Aspen, CO — Fortune Brainstorm Tech

Barry Diller made an impassioned plea to the nation’s technology leaders to join the fight for net neutrality. Speaking at the Fortune Magazine Brainstorm Tech Conference at the Aspen Institute, Diller, CEO of Interactive Corporation (IAC) took on the big telco’s desire to control the gateways to the Internet.

Interviewed by Fortune Managing Editor, Andy Serwer Diller went on to declare his “love” for the iPad. He added that he did not love his iPad as much as his dog.

Diller believes that over time, the pay wall concept currently deployed by The New York Times will work. Media companies should be experimenting with all platforms and pay models. Diller also took on google over it’s market share.

Finally, answering a question about TV, he believes that broadcast media will begin to be available on a paid basis.

They did it to music – now what about TV? ReadWriteWeb reports that the BBC wants to prevent piracy, ad removal, and illegal copying by encoding all listing metadata and using a compression
algorithm to limit playing abilities. In other words – DRM for TV content.

Danny O'Brien gets into the details of the "crazy" plan over on the Electronic Frontier Foundation blog, but the gist is this: the rightsholders want copy-protection technology built into every TV receiver device, and make manufacturers sign an agreement that would ultimately limit their ability to innovate, for fear of violating the "metadata compression parameter" license.

Rewind 5 years and change continents: here in the US of A the same measure was suggested by the FCC and the Motion
Picture Association of America, trying to force HD encryption on digital television, before we transitioned from analog. The court wasn't convinced, and the idea was thrown out.

Even if they had succeeded, the rise of open source TV services like Boxee means that people could watch protected programs at home, just not via their HC receiver. A Boxee spokesperson remarks, "The way for content owners to make money is to cater to their audience,
not to stifle innovation by creating a DRM racket like what's proposed
here." Square off, guys.

When I saw this headline – "See Dmitry Run, Ski, and Video Blog," I got all excited, thinking that it was going to be the famous phone messsage Dmitri, which if you are in the dating game and haven't heard of him, you are truly missing out. But the actual news is about Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who apparently is a very cool video blogger – even on skiis.

Video and social media has a "significant role" to play in connecting
people and allowing them to engage with each other – and for the Russian
Government it is a way of letting its citizens inside, letting them see
Medvedev as a real person and of having a dialogue with him, writes Social Media Today.

Is that the role of online video with politics? Ever since Obama starting addressing the nation in weekly YouTube addresses, we've been wondering how politicans plan to use the medium. Congress just signed up with YouTube to have its own channels for Senators and Representatives, though so far the platform seems to be just another soapbox for them to promote agendas, and content has been less than popular, with view counts for any given video remaining in the low hundreds, MarketingVOX reports.

The British monarchy and Queen Rania of Jordan both use online video to communicate with their public, with the latter winning YouTube's first-ever Visionary Award last year.

However, given the relatively one-way nature of video, for politics, we're thinking social networks may be the way to go. The kind of levels of engagement and reach that political leaders can get from a place like Facebook (made obvious during the election) still far outweigh the positives of a straight-laced video.

Though the television networks were likely the main source of news about the election yesterday, some went to the internet to find the score: Below, the top 15 most searched terms at 2pm Central Time on Nov. 4 (via Mediapost):

1. exit polls 2008
2. black panthers
3. election results 2008
4. irina shayk
5. early voting exit polls
6. voting results
7. election update
8. who s winning the election
9. poll results
10. election polls
11. poll results obama vs mccain
12. election news
13. election returns
14. election coverage
15. chick fil a

Stretching out the data to encompass the three months leading up to Election Day, we can see that popular political personas were, as expected Obama, Palin, and McCain – in that order. Coming in at No. 4 and 6, however, were non-candidates but totally kickass people, Tina Fey and Chuck Norris. Respectively.

Among the top poltiical topics, according to Google: the presidential debate, Social Security, polls, voter registration, gas and oil prices, FDIC, electoral college, and – my favorite – "Socialism." What exactly are you saying, America?

As far as sources are concerned, we are still turning towards classics like Gallup, CNN Politics, Daily Kos, and the Drudge Report (No. 1). The Huffington Post came in second, Real Clear Politics fourth. Good ol' Rush Limbaugh is still on that list, curmudgeoning himself to the No. 6 spot. (I don't really know if it makes sense as a verb, but it sounds good, yah?)

Are they swearing off China? Not remotely. It's too juicy to pass up.

But the new guidelines – drawn up by "leading Internet companies" along with human rights organizations, investors and academics – do lay out some do's and don'ts of the sharing of personal information in these emerging markets, the AP reports.

Only this time around, it's not with private companies who want you to buy their stuff, but governments that want to shut you up. Okay, maybe not you. But someone equally as opinionated – who is not as fortunate to live in a country as rabidly defensive about free speech.

The Global Network Initiative guidelines direct companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft to…

1. Consider human rights issues ahead of time as they decide which countries to operate in and what services to offer.
2. Train employees and develop mechanisms to resolve conflicts.
3. Require written requests for information, along with the names and titles of the authorizing officer.

…Ultimately figure out on their own which "practices" to change in order to comply. Because the guidelines are just, well, lines in the sand, and do not ban any specific
conduct, many of them are open to interpretation – and they are certainly not enforced by any third party.

Google and Yahoo have come under the gun for some of their practices in China – Google for censoring about 2 percent of its search results and Yahoo for turning over emails that led to the imprisonment of two Chinese journalists – though the repercussions of that gaff have already been settled, wrote Wired.

Check out the first in Adotas’s series on "How the Internet Changed Everything," or, the role of online culture, journalism, commerce, and advertising in the upcoming presidential election.

Part deliberative town square, part raucous debating society, part
research library, part instant news source, and part political comedy
club, the Internet connects voters to a wealth of content and
commentary about politics.

Might be worth peeking into, to see what they have to say. In the meantime, we’ll just keep reading HuffPo.

And maybe Tina Brown’s new "beastly" online pub, which claims to "sift, sort, and curate. "We’re as much about what’s not there as what is," she wrote. My god, the woman is just as scary as she was when she took over The New Yorker and fired all the good writers.

For a rundown on how social media is really affecting politics, see MarketingVOX’s "Social Media’s Election Frenzy: Resources, Memes, and Stats."

So, Obama has chosen Sen.
Joe Biden as his running mate – and told the world about it via text message,
three million, actually, according to estimates from the Wall Street Journal.

An interesting calculation,
done by Silicon Alley Insider: if Obama spent between 5-10 cents per message,
that means he spent somewhere between $1.3 and $1.8 million to send it out. Why
would you do that? Is it a final door slamming on Clinton, as a rebuttal to her
controversial 3am "phone call" ad campaign (the text was sent at 3am
on Friday). Or as a way to snub the media – who got a hold of the news anyway,
but certainly not through official channels.

Or did he feel the need to
support the wireless industry, who doubtless were the ones who profited the
most from the deal? If you’re trying to get behind the "little guy,"
Obama, stop giving your money to AT&T and Verizon.

Whatever it is, it reminds
us of the power of new media for this election. Imagine getting a text saying "VOTE!"
on election day. And knowing, too, that those who sign up to receive campaign
updates are likely to be more gung-ho than the next guy, he’s tapping into a
great word-of-mouth resource: the Young. the politically Passionate. the
Digitally Connected.

I would just have loved to
see the look on the face of whoever actually texted in the word "Biden"
- according to T9, the man is "Aged." Don’t they mean,
"Mature?"

Barack Obama is the clear leader – in television advertising spend, at least. MarketingCharts reports that the Obama campaign is putting its money where the viewers are in Ohio and Texas: on TV. 

Although his television spots ran only in February, Obama’s advertising
far outpaced Clinton’s and McCain’s in both Ohio and Texas: His spots
account for 63% of the 6,499 presidential campaign advertisements that
have aired on television in Ohio since the start of the new year.

And in the mags: check out this story from the Advocate about Obama’s gay media buys, reaching out to communities in the  four largest LGBT markets of the upcoming primary states
– Columbus, Cleveland, Dallas, and Houston. Eric Stern, a member of the campaign’s LGBTsteering committee, calls it the "icing on the cake" of the campaign’s gay outreach, trying to head Hillary off at the pass in gaining this important segment’s support.

And last but not least: you’ve got to take note of the latest Obama video Hope Changes Everything on YouTube. It’s not sponsored officially by the campaign itself but rather the personal project (not unlike the "Yes We Can" video) of Obama supporters – user-generated content that is making the rounds among the enthusiastic, bright-eyed & bushy-tailed Barack-obsessed. (No, I’m not quite the latter, but those first ones are spot on. What can I say? I fit the demographic of his most adamant supporters. And, I think he’s fabulous.)

But here’s the big difference: the creators are not a bunch of teenagers, the "I’ve Got a Crush" Obama Girl, nor are they Madison-Avenue agencies with a big budget or even A-list celebrities like Will.I.Am and Scarlet Johansson. They’re creative professionals with talent, skills, and belief in a cause. Music video director Jesse Dylan and Deutsch LA’s Eric Hirshberg and Tom Dunlap.

Watch it. Love it.   Pass it on.
 

AdWeek reports
that the upcoming presidential race will cause political ad spend to reach
$3.03 billion during the 2008 election cycle. Although broadcast TV still
weighs in as the biggest channel, with 51.3 percent of the total, there will be a noticable shift
away from TV, into more targeted methods like PR, promotions, event
marketing and the Internet. In fact, the PQ Media study
predicted that Internet ad spending will show the fastest growth during the
2008 campaign, with an estimated 84 percent increase from 2006.

But wait. Maybe we’re not quite ready for the revolution. Diane
Mermigas of Mediapost opines:

Despite
consumers’ rapid adoption of specific interactive platforms and devices,
politicians and advertisers are still learning how to make the most of micro
targeting and rallying the forces on the Net. While a handful of presidential
hopefuls aggressively peddle their platforms online, most campaigning still
happens face-to-face, on the road or on television.

And they’re
still sort of waiting for it to get easier – or at least proven effective. Going beyond YouTube and political blogs and forums is going to be essential. Until the Internet becomes more of a messaging tool, “candidates will be a little gun shy to push a
bunch of money out to the Web,” said Evan Tracey, founder and COO of Campaign
Media Analysis Group.

Another problem
is we can’t measure year by year, especially considering that this year is such
a free-for-all, with such a large number of candidates. Jason Chervokas of
Social Media Club wrote
last spring of the boon in broadcast ads, “…my guess is that it will be the
last of these such national election cycles. A comparison of the online
political ad spend vs. TV in 2008 and 2012 will tell the tale.”

The clock is ticking…

Thought getting tagged by the SF DPT was a downer? AdTeractive got slammed with a $650,000 fine by the FTC for "tricking" consumers
into signing up at third-party sites by offering
"free" goods, like laptops, iPods, flat and other merchandise. They operated under the domains of FreeGiftWorld.com and SamplePromotionsGroup.com.

One hundred (million) dollar prize goes to the person who scours the FTC’s Dot Com Disclosures for the exact clause that they used to smack down Adteractive’s activities. Note, however, that this blog does not fall under the category of "advertising" and therefore does not have to "tell the truth and not mislead consumers" nor do we have to substantiate claims. Translation: You.Don’t.Get.Any.Money.

So, add this to the FTC’s other online concerns, such as user tracking and privacy issues, web analytics, behavioral targeting, and so on. Should they regulate more? Consumerists say yay, while Microsoft, Yahoo, and those other big kids say nay.

Next question — When is the FTC going to crack down on the Free Credit Report folks?