Monthly Archives: January 2020

Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and Google, the Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG) (NASDAQ:GOOGL) subsidiary, are the kings of digital advertising. The two combined control over 50% of digital ad spending in the United States, and they're holding tight to that market share despite strong competition.

Revenue growth for the two tech giants could remain strong in 2020 thanks to an influx of political advertising spending. While the topic has been extremely controversial, there's a consensus that digital political advertising will see considerable growth compared to 2018 and 2016.

Both Google and Facebook are poised to capitalize thanks to their extremely broad user bases across Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. Meanwhile, some smaller competitors have said they won't allow political advertising at all.

Here's how political ads could have a considerable impact on Google and Facebook's top-line growth in 2020.

Image source: Getty Images.

Multiple estimates for 2020 U.S. political ad spending across local, state, and federal elections peg the number between $6 billion and $10 billion total. That compares to about $4 billion political campaigns spent on advertising in 2018. As you might expect, digital ad spend is projected to grow faster than television, print, and radio.

In other words, investors can expect digital political ad spending to grow more than 50% compared to 2018 and produce a rush of deep-pocketed ad buyers to platforms like Google and Facebook.

Facebook and Google's YouTube are prime candidates for political ad spending. Both reach extremely broad audiences. Roughly 73% of American adults use YouTube and 69% use Facebook, according to a survey from Pew Research. The next-closest social media platform not owned by either company is Pinterest, reaching 28% of Americans.

Google and Facebook's broad audiences are an advantage because they give political campaigns a greater chance of reaching voters that are most likely to be influenced by advertisements. Campaigns can use their own internal data combined with data from Google or Facebook to target advertisements based on various criteria, although Google took steps to prevent certain targeting options for political ads. Those targeting criteria work best when put against large user bases, which only Google and Facebook can provide.

The amount spent on political ads on Google or Facebook isn't, in itself, going to move the needle very much for either digital advertising behemoth. Google brought in nearly $100 billion in ad revenue through the first nine months of 2019. Facebook generated nearly $50 billion. Digital political ad spending will total just $1 billion to $2 billion for all of 2020.

But the influx of ad buyers and ad dollars flowing into Facebook and YouTube will have a wide-reaching impact on their entire ad sales operations. Both Facebook and Google sell ads based on an auction format. The more money being spent in the auction, the higher the average ad price.

As such, the presence of political ad campaigns will force existing advertisers on those platforms to spend more for the same amount of impressions. And, it's very likely those marketers will pay up for those ads because Facebook and YouTube still offer excellent returns on ad spend.

Additionally, Facebook's feed algorithm is designed to balance organic sharing with advertisements in order to maximize revenue over time. An ad with a higher bid will get higher priority over organic posts in the feed. As such, the influx of political advertising could enable Facebook to grow ad revenue through both higher average ad prices and an increase in ad load. (Facebook may decide to adjust the algorithm to keep ad load stable, though, especially considering the backlash it's facing regarding political ads.)

With competitors bowing out of the running for political advertising dollars in 2020 and a massive influx of ad dollars and bidders into the Google and Facebook ecosystems, the two tech companies are poised to see strong growth in ad revenue stemming from political ads.

Originally posted here:

1 Reason 2020 Will Be a Big Year for Google and Facebook - The Motley Fool

Most artists dream of sharing their art with an audience of hundreds, maybe thousands. Butthe team behind Googles Doodlesthose quirky illustrations and animations that replace the search engines logo each dayhas their work seen by billions.

Now, you too can have your work grace the tech giants landing page. The company has released anopen call for its 12th annual Doodle for Google contest, which invites young US artists in grades K-12 to submit drawings based on a congenial theme that incorporates the Google logo. This years theme? I show kindness by

Acts of kindness bring more joy, light, and warmth to the world, says Jessica Yu, the head of Googles Doodle team, in the contests announcement. They cost nothing, but mean everything.

Well, isnt that lovely.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2016, by Akilah Johnson.

The winner will be chosen from a shortlist of five finalists. Besides having their illustration featured atop Google.com for a day, the winner will also receive a $30,000 college scholarship, a $50,000 technology package for their school, and a trip to the companys headquarters in California. The four other finalists will also join on the trip and will each get a $5,000 scholarship. Submissions for this years contest close on March 13, 2020.

The Doodle contest has been held yearly since 2008. Last years winner was Arantza Pea Popo, a high school senior from Georgia who responded to the theme, When I grow up I hope with a picture of herself below a framed painting of her mother. She also made a charming appearance on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.

[The Doodle team is ] a very heart-driven organization in a very data-driven company, quite frankly, Yu told Artnet last year. We know that not every Doodle is going to be everyones favorite, so we aim to ensure that every Doodle is going to be somebodys favorite.

Apply for this years Doodle for Google contest here. And see other previous winners below.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2013.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2017, by Sarah Harrison.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2012, by Dylan Hoffman.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2009, by Christin Engelberth.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2010, by Makenzie Melton.

The Doodle for Google winner in 2008, by Grace Moon.

Link:

Kids, Want to Win a $30,000 Scholarship and Show Your Art to Billions? Googles Annual Doodle Contest Is Now Open - artnet News

When it comes to surprises, Google plays a good game. From brilliantly entertaining Google Doodles to the most genius Google Easter Eggs, the Google team clearly like to get creative and delight users with hidden gems. And this most recent offering is no exception.

Google AR animals is a hidden augmented reality feature that allows users to view a 3D image of a search result. On AR-enabled devices, the tool is accessed using Google Search, with the question: How big is a wolf (for example). If the animal in question is available, Google will return the usual statistics height, length, mass etc above an arrow that users can click to reveal a 'meet a life-sized wolf up close' option. Press that and voila! A 3D version of the animal appears in the room.

The 3D models themselves are a little crude (see our free 3D models to compare with other examples) however, they provide a realistic sense of an animal's scale (seriously though, who knew a wolf was that big?) and movement. As an artist, this is a brilliant reference resource, offering insight to animal behaviour and movement (without the risk of losing any limbs, always a plus).

Animals include a lion, tiger, bear, alpine goat, timberwolf, European hedgehogs, angler fish and Emperor penguin. Each carries out actions synonymous with the animal. For example, you can watch (and hear) a lion roar, wolf howl and giant panda enjoy a piece of bamboo.

The feature was recently discovered by Vimeo co-founder Zach Klein, who referred to it as 'magical'.

As highlighted above, not only is this tool a brilliant art resource, but a super-fun (and highly addictive) feature to be enjoyed by all the family.

Read more:

See original here:

Googles hidden AR tool will blow your mind - Creative Bloq

I've been a Google Authenticator user since the dawn of two-factor authentication (2FA) apps. Released in 2010, it's one of those apps that I use all the time for authenticating logins into various websites and services. Using it has become second nature.

But it has downsides.

Must read: The ultimate MacBook USB-C accessory just got better

First, it runs on only a few platforms, specifically Android, iOS, and Blackberry.

Another is that you have to set it up individually on every single device you use. Not a huge drawback for those who live with a single smartphone in their hand, but if you "device surf" a lot, this can be a drawback because you have to have your smartphone nearby.

UPDATE: As some readers have correctly pointed out, you can set up Google Authenticator on multiple devices, but for me that's more work, and a change to one of the installations would have to be done across all devices. One reader had the nifty idea of keeping a printout of the QR codes for the sides, and going down a list and scanning them in when having to set up Google Authenticator in the future. Nifty idea for sure.

Another drawback, and this is a big one, is that if you swap phones, you have to blitz the entire app and go back and sync up all the accounts again. This is where things get really tedious, and where it begins to feel easier to just turn off 2FA and take a chance.

UPDATE: Another drawback of Google Authenticator that a reader pointed out is no passcode or biometric lock on the app.

So, I've been on the lookout for a new service, and there are a number out there. Password managers 1Password and LastPass both have built-in authenticator apps, but the one I went for is Authy. It's quick and easy to use and set up, runs on multiple devices and platforms, allows you to make backups, and the website is a wealth of information on how to secure accounts using 2FA.

Also: Protect yourself: How to choose the right two-factor authenticator app

While I did have to go through the process of setting up 2FA on all my accounts -- I even added it to a few more while I was at it -- hopefully it's the last time I have to do this. While I have had to change my workflow a little, the upsides of having switched away from Google Authenticator far outweigh the downsides.

So, if you are still using Google Authenticator, have a look around at the alternatives on offer, and if you don't feel like having to re-setup all your 2FAs right now, keep it in mind for the next time you replace your smartphone.

UPDATE: Is it risky "centralizing" this data? Sure, but I don't see it any more risky as using a cloud-based password manager.

See also:

See the article here:

Using Google Authenticator? Here's why you should get rid of it - ZDNet

Americans believe in Big Tech.

In fact, more people trust Amazon AMZN, -0.70% and Google GOOG, +1.98% will do what is right than they trust teachers, police officers, Donald Trump, the U.S. government or the news media, according to a nationwide survey from Morning Consult.

The digital media and research company asked subjects whether they trusted 20 different brands, institutions, public figures and ideas to do the right thing a lot in its inaugural State of Consumer Trust report. These entities included doctors, teachers and law enforcement officers, as well as public figures and celebrities. They were also asked whether they trusted information such as scientific studies or health and weather advisories.

And while distrust in general is running rampant in the U.S., with more than two-thirds of respondents saying that people have become less trusting in recent years, it appears that Americans have the most confidence in their primary doctors and the Armed Forces. The greatest share (50%) said they trusted their family physician to do the right thing, followed by the military (44%).

But then things get really interesting.

Amazon and Google take the third and fourth most trusted spots overall, with 39% and 38% of subjects, respectively, expressing faith in the tech giants. And thats higher than their trust in extreme weather warnings (36%), teachers (35%), the police (30%), scientific studies (26%) and health warnings or advisories (23%.)

Whats more, those companies as well as actor Tom Hanks (34%) and Weight WW, -1.50% spokeswoman and media mogul Oprah Winfrey (27%) were also more trusted than President Trump (20%) and Warren Buffett (16%.)

But the commander-in-chief and the Oracle of Omaha were still more trusted than religious leaders (15%), capitalism (14%), the news media (8%), the U.S. government (7%) and Wall Street (5%).

The least-trusted entity in America? Hollywood, with just a 4% share of citizens showing confidence in Tinseltown.

Morning Consult also quizzed subjects about specific companies, asking, How much do you trust each brand to do what is right? They could respond with a lot, some, not much, not at all or dont know. And the company that drew the greatest number of a lots was the United States Postal Service, with 42% of consumers expressing confidence in the brand.

The USPS was followed by Amazon (38.8%), Google (37.9%), PayPal PYPL, +0.55% (36.5%) and The Weather Channel (36.3%). Chick-Fil-A (36.2%), The Hershey Company HSY, +1.26% (36.1%), UPS UPS, -0.01% (36.1%), the General Mills-owned GIS, +0.24% Cheerios (35.9%) and M&Ms (34.8%) rounded out the top 10.

By generation, Gen Z adults (those born after 1997), and millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996), trusted Google the most, while Gen Xers (born 1964 - 1981) and boomers (1946-1964) put their faith in the post office. Netflix NFLX, +0.31% also scored highly among Gen Z and millennials.

Overall, just under three in four Americans said they trust the average major company to delivery consistently on what they promise. And more than half (55%) said they tend to trust the average American company, and that companies have to do something wrong to lose that trust so most consumers are giving brands the benefit of the doubt.

These results align with Morning Consults Top 25 Most Loved Brands report that was released last year, which found Amazon, Google, Netflix, UPS and Home Depot HD, +1.35% rounding out the top five favorite companies.

See the full rankings and download the report from theMorning Consult here.

Read more:

Americans trust Amazon and Google more than the police or the government - MarketWatch

Actor Jussie Smollett, aka "the gay Tupac," almost certainly lied about the assault he claims he experienced last year. A new order from a judge in Chicago will likely prove it once and for all.

Cook County Judge Michael Toomin, who appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case, is requiring Google to turn over a year's worth of Smollett's emails, location data, and messages. He's also ordered the same for Smollett's manager, a witness to the alleged hate crime, wherein Smollett says he was jumped early one morning by two men who confronted him with racist, anti-gay, and pro-Trump comments before beating him.

The Chicago Tribune reported last week that the court orders include that Google hand over "drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history."

That's a lot of data. A lot.

Chicago police last year already believed that they had nailed down a timeline proving Smollett was lying about the attack and that he had staged it himself in conjunction with two acquaintances. A grand jury agreed with the police, slapping Smollett with a dozen charges.

But if police were so confident by simply using Smollett's highly redacted phone records, surveillance footage, and the confessions of the two brothers, imagine what this new treasure trove of information will offer.

Google location data is alarmingly specific, and it's recorded minute by minute. That is, unless Smollett turned off location services on his mobile devices. And even then, there are times that Google is still monitoring and recording.

Even without that information, though, there's endless information to be learned from Google searches Smollett conducted, websites he visited, and any messages he might have sent around the time of the incident.

Smollett still says he's innocent. We'll see.

The only reason there's a special prosecutor looking into his case is because the Cook County prosecutor abruptly determined that it wasn't pursuing it, despite the overwhelming evidence that Smollett had faked a hate crime.

The special prosecutor appointment was bad news for Smollett. And this new court order is really bad news him. Google it.

More here:

Jussie Smollett is probably toast now that Google is handing his data to the special prosecutor - Washington Examiner

Assistant's features are far from consistent across platforms and have been like that since the service's launch. Some commands work on phones but not speakers, others vice-versa, not to mention smartwatches, TVs, cars, Bluetooth headsets, and other types of devices. Here's another example of this fragmentation: Routines aren't working on Auto. In fact they haven't been supported for over a year and there's no solution on the horizon.

More than a year ago, routines were perfectly functional on Android Auto. Whether you used them to trigger your Leaving home, Commuting home, Commuting to work, or any custom-made routine while you were driving, Assistant answered correctly and executed all commands. Then, around October 2018, it stopped working, seemingly on both phones and car head units. The feature had been buggy for a few users already, but it wasn't until October that reports of Assistant answering "Routines aren't currently supported on this device" started flowing in. And there have been many, many, many, really many complaints about this across various forums and support threads since.

Same routine asked on Assistant on the phone (with answer) and 4 times on Auto (no answer).

Even if your routine is something as benign as replacing a couple of words (i.e. no smart home gear, no sending messages or making calls), it doesn't work. In the example above, you can see me try it with a routine that replaces "what's the weather at work" with "what's the weather in Ballouneh, Lebanon" (to avoid confusion with balloons). It works on my Pixel 4 XL, on my smart speakers and displays, but when I try it from Android Auto on my Pixel 4 XL, I get told that routines aren't supported on this device. It's a weird limitation that doesn't make sense.

Bluetooth, Do Not Disturb, Digital Wellbeing, app updates, and other culprits have been theorized by users, but none of these seem to be responsible. Many "solutions" have been suggested too, but again, none really work at this point. It looks like a blanket "no routines in Auto" rule has been set up by the Assistant and/or Auto teams and you can't circumvent it.

This isn't the first bug we've pointed outin Assistant on Android Auto the platform seems to have drawn the short stick of Assistant's mess-ups but it's certainly one of the oldest ones. Google has also been mum about this with no explanation or timeline for a fix. We've reached out to the company and will let you if and when we hear back.

Good news and bad news: Google has responded to our inquiry, and has confirmed our findings that routines aren't supported on Android Auto right now so the company is at least aware of this limitation, and it's not some bug slipping by under the radar.

While that's something, Google also isn't giving us any indication that this is a problem we can expect to see fixed in the near future. At best, we're told that the company will share more details when it's ready, but we're not getting any specifics for now.

See the rest here:

Google Assistant routines haven't worked on Android Auto for over a year, still no fix in sight (Update: Google acknowledges) - Android Police

Google has posted an update informing us that the Google rich result testing tool can now report on unloadable embedded resources.

Google rich results test. This tool tests to see if your pages have the necessary markup to show rich results in Google search. It can also show you what those rich results may look like directly in the Google search results. The tool does not tell you if your rich results will display in search but that if they do, what they may look like. Google said Test your publicly accessible page to see which rich results can be generated by the structured data it contains.

What are rich results. Rich results are visual adaptions on Google surfaces, such as Search, that go beyond the standard blue link. Rich results can include carousels, images, videos, stars or other non-textual elements.

What changed. Google said the tool now reports unloadable embedded resources, such as external elements included by a page. So if you embed third-party code and resources in your code that is not hosted on your web site, this tool can now process it.

Screen shot. Here is a screen shot that Google shared of this in action:

Why we care. This update can help webmasters and SEOs better understand what Google can access for your page. If you are using third-party code for your rich results, this can now help you debug issues with that code and/or see what Google will display in the search results for your snippets.

Follow this link:

Google Rich Results testing tool now reports on unloadable embedded resources - Search Engine Land

Tech companies have a bad reputation, especially among those who pay attention to more than just the user interface of their favorite apps. That doesn't mean they are entirely bad--in fact they have created technologies that genuinely makeour lives better in plenty of meaningful ways. At the same time, there are many examples of tech companies doing stuff that most of us would probably rather they didn't do.

Which leads us to an article from Slate on Wednesday, that lists the 30 'most evil' tech companies, a ranking based on what experts think of the companies' behavior. Sure, some of the criticism is well deserved. As the article points out, tech companies have been no stranger to scandals, whether it bemassive data breaches,privacy violations, and even outrightfraud.

At the top of Slate's'evil' list arethe two most prominent companies in the lives of most Americans, Amazon and Facebook. For me, the only surprise was that Amazon actually outranked Facebook.

In the online retailer's case, Slate writes that Amazon's"shipping operation has led toburnout, injuries, and deaths, all connected to a warehouse operation that, while paying adecent minimum wage, is so efficient in part because ittreats its human workers like robots who sometimes get bathroom breaks."

Facebook, on the other hand, could probably fill a few articles with reasons why it has a troubled reputation. I know, I've written plenty. Slate highlights the social network's decisions to allow fake political advertisements, its effecton the 2016 election, numerous data and privacy breaches, and "most frighteningly of all, the corporation is controlled by a single unelected man who is determined to dodge any kind of ideological stance in the name of higher revenues."

Googlearguably has the greatest impact on the day to day lives of everyone with a smartphone or computer, and comes in third on the list. It knows far more about us than even Facebook, controls half of all internet traffic and 95 percent of online searches. It also recently shut down internal dissent and discussion at its all-company meeting, which it brought to an end this year.

Which leads us to an important lesson. I sometimes feel like I'm repeating myself, but your brand is ultimately the way people feel about you. That feeling is the sum of every interaction they have with your business, whether it's with a product, a customer service rep, a data breach,or a news article.

You can't control every one of those experiences, but it's worth considering whether or not the story you're telling people about your business matches the experience they are having with you, and the way they feel about it. If not, you have a serious problem. That's exactly the case with tech companies--especially those at the top of the list.

You can argue this list is mostly the opinion of people who spend too much time thinking about tech companies, and that's fine. You can also argue that the value they bring is far greater than the evil they may do (though you'll get a lot more pushback here). But, once you know, isn't it worth stopping to think about the amount of influence we allow companiesto wield over our lives?

Certainly millions--and in some cases, billions--of us continue to give them our money, and even more importantly, our personal information, every single day. It's more alarming when you think about the disconnect between how we actually behave, and what we say we think about big tech companies.

In fact, I'm not entirely sure that we don't get exactly the tech companies we deserve.

Published on: Jan 16, 2020

The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.

Read more:

Amazon and Facebook Are the Most 'Evil' Tech Companies, According to Experts. Google Isn't Far Behind - Inc.