It seems every social network overextends its privileges with users once a year if not more. In the past the culprit has most often been Facebook, changing its Terms of Service and upgrading its platform to create just a bit more vulnerability for its users. It’s become an almost humorous pattern of overreaching only to retreat slightly in reaction to inevitable user outrage.
LinkedIn launched its own social ad network, which utilized users images and profile information in advertisements that would be served on the site, presumably to their contacts. LinkedIn really should have seen this coming — a few years back when Facebook did the same thing it experienced a user backlash.
What’s the fuss? Social network users expect the opportunity to select whether their likeness is used for profit. In both Facebook and LinkedIn’s case, users were initially opted in to the ad programs by default.
“The dream is still alive….” At least it has been for the past few NFL seasons for John Mellencamp’s variously-interpreted anti-War on Terror anthem and the Chevy Silverado ad for which it’s served as the audio backdrop.
But now I’m hoping to hear the voice of freedom to select new songs to synch with car ads this football season. Let’s face it, the “Our Country” ad and its brutal stickiness has in many ways ruined the past couple seasons for us football fans who don’t have TiVo. This year, perhaps we can deal simply with the Brett Favre soap opera as the primary spoiler to the season (and just the story, not his potential to bury my Bears).
What songs would you like to be spoonfed into your many hours of redundant NFL ads this season? M.I.A.? Madonna? Gnarls Barkley? The inevitable Brad Paisley? Metallica? Is an ad gonna break a single this season and then butcher the release of an album (as was the case with “Our Country?”)
Here’s to those pitching new songs for placement in ads likely to air during football games. I sure hope you landed something fresh and not-so-annoying.
At left, you’ll see Tom Lewis aka TomDog purporting to endorse a Facebook App. Sure, he probably is a “fan” of the app but I doubt he realizes that his image is being used in this manner on his friends’ sidebar.
There IS a way to opt out of your likeness being used in this paid ads for Facebook Apps, although it is not entirely easy to find the opt-out page.
Log-in to Facebook, go to “privacy” at the top right, click “News Feed and Mini-Feed,” then select the “Social Ads” tab within the module and change “Appearance in Social Ads” to No One. Screenshot below. Anyone else have issues with this?
I had to chuckle this morning when I revisited a year-old post about Lara Logan (it’s been receiving traffic lately in the aftermath of her appearance last week on The Daily Show) and found this John McCain for President Google image ad at the bottom of the page:
SearchEngineWatch points to a couple interviews in which Google Ad execs predict that both candidates Obama and McCain will depend heavily on Adwords bidding wars and that the Clinton campaign was inconsistent with it’s usage of Google’s Adsense and Adwords platforms.
According to Adsense’s cost-estimate tool, the keyword Obama costs an estimated $0.88 – $1.23 per click (CPC). So, essentially the party who wishes to advertise on a website contextually relevant to the keyword “Obama” would have to outbid other potential advertisers. “Barack Obama” scored similarly on estimated CPC, but the estimated CPC for “McCain” is $1.23 – $1.85 — signficantly higher, implying that someone is driving up the bidding to advertise on websites/blogs featuring the word “mccain.” It comes as little surprise to find Barack Obama ads at the bottom of my posts that feature McCain. Yet, in the instance of the Lara Logan post, I’m betting that the McCain ad was picking up the “Iraq” keyword and advertising on that (Obama-related posts appear to be plastered with pro-Obama Google ads).