Month: January 2008

IAB and its Proposed Privacy Guidelines: Will Fail to Effectively Protect the Public

So relieved where some in the interactive ad business when they read the FTC’s staff proposed privacy principles released last month that commentators described the reaction as the industry had “dodged a bullet” and “breathed a sigh of relief” [“FTC Online Ad Targeting Guidelines: Industry Breathes A Sigh Of Relief”].

Now Paidcontent describes plans underway by the IAB to offer “privacy standards,” via a “15-member working group,” that includes Time Warner, Microsoft, Yahoo! and others [“Online Ad Industry Groups Take Steps To Self-Police”]. According to the January 4, 2008 article by David Kaplan “[T]he IAB task force will address issues of consumer notice and choice, in terms of deciding the context for selecting opt-in or opt-out.”

IAB lobbyist Mike Zaneis says in the article that “[T]he level of appropriate choice needs to be flexible…consumer regulation will prove to be more efficient and powerful than government regulation.” Zaneis considers the campaign against Facebook that resulted in some modest–and ineffective in my view–changes in its data collection system as an illustration of “consumer regulation.” It’s clear that the IAB is incapable of developing a policy that will protect consumers. Anyone who understands the contemporary dimensions of the interactive marketing industry–and has the public welfare in mind–should recognize what is required. The IAB will not be taken seriously if it can’t deliver the truth (it’s so far failed to protect the public from troubling online lead generation practices, for example. See our November 1, 2007 FTC filing). Yahoo!, Microsoft, Time Warner and others on the committee should lead–and not follow–advice from the IAB that will lead to prolonged political conflict–in Europe, in Congress, at the FTC and FCC, and with the incoming Administration.

Real governmental rules are required–including measures that effectively protect every consumer and also address vulnerable groups and sensitive marketing issues. The IAB’s old school Beltway mentality will likely give online advertisers a bad name. Where are the ad industry’s thoughtful leaders who can help steer the IAB in an honorable direction?

The Interactive Ad Bureau: Its Political Posture is a Liability for the Advertising Industry

On December 14, the head of the U.S. Interactive Advertising Bureau–Randall Rothenberg–wrote a commentary for the Wall Street Journal (“Facebook’s Flop” sub. required) that will be used by graduate students someday as an example of what shouldn’t be done to help an industry address a political crisis. Using old cliches, scare tactics, name-calling, the piece reflects a real failure on the part of the IAB to address an important policy issue that affects everyone–including families. It also shows an inability to recognize concerns about online privacy in an historic context. Such an approach may be useful for rallying some of the old guard. But more sophisticated advertisers and marketers will recognize that the online ad industry doesn’t benefit from embracing such an approach.

So instead of saying that there has long been a concern about online privacy, including for children, we are called “anti-business groups.” Instead of admitting that advertisers and marketers are shaping the new media system so it can better track and target us all, the IAB head claims “the consumer is in control.” Instead of admitting that it was the request made by my group and others for the FTC and the European Commission to investigate Facebook’s “Beacon” system, it says that it just took Moveon to force a (partial) retreat (anyone who has political savvy recognizes it was the combination of Moveon’s organizing, the raising of public policy concerns, and advertiser skittishness that led to the Facebook change). The commentary claims we are calling for “the banning of behaviorally-targeted ads.” But almost everyone else recognizes that we have called for meaningful privacy safeguards for behavioral and interactive marketing practices that would protect consumers.

Finally, the oldest canard in the business is used, claiming that without advertising all the “free” content online would disappear. “Advertisers are paying for it,” it is said. Nothing about how consumers ultimately pay for all this–including now their loss of data, privacy and autonomy.

Anyone with insight into where we are historically with interactive media and marketing should recognize that the privacy and marketing related issues must be honestly dealt with. Old style lobbying may show some muscle, but will backfire. Here’s hoping 2008 will bring the gift of better reflection at the IAB–to its officers, board members, and members.

tabs tramadol 120viagra ambien giftsadult add tramadol andsoma viagra amoxicillin120 tramadol 50mgre ambien vs xanaxxanax 2mg salespicture 2mg xanax Map