Anatomy of a Netscam: Why Your Internet Search May Not Be as Honest as You Think

[Chuck Munson]

The following is being sent with permission of the author.
--Chuck Munson (Univ. of Maryland College Park Libraries)

-------------
Anatomy of a Netscam
Why Your Internet Search May Not Be as Honest as You Think

By David Corn

Sunday, July 7 1996; Page C05
 The Washington Post


CAN YOU own a word? On the Internet you can.

As the Internet expands, with an explosion of Web sites, cyber-entrepreneurs
have tried mightily to figure out how to cash in. The problem has been that
Web culture, so far, is antagonistic to charging money for information. Only a
few information-providers -- mainly pornographers -- have been able to entice
Web-scanners to pay for access, and conventional advertising on the Web has
yet to prove itself. Consequently, corporations looking to squeeze profits out
of travel on the information highway have been concocting creative schemes.
And one of the more imaginative notions -- which relies on a pitch bordering
on false advertising -- bodes ill for anyone who fears that the Net might
become over-commercialized and that deep-pocketed parties might find ways to
exert control over the as-of-yet unwieldy cyber-world.

Last year, Iron Mountain Global Information Systems (IMGIS), an "interactive
target marketing" firm based in Irvine, Calif., bought up exclusive rights to
specific words in the leading search services for the WorldWide Web. To
understand the significance of this maneuver, you have to be familiar with how
the Web works.

When someone signs on to the Web, often the first place he or she turns is a
site that searches the rest of the Web. These "search engines" go by such
names as Yahoo!, Lycos, and Webcrawler. At one of these sites, you type in one
or more words to describe the sort of information you want. Then the search
service provides you a list -- it can be quite long -- of sites related to the
key words. Yahoo! and the other search engines are the key gateways on the
Internet. For the right price, they will share their gatekeeping power with
advertisers.

IMGIS purchased the rights to 55 words related to politics: among them,
"elections," "Democrat," "Republican," "president" and "Congress." So when
subscribers to the leading search engines request a search based on one of the
words, a flashy banner appears at the top of the resulting page, promoting a
"Top 10 Political Sites" list. Click on the image and and you are transported
to a page with colorful displays for the top-10 political sites. Click on any
of these miniature billboards, and you "travel" to the actual site for one of
the top-tenners: the Democratic National Committee, the Political Hotline and
-- surprise -- George magazine.

What is a bit sleazy is that this "top 10" listing is not based on any
qualitative or quantitative measure. It is not the 10 most popular political
sites with cybersurfers. Nor is it an expert's judgment of the 10 best
political sites. It is, in actuality, a listing of 10 political sites that are
willing to pay IMGIS to be included on the list. IMGIS charges $3,000 a month
for the display space at the   top of the Top 10 page; spots further down go
for less. And on Yahoo! -- the most popular search engine -- the initial
banner that directs a  consumer to the Top 10   site is not even labeled as an
advertisement. The bottom-line: IMGIS is buying up key words in order to push
Internet traffic to its clients' sites.

Internet users aren't defenseless. Below the colorful "Top 10" banner there is
a listing of all relevant Web sites and this list can be easily scanned. IMGIS
is banking on the hope that many people will not go that far.

"Seventy percent of all people looking for information will click on our [top
10] ad," says Danielle Striker, the director for sales at IMGIS. That is, they
will follow the ad rather than select a site from the list produced by the
search.

As of the end of June, the IMGIS top 10 site was filled, with ads for the New
York Times and Politics Now (a project of The Washington Post, ABC News, the
National Journal, Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times) occupying the two most
prominent positions. Both the Democratic and Republican parties were there.
But not all of the top 10 sites had paid for their space. Several, including
the Times and the GOP, were taking advantage of a free trial offer. The
Democratic Party was listed even though it had informed IMGIS it was not
interested.

Jeff Quiggle, the manager of the Electronic Policy Network, a collection of
progressive Web sites, noted that his outfit, which had accepted a free trial
run in the Top 10 list, would not pay to remain on the list. "My concern,"
says Quiggle, "is that you wind up calling something a top 10 site when it
only lists sites that can afford to pay. And you get a list that is weighted
to conservatives because that's where the money is."

Paul DeBenedictis, president for new media at Hachette Filipacchi, publisher
of George, says that he has no such concern and that George deserves to be on
any top-10 political site. George, he adds, has paid IMGIS to be there through
the November elections.

To date, IMGIS has spent $2.5 million purchasing key words from the search
services. Besides its 55 political terms, it has also snatched up the rights
to a number of words related to banking, finances, sports and real estate.
(Striker declines to say how many.) But, according to Striker, the company got
into the game early -- that means last fall -- and obtained the rights to the
political words through the year 2000. The firm was clever to strike early.
Some search services no longer sell exclusive rights to words. Instead, they
rotate the ad traffic for a given word.

The company's political-words project is clearly just the beginning of a
larger effort to make money off the flow of Internet traffic. Its first
endeavor of this sort was a similar initiative involving real estate-related
words and real estate listings. Asked about IMGIS's Net plans, Striker replied
with a laugh: "I can't go into it too heavy -- or I'll have to kill you." But,
she boasts, that IMGIS is leading the way in "driving the consumer to a
page."

Is there anything wrong with this? Certainly, a top-10 list based only on a
site's willingness to pay for an ad is not the crime of the century. But it is
misleading and cheesy; some folks on the Internet toil long and hard to
compile true top-10 site lists. One can hope such trickery is sniffed out by
savvy netizens.

More disturbing is the attempt to commercialize key access points to the Net.
If one compares the Web to television and radio, it's easy to dismiss such
concerns and ask, why should the Web withstand the commercial pressures that
turned television and radio into ad-driven mediums? Here's why: The Internet
ought to be regarded as a community resource like a library; the search
engines are its card catalogue. Imagine if attached to a card for a specific
book were a glowing review for another book on that subject -- and that by
pushing a button the other book would be delivered to you automatically. The
knowledgeable and determined reader might head into the stacks to locate the
book she first came to find. But many readers might take the easier option --
and be channeled in a direction open only to those who have the money to pay
for it.

It is not too hard to conceive of worrisome scenarios. A pro-Republican
dirty-tricks outfit could purchase rights to the word "Clinton" and then lure
readers to a site full of anti-Clinton material. Or vice-versa for Bob Dole.
Suppose Operation Rescue Catholic Church bought up the word "abortion" and
then ran an ad declaring "abortion is murder" at the top of every page of the
search results.

Corporations could use all sorts of "top 10" gimmicks to bring consumers --
especially children -- to ware-peddling sites. A recent study by the Center
for Media Education, a Washington-based non-profit group, found that on-line
marketers have "microtargeted" children with practices that would be illegal
if used in cable or broadcast television. The Web and on-line services, like
America Online, have not been subject to such rules. Will young people who
type "rap music" into a search request be presented with a spiffy ad that once
clicked upon brings them to a site with a rappin' Joe Camel?

The Internet has not been washed over yet by the wave of commercialization
that dominates broadcast and cable media. There are some Net-observers who
believe that the Internet, due to its consumers (who have gotten used to
obtaining information for free) and its nature (decentralized and interactive)
will not support a culture of advertising the way centralized media (like TV
and radio) with passive audiences do. That may be true.

Even so, intense corporate attempts to influence the "click-stream" on the
Internet are likely to continue and should be watched, even if they may now
seem trivial. The real problem is not a phony top-10 site. What is disturbing
is the prospect that monied interests will devise ways to commercialize and
control key portions of what is now a free-for-all and relatively egalitarian
medium. That is what the people at IMGIS -- and, no doubt, other firms across
the nation -- hope to do. As Striker says of her company, "We're pioneers."

David Corn can be reached at dacor at aol.com.
David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation magazine (www.thenation.com).
Copyright 1996 The Washington Post Company