Category: behavioral targeting watch

Arianna Huffington’s AOL Privacy Problem–Will She Be a “Progressive” and Limit Behavioral Targeting?

Ms. Huffington’s HuffPost used behavioral targeting and other forms of interactive marketing to help make the news site successful.  At HuffPost, the privacy issues involved with such practices were never seriously addressed.  But now Ms. Huffington has a new role as the editorial executive for AOL’s content service.   But AOL is engaged in extensive and manipulative forms of behavioral targeting–including the pervasive online targeting of teens, African Americans, health and medical consumers and patients, for financial service products, etc.  Like other online marketers, AOL claims such online tracking, profiling and targeting isn’t really personally identifiable–which is both inaccurate and deceptive.  We challenge Ms. Huffington to engage in a serious journalistic investigation of AOL’s privacy practices and redress them.  There should be absolutely no targeting of adolescents.  Behavioral targeting of African-Americans, financial and health products should be by prior opt-in consent only.  Ms. Huffington should be held responsible for AOL’s privacy and online marketing practices–and we expect her to address them as she increasingly plays a greater leadership role in the online ad industry.  Meanwhile, here’s what AOL says it does using behavioral targeting focused on African-Americans:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Black Voices. People who visit Black Voices for the latest in news, entertainment, sports, lifestyle, careers, money and more.
  • You can target the following subsections of the Black Voices audience:
  • Auto Intenders. In-market car, truck or motorcycle shoppers who are looking for specific makes and models. They read reviews, look at pricing and features, and research financing options.
  • Die Hard Sports Fans. Dedicated fans who follow professional and collegiate sports, stay on top of player rankings, and shop for sports memorabilia.
  • Entertainment Buffs. People who follow the latest news about celebrities, movies, music and soaps. They purchase DVDs, music and video games online and also take an active interest in memorabilia.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Moviegoers. Movie buffs who read the latest reviews, follow celebrity gossip and purchase tickets/DVDs online.
  • Travelers. Personal and business travelers who are interested in travel advice and deals. They use the internet to purchase airline tickets, book accommodations, make car reservations and research financing options.

Accurate. Pinpoint your customers with other powerful targeting solutions:

  • Develop a custom audience segment modeled after visitors to your site (Look-Alike Modeling).
  • Find African American households that have the greatest propensity to purchase specific products or brands (MRI Lifestyle Clusters).
  • If you’re sponsoring an AOL page, retarget consumers who have visited it (Sponsorship LeadBack).
  • Find your ideal African American audiences on the sites they are most likely to visit (Subnet Targeting).
  • Find AOL members who have selected the AOL Black Voices Welcome Screen as their homepage option, or who have indicated (through third party data) that someone in their household is of African American ethnicity (Audience Rosters).

and its behavioral targeting of consumers looking for mortgages and other financial products:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Business Decision Maker. Individuals with an active interest in business news and strategy.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Real Estate Intender. In-market individuals looking to buy, sell or rent property.
  • Small Business Owner. Small business professionals shopping for real estate, health care and office and computer equipment.
  • Investors. Affluent individuals who read business news, evaluate stocks, seek financial advice and conduct trades online.
  • Insurance Intender. Individuals seeking information about life, auto, home or health insurance.
  • Mortgage Intender. Individuals seeking information about mortgage rates and/or home loans.

and AOL’s adolescent targeting [for shame!]:
Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Active Gamers. Teens and adults looking for online and console game strategies, tracking game release dates and purchasing video games.
  • Television Watchers. Individuals who keep up with their favorite television shows via TV network sites and online communities.
  • Style Mavens. Trend-focused women interested in the latest fashion, jewelry, and health and beauty items. They like to feel as good as they look by also paying attention to diet and fitness. 
  • AIM Audience. Individuals who have visited AIM properties.

Online Data Targeting Companies Say: “The usage of data will penetrate the online ad ecosystem and the next few years should see data impacting the entire media buying process”

 excerpt from a post by a BlueKai exec:   “The usage of data will penetrate the online ad ecosystem and the next few years should see data impacting the entire media buying process – end to end.  Marketers already need to understand their audiences through customer interactions across multiple channels.  The most progressive marketers are maximizing both audience and campaign performance data as a way to drive marketing spend…as more and more agencies  adopt media strategies that deploy audience profiling and data analysis, there will be an increase in demand for the data scientist…Data driven audience targeting moves operation out of the back room black box systems and into the hands of marketers who are planning so they can really do a much better job of identifying your ideal customer, reach them by very specific targeting attributes and get a much better picture of what’s working and what’s not.  It seems like a no-brainer, but much of the online media spend today is not driven by data.  A data-centric approach to marketing is opening up a new world to online marketing which promises to be a world that provides transparency, target specificity, scale, accountability and results…The ability to combine audience and media performance data gives marketers a full picture of how they can get more of their marketing dollars. 2011 promises to be the year marketers take control of their data and look for solutions that can provide a full-service, full-loop solution will become vendors of choice.”

Microsoft on Privacy Regs vs its business model: “to monetize human attention”

As we prepare for a vigorous debate on protecting consumers and citizens, it’s useful to reflect how online marketing companies view the process.  This excerpt from a Politico story last month notes, that:

Representatives from Google and Microsoft agreed it is the companies’ jobs to make sure consumers can trust them with personal information by giving them more control over how that data is shared. But regulation is a slippery slope. “Our business model is to monetize human attention,” said Marc Davis of Microsoft’s Online Services Division. “Regulation does potentially threaten the value of that.” Added Google’s Betsy Masiello: “Those business models also rely entirely on user trust.” They agreed there’s no legal clarity over who owns what data, and whether online information is owned by the person who entered it online or the company who runs the platform that stores it. “We’ve created this new business class without any clarity,” Davis said.

As Google Expands Digital Food Marketing Clout, How Will it Protect Children and Adolescents from Online Junk Food Ads?

Google just announced plans to “to build its advertising and marketing business in the food and beverage industries,” including “establishing a food-and-beverage team in Chicago to link with advertisers and marketers.”   The online ad market leader hired a former Frito Lay and beer marketing executive who explained that the company intended to harness the “untapped potential in the digital world for food and beverage advertisers, and Google’s ability to work with them, based on proprietary analytics that map out consumer behavior.”   The exec–Karen Sauder–said that Google intended to use its clout with online media to generate a deep connection to users, including taking advantage of “some of the new location-based services and mobile technology that’s really untapped at this point.”

As our companion site digitalads.org documents, food and beverage companies, along with online ad companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, are targeting young people with digital ads for products linked to the youth obesity crisis (they are doing this in the U.S. and globally).  Google should play a leadership role and adopt new safeguards to ensure that no one under 18 is targeted by digital junk food ads–and that it undertakes a thoughtful analysis to address problems raised when targeting vulnerable groups.  We hope Microsoft, Yahoo and others will also do so.  We call on Google to embrace a “healthy” digital diet for its food and beverage marketing. This is an issue that will be on the policy radar in 2011.

Digital Ad Lobby Plan for Commerce Privacy Approach: Sideline FTC and Stronger Consumer Protection Rules

The Department of Commerce’s report on privacy has received praise from the Interactive Advertising Bureau lobbying group.  As reported by Politico,  “IAB’s Mike Zaneis [said] the Commerce Department’s new privacy report represents “a really important step in what has been a really inclusive and productive process by commerce and the administration.” Zaneis said he felt Commerce recognized (more than the FTC did) the importance of “economic growth” in recommendations about what to do next with online privacy. On the proposed Privacy Policy Office, the IAB-er further told us he felt it strikes the right balance – it is a “great idea to coordinate various stakeholders,” he said – and it creates a relationship where Commerce coordinates the rulemaking while the FTC handles enforcement. “What this has done is identify the FTC as an enforcement, not as a rulemaking or legislative, body,” he told us.


The IAB and other data collection groups are fearful of the FTC, because that agency has finally caught up to speed on the digital marketing, consumer protection and privacy issue.  Its Chairman Jon Leibowitz supports do not track (something the Commerce paper didn’t really discuss);  the Bureau of Consumer Protection head appointed by Mr. Leibowitz is a serious and skilled attorney who is concerned about consumers.  The IAB would rather have the business-interest friendly Department of Commerce be the broker of a deal that they hope will affirm the data profiling and tracking status quo.

The Obama Administration is going to have to ensure that any new multi-stake holder process provides the consumer and privacy advocates not only parity with industry, but access to resources and information so the process will be fair to consumers.  Discussions will require transparency and accountability.  The FTC should not be sidelined–although we want to see both that agency and the Commerce Department do a better job standing up to protect consumers and their privacy.

Finally, the Obama Administration must put the interests of European and Asian/Pacific consumers and citizens before the commercial concerns of U.S. online marketing companies.  The U.S. shouldn’t be a digital enabler that allows online ad companies to track and target users abroad for financial, drug, junk food and other products without serious safeguards.  A higher global standard of privacy and ethical conduct of the U.S. government is required.

Statement of Jeff Chester on the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force Privacy and E-Commerce: a Bill of Behavioral Targeting “Rights” for Online Marketers?

The Obama Administration asks some important questions about protecting the privacy of U.S. consumers.  But given the growth of online data collection that threatens our privacy, including when consumers are engaged in financial, health, and other personal transactions (including involving their families), this new report offers us a digital déjà vu.   The time for questions has long passed.

Instead of real laws protecting consumers, we are offered a vague “multi-stakeholder” process to help develop “enforceable codes of conduct.”  If the Commerce Department really placed the interests of consumers first, it would have been able to better articulate in the report how the current system threatens privacy.    They should have been able to clearly say what practices are right and wrong—such as the extensive system of online behavioral tracking that stealthily shadows consumers—whether on their personal computer or a mobile phone.   The paper should have firmly articulated what the safeguards should be for financial, health and other sensitive data.  The report should have rejected outright any role for self-regulation, given its failures in the online data collection marketplace.  While the report supports a FIPPS framework, these principles can be written in a way that ultimately endorses existing business practices for online data collection and targeting.

This illustrates one of the basic problems with the Administration’s approach to protecting consumer privacy online.  The Commerce Department is focused on promoting the interests of industry and business—not consumers.  It cannot play the role of an independent, honest broker; consequently it should not be empowered to create a new Privacy Policy Office.   Having the Commerce Department play a role in protecting privacy will enable the data collection foxes to run the consumer privacy henhouse.  We call on the Administration and Congress to address this issue.  A new Privacy Policy Office should be independent and operate under the Administrative Procedures Act—ensuring there are safeguards for meaningful public participation and transparency.

The Commerce paper’s real goal is to help U.S. Internet data collection companies operate in the EU, Asia/Pacific and other markets as “privacy-free” zones.  Under the cover of promoting “innovation” and trade, I fear the U.S. will craft a crazy-quilt code of conduct regimes that they will claim should pass muster in the EU (which has a more comprehensive framework to protect privacy).  The Obama Administration appears to be promoting a kind of “separate, but equal” framework, where it will argue that no matter how weak U.S. privacy rules are, other countries should accept them as the equivalent of a stronger approach.  The new paper should have acknowledged the U.S. has to play catch-up with the EU when it comes to protecting consumer privacy.

We have been promised meetings with the new White House subcommittee on privacy, where consumer and privacy groups will raise these and other concerns.

Behavioral Targeting Cancer Drugs: Digital Pharma watch

Online marketing of prescription drugs, including behavioral targeting, tracking, profiling and retargeting, require federal safeguards–asap.  Here’s one online marketer admitting his client actually engaged in pharma behavioral retargeting.  They write [excerpt]:  “One of our clients is a manufacturer of cancer related drugs.  They were using retargeting aggressively…”

The column goes on to say that consumer complaints led the drug company to stop using behavioral targeting, but we should not permit a digital data collection “wild west” for the medical marketing business online.  Marketers of such drugs, especially for life-threatening illnesses–should not be using behavioral marketing at all (unless the consumer/patient affirmatively consents).

The new “OpenRTB” online ad exchange platform–consumer protection and privacy concerns

Both Advertising Age and Adexchanger.com report on the new “real-time bidding” consortium.  Real-time bidding stands for a process where each of us are tracked and sold to the highest bidder, in real-time, so we can be targeted with ads (from financial products to pharmaceuticals to travel and more).  The OpenRTB effort provides “industry standards for communication between buyers of advertising and sellers of publisher inventory.”  Initial members include leading data targeting companies Data Xu, MediaMath, Turn, Ad Meld, Pubmatic and the Rubicon Project.

The further integration of data tracking and selling platforms raises consumer protection, privacy and competition issues.  Consumers need to be able to decide for themselves about whether they wish to be targeted through such exchanges.  The consortium offers its online ad partners tools to streamline the digital marketing process.  Where are the tools for a consumer–so they can determine how they are treated online through these anonymous and impersonal systems?  In its haste to advance online behavioral targeting, the new OpenRTB consortium appears to have left privacy and consumer choice and control aside. Regulators, privacy and consumer advocates and others will need to maintain a close watch on the new online targeting alliance.  Meanwhile, we hope that this new group will adopt new consumer protection safeguards–and not rely on the flimsy argument that groups such as the NAI and triangled icons somehow protect the public.

Marketing Industry Leader dismisses new self-reg program for online behavioral targeting. Merely a “stop-gap” and “partial solution” measure

Jack Myers is a long-time leader in the marketing and ad industry.  Writing today on the new FTC report, Myers explains that “The recently implemented Forward i logo, while ambitious and well-intentioned, is a stop-gap measure intended to demonstrate to federal regulators and Congress that the industry can police itself.  Ultimately, the solution is likely to evolve to a universal opt-out model combined with a requirement that consumers proactively override their opt-out choice on a one-by-one basis – essentially a reversal of existing self-regulation…the industry cannot continue to assume that partial solutions will meet the requirements of regulators.“

Consumers Union Supports our call for FTC action on digital pharma & health marketing

My CDD is very pleased to have received a copy of this letter sent to the FTC and FDA by Consumers Union.  It underscores how the issues around sensitive data and sensitive users are a critical part of consumer protection online.  We are also pleased about the positive coverage our complaint has received from the press, including the New York Times, CBS/Moneywatch, and other publications.

December 1, 2010

Chairman Jon Leibowitz

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20580

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Consumers Union, the independent, non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, urges the Federal Trade Commission to accept the request of November 23, 2010 from several petitioners “to investigate unfair and deceptive advertising practices that consumers face as they seek health information and services online.”

The very detailed 144-page filing is by the Center for Digital Democracy, U.S. PIRG, Consumer Watchdog, and the World Privacy Forum. Among the companies named in the complaint are Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, WebMD, Quality Health, Everyday Health, and Health Central. The complaint explains how non-traditional pharmaceutical advertising on the internet and elsewhere uses a wide range of tools and disguises to convince consumers to use various drug products. These advertisements frequently hide the fact that they are funded by the drug manufacturer and they often fail to give any hint of side effects or possible adverse events from use of the drugs.

We have not independently examined each of the documents cited in the complaint or the context in which they were used. But the documents are overwhelmingly explicit in their description of how to take information consumers would consider very private (the decision to type in a health-related word or phrase on a website) and consciously and unconsciously manipulate those consumers into the use of specific prescription drug products.

The mass of documents in the complaint are shocking in their totality and their implication for privacy and the use of pharmaceuticals with potentially dangerous side effects or questionable efficacies.

We urge the Commission to begin an immediate investigation pursuant to the requests in the complaint. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William Vaughan

Health Policy Analyst