call rules, such as some charitable organizations, may obtain the entire list for free.
Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers. The FY 2018 Registry access fees will increase slightly based on a reevaluation, as required by the Do‑Not‑Call Registry Fee Extension Act of 2007. Under the Act’s provisions, in FY 2018 telemarketers will pay $62 for yearly access to Registry phone numbers in a single area code (an increase of $1 from FY 2017), up to a maximum charge of $17,021 for all area codes nationwide (up from $16,714 in FY 2017). The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year will increase to $31.
When Silicon Valley Took Over Journalism
Over the past generation, journalism has been slowly swallowed. The ascendant media companies of our era don’t think of themselves as heirs to a great ink-stained tradition. Some like to compare themselves to technology firms. This redefinition isn’t just a bit of fashionable branding. As Silicon Valley has infiltrated the profession, journalism has come to unhealthily depend on the big tech companies, which now supply journalism with an enormous percentage of its audience—and, therefore, a big chunk of its revenue.
Dependence generates desperation—a mad, shameless chase to gain clicks through Facebook, a relentless effort to game Google’s algorithms. It leads media outlets to sign terrible deals that look like self-preserving necessities: granting Facebook the right to sell their advertising, or giving Google permission to publish articles directly on its fast-loading server. In the end, such arrangements simply allow Facebook and Google to hold these companies ever tighter.
Digital News Fact Sheet
In the US, roughly nine-in-ten adults (93%) ever get news online (either via mobile or desktop), and the online space has become a host for the digital homes of both legacy news outlets and new, “born on the web” news outlets. Digital advertising revenue across all digital entities (beyond just news) continues to grow, with technology companies playing a large role in the flow of both news and revenue.
Digital-native news outlets are also adopting other outreach and engagement methods. Fully 97% of these outlets offer newsletters, and 92% have an official presence on Apple News. Three-quarters, meanwhile, release podcasts and 61% allow comments on their articles. These outlets are also highly likely to use social media as part of their outreach. Nearly all have official pages or accounts on Facebook (100%), Twitter (100%), YouTube (97%) and Instagram (92%). Far fewer (25%) have an official channel or account on Snapchat.
Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Center for Digital Democracy to FCC: Don't Weaken Kids Rules
Advocates called Aug 4 on the Federal Communications Commission to reject an effort by major media companies to “eliminate or weaken important rules for children’s television.” The NAB, Internet and Television Association (NCTA), CBS, Disney, Fox, Univision and others have asked the FCC to significantly reduce advertising limits on children’s programming. Industry commenters also urged the FCC to reconsider rules that require broadcasters to provide quality educational programming as part of their obligation to serve the public interest.
In comments filed Aug 4, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy called on the FCC to reject such proposals to repeal or modify the current rules. “The Trump Administration and the FCC should stand up for the rights of children and parents and reject this crass campaign by the broadcast lobby,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “The broadcast industry receives billions of dollars in benefits from its free use of public resources, including invaluable rights to the airwaves. It is unconscionable that TV stations and networks want to kill off one of their few remaining obligations to the public.”
Verizon’s new rewards program lets it track your browsing history
Verizon has a new rewards program out, called Verizon Up, which awards users a credit for every $300 they spend on their Verizon bill that can be redeemed toward various rewards. Customers will be able to get rewards such as “Device Dollars toward your next device purchase, discounts on an accessory, or partner rewards,” along with other surprise offerings and first-come, first-serve ticket opportunities, which all seems like a nice occasional thing to get for regularly paying your cellphone bill.
But, the new program comes with a pretty big catch: you have to enroll in Verizon Selects, a program that allows the company to track a huge chunk of your personal data. That includes web browsing, app usage, device location, service usage, demographic info, postal or email address, and your interests. Furthermore, that data gets shared with Verizon’s newly formed Oath combination (aka AOL and Yahoo), plus with “vendors and partners” who work with Verizon. Which is kind of a long list of people who have access to what feels like a fairly significant amount of your data.
What Steve Bannon Wants to Do to Google
Steve Bannon, the chief strategist to President Donald Trump, believes Facebook and Google should be regulated as public utilities, according to an anonymously sourced report in The Intercept. This means they would get treated less like a book publisher and more like a telephone company. The government would shorten their leash, treating them as privately owned firms that provide an important public service.
The plan is a prototypical alleged Bannonism: iconoclastic, anti-establishment, and unlikely to result in meaningful policy change....Americans will have to examine the most fraught tensions in our mixed system, as we weigh the balance of local power and national power, the deliberate benefits of central planning with the mindless wisdom of the free market, and the many conflicting meanings of freedom.