Let’s take a look at Facebook. According to the Facebook Ads Tool, we have around 26.5M Filipino accounts. The GMA report shows that there are only 8.5M Filipinos who use Facebook? That means that 2/3 of the total accounts of Filipinos on Facebook are either fakes or duplicates?

Here’s the news report:

By the way, Ricci Parto is not the one presenting the data. She’s just saying that there’s business to be found online. Cleared this with her via Facebook.

What do you guys think about the data Nielsen presented? Personally I think it’s unbelievable. Would definitely love to hear from Nielsen how they did the study or if the data presented in the news report is accurate.

Here’s the reality: majority of bloggers blog out of passion. They don’t earn money out of it! If ever they do, only a few make significant amount of cash on a regular basis. Giving away prizes through giveaways is a fun activity that thanks readers and drives traffic to the blog. This doesn’t guarantee any sales or revenue for the blogger.

Layers upon layers of RED TAPE
I’ve been in digital for a couple of years now and I can tell you that the DTI will ask for tons of documents and will even charge you fees (honorarium) so that you can just hold contests and promos. Putting this burden on bloggers is unfathomable! Bloggers don’t have the time and resources to be able to comply. Professional agencies have trouble with this. What more can we expect from people who aren’t in the advertising industry?

This is already a policy, we need to change it
I called Mike Palacios who was present in the meeting and he said that IMMAP didn’t push for this to happen. This is just what DTI told them during the briefing. This means that this is the current policy and hundreds of bloggers are probably violating it as of this writing. The next logical move is to have this amended. If ever this has to happen then we need to work with DTI to make sure that the application process has minimal fees involved and the processing is fast and efficient.

I’m more than willing to help out in the process. I heard that several groups are already planning on reaching out to DTI. If you need an extra hand, just let me know.

Pauline Lao worked for 17 years in Procter & Gamble and retired as Director for Consumer Connections. She is currently Jollibee’s Director for Marketing Communications. Manolo Almagro is her Digital Initiatives Consultant at Jollibee. He also recently developed an integrated digital advertising strategy for Globe Telecoms.

In a brand, they’re Yin and Yang, working together in deciding how important digital is over-all. Learn from their experience by joining the webinar.

I’ll definitely be listening in this Wednesday. For more information on how to register and participate head over to this website.

Boom. The scary part here is that this can happen to any industry, not just in Group Buying.

What to do to counter this?
If you’re at the receiving end of advertising strategies like this, what should you do? First you can just do ads yourself and outbid your competitor for your keyword. That’s not really the best way to resolve this though since you’ll just keep on blowing ad budget and you might lose if your competitor has deeper pockets. Another thing you can do is course it through Google.

According to the Google AdWords policies you can actually file a complaint if the ad is using a word that you trademarked in the country. Let’s say Buyanihan trademarked their company name then Groupon won’t be able to use that particular word anymore when they do search ads here in the Philippines.

What is Google’s AdWords and AdSense trademark policy?
Google recognizes the importance of trademarks. Our AdWords Terms and Conditions prohibit intellectual property infringement by advertisers. Advertisers are responsible for the keywords they choose to generate advertisements and the text that they choose to use in those advertisements.

Google takes allegations of trademark infringement very seriously and, as a courtesy, we investigate matters raised by trademark owners. Trademarks are territorial and apply only to certain goods or services. Therefore, different parties can own the same mark in different countries or different industries. Accordingly, in processing complaints, Google will ask the trademark owner for information regarding where the mark is valid and for what goods or services. Please note the following about our complaint process:

- The trademark owner doesn’t need to be a Google AdWords advertiser in order to send a complaint.
- Any such investigation will only affect ads served on or by Google.
- Google’s trademark policy does not apply to search results. Our investigations only apply to sponsored links. For trademark concerns about websites that appear in Google search results, the trademark owner should contact the site owner directly.
- In the case of an AdSense for Domains trademark complaint, an investigation will affect only the participation of the domain name in question in our AdSense for Domains program.
- Because Google is not a third-party arbiter, we encourage trademark owners to resolve their disputes directly with the advertisers, particularly because the advertisers may have similar ads running via other advertising programs.

Source

Upon closer inspection though it looks like the Internet and Mobile Marketing Association of the Philippines (IMMAP) and someone from the Department and Trade and Industry (DTI) has to formally notify Google that they should follow trademarks here in the Philippines so we can be included in the list. If you check the page on Google AdWords that list the regions they investigate for trademark complaints, the Philippines isn’t there:

In certain regions, we may investigate the use of trademarks in ad text, in keywords, or in both ad text and keywords.

Regions in which we investigate both ad text and keywords:

Australia
Brazil
China
Hong Kong
Macau
New Zealand
North Korea
South Korea
Taiwan

When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, our review is limited to ensuring that the advertisements at issue are not using a term corresponding to the trademarked term in the ad text or as a keyword. If they are, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademarked term from the ad text or keyword list and will prevent the advertiser from using the trademarked term in the future. Any such investigation will only affect ads served on or by Google.

We do not take any action in situations where an advertisement is being triggered by non-trademarked terms, even though the search query contains a trademarked term. This occurrence stems from the fact that Google allows advertisers to use a broad matching system to target their ads. For example, if an advertiser has selected the keyword “shoes,” that advertiser’s ad can appear when a user enters the word “shoes” as a search query, regardless of other search terms that may be used. So, the ad could show if the user enters any of the following search queries: “tennis shoes,” “red shoes,” or “Nike shoes.” This system eliminates the need for the advertiser to specify the many different search query combinations that are relevant to their ad.

Source

Sent an SMS to Google’s representative here in the Philippines for clarification. Will update this entry once I have an answer.

Essence of the Bill
At the very core this bill just aims to punish two things. First is the unauthorized tampering and hacking of computer systems (includes websites, social networking accounts, online gaming accounts, e-mails, etc). Second is anything that has to do with promoting sex online (cybersex/child pornography).

This bill is a very welcome development especially for companies. Right now the only protection they have against employees who leak sensitive information is dismissal. With bills like this you can actually file charges against those who are proven to be behind the acts. This also goes the same with all individuals or groups who have been relentlessly hacking government and commercial websites in the last few years. This bill empowers the state and the citizen to face cybercrime incidents.

On a lighter note, people who love doing pranks on their officemates’ YM and Facebook statuses when they’re not on their desk should be wary of this bill. You can be charged for violating “Data Interference”.

For violations pertaining to the Cybersex section, this can be a lot more tricky because it involves moral judgement. There’s one clause there that says:

Establishing, maintaining, or controlling, directly or indirectly, any operation for sexual activity or arousal with the aid of or through the use of a computer system, for a favor or consideration.

Does this mean that FHM can be charged for cybersex? Or the adult community forums? Or how about the popular FAD blog which drew the ire of a lot of politicians when they posted the videos and pictures of local celebrity scandals? It will be very interesting to see how this particular clause of the bill will translate to actual charges filed in court. I’m all for a clean internet ecosystem but we have to admit that it will be really tough to pull off.

So…
I actually find myself supporting this bill since the need for it is very urgent. I just hope that they iron it out more especially when it comes to implementation. The section on child pornography is long due given all the operations that were busted by local police forces. They just may want to drill down to the specifics to avoid confusion on different interpretations.

My biggest apprehension though is not really with the bill but with the government in general. I think I’ve lost so much faith in the system already. This bill proposes that we make ANOTHER government agency to focus on cybercrime prevention. That’s tax payers’ money that will pay for the salaries of all the employees. It just doesn’t feel right with all the corruption scandals being exposed lately.

Click here for the full text of the Cybercrime Bill filed by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.