Digital Media

Facebook has released a demographic study of its 350 million users. The upshot: Facebook isn't just for white and Asian people anymore.

In fact, Facebook's demographics resemble the base of Internet users. That finding makes a lot of sense because Facebook, like AOL way back when and Google today, represents a proxy for the Internet and population overall. If you're on the Internet you've probably stumbled on Facebook. In the early days of Facebook, the site was dominated by white and Asian folks.

In a note, Facebook walks through its analysis and how it compared surnames of users with U.S. Census Bureau. By analyzing surnames, Facebook cooks up a racial breakdown over the history of the site.

Read more of "Facebook's audience is diverse (and ready to be carved up for advertisers)" at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

The new AOL.com.

As promised, AOL turned on its redesigned homepage Thursday in conjunction with CEO Tim Armstrong's ceremonial ringing of the New York Stock Exchange opening bell. The company formally spun off from parent company Time Warner this week and is now traded publicly, and to commemorate the media-centric rebirth, it enlisted branding agency Wolff Olins to give it a spiffy new look.

Wolff Olins describes the rebranding as "deliberately disruptive and deliberately unlike what is being done by other online media businesses...designed for an environment where media is no longer broadcast, but rather is discovered through fragmented, non-linear conversations." Deep.

'Will you be my friend?'

(Credit: AOL)

Well, the new AOL.com looks pretty much the same as the old AOL.com, except that in addition to the new logo, I'm given the option to navigate through "themes" featuring various drawings and photos. Conveniently, the color scheme of the page changes to match the selected image. By default, I was offered an adorable smiling blue monster peeking out at me from behind all that shiny content that AOL believes will save not only its brand, but the entire beleaguered media industry.

The same fuzzy monster image was hanging on a massive banner outside the New York Stock Exchange on Wednesday night, when AOL invited employees, advertising and marketing types, and the occasional celebrity (OMG! P. Diddy was there!) to a glitzy party on the trading floor (in which a significant amount of financial-industry machinery was likely in grave danger of being damaged by splashes from liberally mixed cocktails or rogue bits of sushi rice).

Really important question: What is the monster's name? I'm sure someone internal at AOL or Wolff Olins has come up with a nice nickname for the happy little fellow. Or perhaps this is a matter of major corporate dissent within the new AOL--it's not like we didn't know they'd have some big challenges right out of the gate.

An e-mail was sent on Thursday to Facebook users who were members at the time that its controversial, now-defunct Beacon advertising program was operated: it's the official notice about the proposed settlement for the class-action lawsuit against Beacon. The terms of the settlement have been public since September, but the court-ordered summary notice is the last step in the process before final approval on February 26.

"This is not a settlement in which class members file claims to receive compensation," the notice explained (possibly crushing the hopes of any Facebook members who might have got excited that this would be an easy way to make some pizza money). "Under the proposed settlement, Facebook will terminate the Beacon program. In addition, Facebook will provide $9.5 million to establish an independent nonprofit foundation that will identify and fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security."

A Web site has been set up to explain the terms of the settlement for the case Lane et al. vs. Facebook Inc. et al., which was originally filed last summer.

Beacon, an advertising program that shared members' activity on participating third-party sites on their Facebook profiles without much warning or notification, was a much-hyped part of the Facebook Ads initiative that debuted in the fall of 2007. But it was, unfortunately for Facebook, a complete public relations disaster.

Pressure from privacy and activist groups resulted in notable changes to the product and member controls thereof, but image repair proved to not be enough and Facebook let Beacon fade to black.

Google has entered into an agreement to acquire online ad-optimization firm Teracent, the search giant announced in a blog post on Monday. The transaction is subject to several closing conditions, but is expected to close by the end of the quarter.

Google said it has been "busy releasing new features and products to help improve display advertising on the Web," according to the blog post. After examining Teracent's technology, the company felt that it fit "neatly" into its display-advertising goals, the blog said.

Teracent certainly brings something new to Google's advertising efforts. The company's technology tweaks images, products, messages, or colors to optimize ad units based on the viewer's location, what language they speak, the kind of content they're viewing, the local time, and how well particular units have performed in the past. It does all that work in real time as the algorithm examines the ad's environment.

"This technology can help advertisers get better results from their display ad campaigns," Google wrote in a blog post. "In turn, this enables publishers to make more money from their ad space and delivers Web users better ads and more ad-funded web content."

Teracent should be integrated into Google's advertising efforts by the end of the quarter. Neither company divulged how much Teracent was acquired for.

Some looks at the new AOL branding.

(Credit: AOL)

It's the media equivalent of moving out of your parents' house, heading to the nearest tattoo and piercing parlor, and yelling FREEEEEEDOM!: AOL has unveiled the "new brand identity" for its post-Time Warner era, slated to begin December 10 when it begins trading on the New York Stock Exchange as a separate company. And there's nary a blue triangle in sight. Instead, there's a plain new text logo presented with various backdrops, from cartoon scribbles to a rock-star hand symbol to a totally adorable goldfish.

The company is currently offering just a preview, and says in a release that a full unveil will come on the spin-off date. Yay, secrets! I love secrets! But we, of course, have many hints: like the fact that CEO Tim Armstrong, who joined the company in March after a long stint as a high-profile Google sales executive, keeps talking up AOL's future as a powerhouse in digital content and publishing. The company's array of niche blogs, which were hatched when AOL purchased Weblogs way back in 2005, are now its centerpiece.

So the new mood? "It's one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal," the release explained. Ooh, sexy!

The release also included a soundbite from Karl Heiselman, CEO of Wolff Olins, which AOL enlisted to help with the transformation: "AOL is a 21st century media company, with an ambitious vision for the future and new focus on creativity and expression, this required the new brand identity to be open and generous, to invite conversation and collaboration, and to feel credible, but also aspirational."

Of course, it's not all sunny: The company is on the verge of significant layoffs, as well as the possible chucking of non-"content" properties like ICQ and MapQuest, as the spinoff date grows closer.

Whatever. Isn't that goldfish cute?

For Madison Avenue, Facebook just got a little less free.

Last week, the massive social network announced that brands, advertisers, and marketers that want to run contests or sweepstakes on its platform have to go through an approval process first.

Getting that approval could be a new revenue stream for Facebook: according to multiple sources in the marketing industry, they're being told that running a promotion in a Facebook application or "fan page" requires buying ad space too.

It's pricey. The minimum ad buy is $10,000 for 30 days, using Facebook's self-service advertising system, according to documents seen by CNET, or $30,000 for 30 days of Facebook home page ads. Priority in the approval process will be scaled, based on how much advertising space has been purchased. It's a move that one marketing industry professional called, in perhaps a bit of hyperbole, "a little Death Star-ish."

A Facebook representative declined to confirm and said the company did not have any comment beyond official documents released on its Facebook Marketing Solutions page.

Let's step back. Cracking down on contests and promotions might seem draconian, but it's actually important for Facebook: the U.S. state and federal laws that govern sweepstakes are extremely complicated, and by allowing only approved contests, Facebook is making sure that its bases are covered.

"Any promotion that any brand, product, or company would run has to have a terms of service against it," said Gunter Pfau, CEO of the Stuzo Group, an agency that has developed numerous Facebook contests and sweepstakes for clients. "Also, depending on the prize value, they need to be filed with various state regulatory agencies."

What, exactly, is new for contests? If a brand is running a contest on its fan page, it has to be handled through an embedded, separately developed application--not, for example, in the page's "wall." Promotions also can't involve Facebook users manipulating their user photos or status messages specifically for the contest.

Legal experts agree that this is necessary. "The (new Facebook) guidelines really cover only a narrow subset of promotions, specifically sweepstakes, contests, and similar competitions," explained Thomas Williams, a partner at the Chicago law firm Howrey, who specializes in trademark law. "That type of contest or promotion is governed by a myriad of state and federal regulations, so what I think Facebook is attempting to do here is merely shield itself from liability that arises out of its users' potential violations of these laws."

Williams continued: "I think it's a prudent and reasonable step on Facebook's part. There are lawyers who specialize in sweepstakes law, and there really are a lot of twists and turns to it."

One thing it'll also do, Stuzo Group's Gunter Pfau explained, is keep dishonest campaigns and promotions off the Facebook platform. "I think it's great news for consumers," he said. "I think what Facebook is doing is really laying these guidelines in place for companies to protect consumers more."

But what about the new ad spend requirements? Facebook has historically pitched its developer platform and fan pages as a free way for advertisers and marketers to tap into the power of "the social graph"--its 300 million-plus active users and their connections to one another. And while it's clear that the company sees these free pages and applications as a stepping stone for ad dollars--Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, for example, regularly gives Madison Avenue talks about the company's "engagement ads"--it doesn't have a long track record of requiring advertisers to pay for something that used to be free.

"It makes sense for Facebook, but (it's) a little discouraging to advertisers," commented Alisa Leonard-Hansen, who holds the title of social-media evangelist at digital-marketing firm iCrossing. "Facebook is continually trying to discover new ways to monetize, and they picked up on the trend that advertisers were using their pages to run contests and other promotions. I think Facebook was looking to be able to benefit from this marketing trend."

The ad spend requirements, too, could be considered partial compensation for the new human resources required in Facebook's approval process. Each company running contests on Facebook now has a designated advertising sales representative, and fan pages will continue to have to be policed for potential violations of both advertiser regulations and sweepstakes law.

There might not be a lot of friction as the new regulations go into effect. Companies that don't run contests on their Facebook fan pages or applications won't be affected. Even some that do, especially small-scale fan pages that could easily go unnoticed by Facebook, won't have to change much. "Of course, there are going to be savvy marketers who skirt this and run (contests) under the radar," Alisa Leonard-Hansen said.

It really goes without saying the obvious: this is Facebook's service, and it can do what it wants with it. That doesn't mean marketers will stop grumbling. As one put it in a phone call to CNET, "This is another example of Facebook saying, 'Sorry, eat it, you've got no choice.'"

Early on Monday, we learned that the new Verizon Droid does, indeed, swap "semi-functional, giggling-brat-vanity for a bare knuckle bucket of does."

Now, we have the visual evidence. It's evidence a defense attorney would rather enjoy.

The Droid is, apparently, not a smartphone at all. It is a robotphone, according to Verizon's latest TV ad. Yes, it punches its way through steel walls and crushes rocks. Which, I believe, is known in English classes as poetry.

The lyrical content is only heightened when the giggling-brat-vanity words are uttered by an announcer who sounds like he had a previous career as an enforcer with one of the Gambino bambinos.

As the contempt drips from his lips, we see various iPhone-like devices all blinged out in pinks and purples and sequins. They look like purses.

And the subtext, which is about as covert as a right cross from an inebriated wedding crasher, is that the Droid is for boys and the iPhone is for fans of "Project Runway" and "The Real Housewives of Orange County."

Yes, your Droid is your Mixed Martial Arts-lovin', bone-crushin' robot that's going to turn you into a man. And that's what all boys want, right?

The Internet Advertising Bureau has come out against new guidelines proposed by the Federal Trade Commission that would require bloggers to disclose their affiliations with sponsors, marketers, and free giveaways. The reason? The IAB claims that the rules unfairly regulate online media more than offline.

"What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media," IAB president and CEO Randall Rothenberg wrote in an open letter to FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz. "These revisions are punitive to the online world and unfairly distinguish between the same speech, based on the medium in which it is delivered. The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online."

He illustrated it with a personal example:

So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed--which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog--a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I'd just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I'd pulled from my favorite cookbook, "Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain" by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the 'post' button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.

I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn't want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you've just promulgated to muzzle social media.

The FTC has said that the rules, which stipulate that violations may face up to $11,000 in fines, are designed for education rather than punishment. But Rothenberg isn't buying it.

"The Guides do allow you to pursue bloggers," he insisted. "They do hold individuals more liable than larger corporations. They do explicitly say online social media have less protection than offline corporate media. They do obstruct online companies' opportunities to drive cultural conversation more than offline companies'. They do threaten with prosecution book publishers, movie producers, and other companies that supply products to individual social media conversationalists."

The bigger problem is that offline media isn't subject to the same restrictions, he explained. And, according to the letter, clamping down on one medium but not another constitutes a First Amendment violation.

The FTC has not yet responded publicly.

Nobody's surprised: Internet-advertising revenues fell slightly in the first half of 2009, according to numbers released Monday by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The trade group found that online-ad revenues dropped 5.3 percent to $10.9 billion year over year, representing a total loss of $610 million. That's an understandable loss, given how much the media business has had the wind knocked out of it, thanks to the recession. But the slide in digital advertising isn't nearly as dire, when compared to the overall ad industry, which fell 15.4 percent.

The IAB also brought up numbers from Nielsen indicating that online advertising is essentially flat--and that the only sector of the ad industry that is growing is cable television.

PwC partner David Silverman called online advertising "a vibrant, sustainable industry," and he reiterated that it's an "industry that really didn't exist more than 12 years ago."

There was not much talk about social-media advertising, which has made somewhat of a breakthrough in recent months: after much criticism that it would never be able to make much money, social ads got a boost from Facebook's announcement that it had reached a cash flow-positive status several quarters earlier than expected.

The social network, which now has more than 300 million active users, has been dipping a toe into virtual-commerce revenue streams but is still supported primarily by advertising.