Category: social networks

Progress & Freedom Foundation Comes to Aid of its Data-Collecting Backers (Using a `save the newspapers’ as a ploy to permit violations of consumer privacy protection!)

This report from Internetnews.com on the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s “Congressional” briefing illustrates how desperate some online marketers are that a growing number of bi-partisan congressional leaders want to protect consumer privacy.  So it’s not surprising that some groups that are actually financially supported by the biggest online marketing data collectors in the world would hold a Hill event to help out the friends who pay their bills.

It should have been noted in Ken Corbin’s that Google, Microsoft, Time Warner (AOL), News Corp. (MySpace) financially back the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF).  Other behavioral data targeting `want to be’s’ who monopolize U.S. online and other platforms are also backers:  AT&T, Comcast, NBC, Disney/ABC, Viacom/MTV/Nick, etc. For a list, see here.

PFF and some of its allies deliberately distort the critique of consumer and privacy groups.  We are not opposed to online marketing and also understand and support its revenue role for online publishing.  But many of us do oppose as unfair to consumers a stealth-like data collection, profiling and ubiquitous tracking system that targets people online.  One would suppose that as a sort of quasi-libertarian organization, PFF would support individual rights.  But given all the financial support PFF gets from the major online data collectors, how the group addresses the consumer privacy issue must be viewed under the `special interests pays the bills’ lens.

PFF and its allies are playing the ‘save the newspaper’ card in their desperate attempt to undermine the call for lawmakers to protect consumer privacy.  Newspapers and online publishers should be in the forefront of supporting reader/user privacy; it enhances, not conflicts, with the First Amendment in the digital era.  Finally, PFF’s positions on media issues over the years has actually contributed to the present crisis where journalism is on the endangered species list.  This is a group that has worked to dismantle the FCC, eliminate rules designed to foster diverse media ownership, and undermine network neutrality.

PS:  The article quotes from Prof. Howard Beales of George Washington University (and a fCV,ormer Bush FTC official with oversight on privacy).  Prof. Beales was on the PFF panel.  Prof. Beales, according to his CV has served as a consultant to AOL and others (including  Primerica and the Mortgage Insurance Companies of America).  Time Warner, which owns AOL, is a PFF financial backer.  All this should have been noted in the press coverage.

Online Consumers Require Real Privacy Safeguards, Not the Digital Fox [AAAA, ANA, BBB, DMA & IAB] in Charge of the Data Hen House

The self-regulatory proposals released today [2 July 2009]  by five marketing industry trade and lobby groups are way too little and far too late. This move by the online ad industry is an attempt, of course, to quell the growing bi-partisan calls in Congress to enact meaningful digital privacy and consumer protection laws. It’s also designed to assuage a reawakened Federal Trade Commission–whose new chair, Jon Leibowitz, recently appointed one the country’s most distinguished consumer advocates and legal scholars to direct its Bureau of Consumer Protection (David Vladeck). The principles are inadequate, even beyond their self-regulatory approach that condones, in effect, the “corporate fox guarding the digital data henhouse.” Effective government regulation is required to protect consumers. We should have learned a painful lesson by now with the failure of the financial industry to oversee itself. The reckless activities of the financial sector—made possible by a deregulatory, hands-off government policy–directly led to the current financial catastrophe. As more of our transactions and daily activities are conducted online, including those involving financial and health issues–through PCs, mobile phones, social networks, and the like–it is critical that the first principle be to ensure the basic protection of consumer privacy. Self-dealing “principles” concocted by online marketers simply won’t provide the level of protection consumers really require.

The industry appears to have embraced a definition of behavioral targeting and profiling that is at odds with how the practice actually works. Before any data is collected from consumers, they need to be candidly informed about the process–such as the creation and evolution of their profile; how tracking and data gathering occurs site to site; what data can be added to their profile from outside databases; the role that data targeting plays on so-called first-party websites, etc. In addition, the highest possible consumer safeguards are necessary when financial and health data are involved. Under the loosey-goosey trade industry principles, however, only “certain health and financial data” are to be treated as a “sensitive” category. This would permit widespread data collection involving personal information regarding our health and financial concerns. The new principles, moreover, fail to protect the privacy of teenagers; nor do they seriously address children’s privacy. (I was one of the two people that led the campaign to enact the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act).

The failure to develop adequate safeguards for sensitive consumer information illustrates, I believe, the inability of the ad marketing groups to seriously address online privacy. The so-called “notice and choice” approach embraced by the industry has failed. More links to better-written privacy statements don’t address the central problem: the collection of more and more user data for profiling and targeting purposes. There needs to be quick Congressional action placing limits on the collection, use and retention of consumer data; opt-in control over profile information; and the creation of a meaningful sensitive data category. Consumer and privacy groups intend to work with Congress to ensure that individuals don’t face additional losses due to unfair online marketing practices.

[press statement by the Center for Digital Democracy]

Google Promotes Carls Jr. via special YouTube Ad Deal: But “won’t be marked as ads”

excerpt via Adweek:

Justine Ezarik might not be a household name, but the 25-year-old has a cable TV-size audience… Thanks to Google, she’s also now part of Carl’s Jr.’s effort rolling out this week to sell the Portobello Mushroom Six-Dollar Burger to young men. The search-engine giant drafted Ezarik and eight other popular YouTube creators to participate in an ad campaign for the fast-food chain on the video-sharing site…

The YouTube stars were chosen not only for their creative flair, but for the networks of followers they can mobilize. Ezarik, for instance, not only has 94,000 subscribers to the iJustine YouTube channel — the nine YouTube celebs combined total 3.8 million subscribers on the site — but also boasts 590,000 followers on Twitter and 25,000 Facebook fans…Google is adding such deals to its advertising arsenal as it attempts to turn the video site into a moneymaker… Other new tools include tying advertiser videos to search results and matching high-profile creators like Seth MacFarland with brands…

The Carl’s Jr. videos will live on a dedicated YouTube channel, the creators’ pages and in ad units across sites in the Google ad network. They won’t be marked as ads on the YouTube pages, but will carry a notice they were paid for by Carl’s Jr. Each video also invites users to upload their own videos of how they eat a burger.

source:  Carl’s Jr. Makes New Kind of Network Buy:  Burger promo leans on vast reach of YouTube content creators.  Brian Morrissey.  Adweek.  June 1, 2009

Video Metrics: “gauged by the millisecond” [Annals of Social Media Marketing]

The Obama Administration’s use of social media and analytics should trigger a serious debate.  How much information on citizens and others do we really want the government to have?  As part of the discussion, consider this excerpt from social marketing company’s RockYou’s pitch to advertisers and others [our bold].  This about the Feds tracking as you watch government-funded videos:

“…Social Video Ads and Cross Platform Video Distribution on the RockYou Ads Network…Looking at the landscape of online advertising – on social networks and beyond – it’s obvious that video advertising is the medium of choice for brands and marketers who have a story to tell…Video metrics go far beyond impressions. Audience interactions (views, stops, rewinds, sharing) are gauged by the millisecond and response can be measured, in real numbers. Advertisers who can combine that data with behavioral or demographic profiling, to reach exact targets, get amazing results. 

“Social Influence Research” from Ad Agencies to Identify “Advocates and Champions” for brands [Annals of Social media Marketing]

excerpt:  In one instance, we used Social Infuence Research to conduct qualitative research for a Web site targeted at teen girls. Participants were recruited and asked to bring two friends to an interview. The researchers used the interview to observe the behavior of the group and the dynamics that occurred among the individuals in it. As a follow-up, the group was given a video camera and asked to document a trip to the mall. The video provided tremendous insight into the influencer and follower behaviors that were naturally occurring in the group… In another research project, we interviewed entire nuclear families to understand how its members managed and allocated financial resources. Families are the oldest and most established “social networks.” As such, they have fairly clearly delineated exchange and influencing processes to make decisions. To map how those decisions were made, we interviewed parents and children separately, and then together. In addition we worked with the family to create a digital photo diary for an entire week. Through those “mapping” interviews and exercises, we were able to canvas how financial decisions were made, how parents implicitly and explicitly passed along “money values” to their children, how children implicitly and explicitly absorbed the parents’ financial lessons and ultimately how the family network functioned around financial matters…

Generating social graph analysis and reporting helps to identify not only the attributes of influencers, but shows us who they are, where they are, what makes them influencers and, most importantly, where they cross other networks. Of course, social networks are nothing new; marketers have observed and responded to influencer relationships across categories for many years. However, the evolution of the social Web has created a new opportunity for digital marketers and researchers to harness a consumers’ social influence across their online network and create advocates and champions for their brand.

source:  Razorfish. 2009.

Annals of Branded Social Media–Ford Chooses 100 Bloggers to Serve as “Fiesta Agents”

Anyone tracking social media marketing recognizes that major brands and ad agencies are playing a highly influential role shaping the new medium.  It’s something we are closely observing.  Here’s an excerpt from Ad Age’s “Ford is Counting on Army of 100 Bloggers to launch new Fiesta [Eric Tegler.  April 20, 2009.  sub required].

“…the automaker is counting on 100 bloggers to introduce its new Fiesta, which is set to reach U.S. dealers in early 2010. The idea behind Fiesta Movement is to get the model’s target audience to drive and, hopefully, chatter about the car for months to come…Ford is loaning 100 German-built Fiestas to social-media trendsetters for six months. The 100 “Fiesta agents,” chosen from 4,000 who applied online, will share their experiences behind the wheel, completing monthly, themed missions from travel to social activism; posting videos; and updating their friends and followers on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere…Early signs indicate a ripple effect from simply signing agents to the Fiesta Movement… several of those selected have already gotten interviews with regional newspapers or TV stations based on their acceptance into the program…JWT will undertake the bulk of reviewing/posting online content generated by Fiesta agents, while mining data with the new metrics made possible through social media.”

Federal Gov’t (GSA) Refuses to Make Public Agreements with Facebook, MySpace, etc. Is data from individuals seeking gov’t information going to these sites?

Today we asked the GSA to make public the negotiated agreements (terms of service) it has made with social networking companies such as Facebook and MySpace (it has also made deals with Google’s YouTube, etc., see below).  The GSA has been negotiating with a number of new media companies so that federal agencies can provide information and services on such sites (GSA says it has been doing so to help answer “President Obama’s call to increase citizen participation in government”).  One central question we have is whether these private commercial providers are going to have access to citizen and other public data when we use these sites.  We also want to know if the Federal government will be provided information, such as web analytics, about citizen/public use of these services.  We have concerns about enhancing the ability of the government and private companies to gain access, and analyze, our information.  Here’s what the GSA press office emailed me back:

Thank you for your interest in the new media agreements.
At the request of the providers the agreements themselves will not be shared with the public.
However I can share some more details about what was negotiated. Hope this helps!

Terms of Service Agreements with Social Media Providers
Frequently Asked Questions

1.  Why is the government working on these Terms of Service (TOS)?
Over the past six months, a coalition of federal agencies (led by GSA’s Office of Citizen Services) has been working on Terms of Service agreements with a broad range of social media providers who offer free services to users. The objective is to resolve issues with the existing standard Terms of Service that are problematic to federal agencies (see list of issues below). Having these agreements means that, if an agency chooses to use various social media sites, they won’t have to start from scratch on negotiating a special TOS.

2. Which social media providers are you working with?
We’re negotiating tailored TOS with a broad range of providers. We’ve completed agreements with YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Blist, Slideshare, AddThis, Flickr, and Blip.tv. We’re hoping to negotiate agreements with additional providers, including Yahoo Video, Vimeo, iTunes, and others.

Regarding Twitter, several agencies’ attorneys have advised that there are no issues in signing their standard Terms of Service; thus, we’re not negotiating any special TOS with them.

The government is working with a broad range of social media providers and is showing no favoritism. Nor do we expect any favoritism once agencies are able to sign up to one or many providers. We’ve chosen to start with these providers since they’re some of the most high-volume sites on the Web.

3. Will these agreements allow government agencies to use social media tools such as YouTube and Facebook?

Yes, having these pre-negotiated agreements that have been accepted by other federal agencies should make it easier for the government to use a wide range of social media tools. While we believe having these agreements will remove legal barriers to use these tools, you’ll still need to work with your agency attorneys before signing the agreements. Most importantly, you’ll need to think strategically how you’ll use these tools to accomplish your agency’s mission.

4.  Can any federal agency use these TOS?

Yes. But you need to work with your agency attorneys and any other key stakeholders to be sure your agency can agree to the legal provisions of each agreement. Because several agencies helped to negotiate these agreements, it’s expected and hoped that most other agencies will find the language acceptable.

If you’re at a sub-agency or bureau with a cabinet department (for example, CDC or FDA), you should work with contacts at the cabinet department-level (that is, HHS). This is important since, in most cases, a single agreement is being negotiated and signed for the entire department.

5. What about state or local agencies?

At this point, the agreements we’re working on only cover federal agencies. However, some of the providers are looking at negotiating special TOS for state agencies. We’ll post updated information as soon as it becomes available. If you’re a state agency and already have an agreement with a social media provider that other state agencies can use, please feel free to share.

6. Are the TOS the same for each provider?

No. Each agreement is different. Since these are free services, we lacked the leverage to impose a one-size-fits-all agreement, and instead worked to modify, in a consistent way, each company’s pre-existing TOS. Your agency will need to sign a separate agreement with each provider. However, we’ve attempted to negotiate agreements that are as similar as possible and achieve the same goals for each social media site, such as deleting material agencies cannot agree to (the indemnification clause, governance law, etc.) and inserting provisions that protect the culture and status of agencies (restricting advertising, avoiding the appearance of endorsement, etc.). See a fuller list of issues below.

7. Can agencies negotiate their own Terms of Service?

The goal behind this effort is to create a standard Terms of Service (for each provider) that can work for all federal agencies. So the preference is for agencies NOT to negotiate their own TOS. Understandably, in the absence of monetary incentive, the social media providers don’t want to negotiate different TOS with dozens (or hundreds) of different agencies, since that would be a costly effort. It’s also not efficient for the government to negotiate dozens of different agreements.
[In the particular case of YouTube, the arrangement calls for only ONE Terms of Service to be used by all federal agencies. Google, the parent company of YouTube, does not intend to negotiate separate agreements for individual agencies].

8. How can I get a copy of the agreements?

Because some of the providers prefer not to publish the tailored federal TOS on a public website, we won’t be posting them on WebContent.gov.

The issues and solutions we’ve collectively negotiated include:
•    Indemnification and limited liability:  in negotiating the various agreements, we’ve been seeking to remove the indemnification clause (because agency officials cannot agree to tie their agency to unlimited liability in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act), and to ensure that liability is limited and covered by federal law.
•    Jurisdiction and choice of law:  the proposed agreements must be governed by the law of the United States and by the relevant state law only in the absence of other federal law.
•    FOIA:   the proposed agreements recognize that we adhere to the Freedom of Information Act.
•    Intellectual property:  the proposed agreements recognize that our content is in the public domain
•    Advertising:  providers have assured that they will eliminate or minimize advertising and that they have no intention of adding advertising that they do not currently display.  On YouTube, for example, they plan to remove the “Promoted Videos” module on playback pages.
•    Grandfather arrangements:  In the case of YouTube, previous “click through” agreements will be superseded by new agreements, making it possible to “cover” existing accounts, avoiding the need to close old accounts and rebuild content from scratch.
•    Free Service:  in every case so far, providers will not charge federal account holders for the use of their services.  These are not contracts; they are no-cost agreements.  While fee-based “premium” services may be available from the same provider, those are separate arrangements for which the agency should proceed under traditional “procurement” processes.

Facebook’s COO: “There aren’t that many places where an advertiser can connect with users and do so as a part of their experience”

An excerpt from a Businessweek interview with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg:

“…our business is advertising…What we do is we enable connections. We enable people to connect with users and provide advertising in such a way that it’s not obtrusive at all, but it’s part of the advertising experience and part of the user experience… We believe advertising needs to blend into the experience…There aren’t that many places where an advertiser can connect with users and do so as a part of their experience and as part of the sharing. We actually offer that ability.”

from:  “BusinessWeek Editor-in-Chief Stephen J. Adler talked with Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg”

IAB UK’s “Good Practice Principles” on Behavioural Targeting: Alice in Wonderland Meets Online Data Collection

Last week in Brussels at a EU Consumers Summit, Google and other interactive ad companies pointed to the new Interactive Advertising Bureau/UK “Good Practice Principles for online behavioural advertising” as a model for meaningful self-regulation.  The companies that have endorsed the principles include  AOL/Platform A, AudienceScience, Google, Microsoft Advertising, NebuAd, Phorm, Specific Media, Yahoo! SARL, and Wunderloop.   The message sent to EU regulators was, in essence, don’t really worry about threats to privacy from online profiling and behavioural targeting.  But a review of the Principles suggest that there is a serious lack of “truth in advertising” when it comes to being truly candid about data collection and interactive marketing.  These Principles are insufficient–and are really a political attempt to foreclose on meaningful consumer policy safeguards.

Indeed, when one examines the new online “consumer guide” which accompanies the Principles,  one has a kind of Alice in Wonderland moment.  That’s because instead of being candid about the real purpose of behavioral advertising–and the system of interactive marketing it is a part of–the IAB paints an unreal and deliberately cheery picture where data collection, profiling, tracking, and targeting are just harmless techniques designed to give you a better Internet experience.   UK consumers–and policymakers–deserve something more forthright.

First, the IAB conveniently ignores the context in which behavioural targeting is just one data collection technique.  As they know, online marketers are creating what they term a “media and marketing ecosystem.”  A truly honest “Good Practice Principles” would address all the principal ways online marketers target consumers.  That would include, as IAB/UK knows well, such approaches as social media marketing, in-game targeting, online video, neuromarketing, engagement, etc.  A real code would address issues related to the use of behavioural data targeting and other techniques when used for such areas as finance (mortgages, loans, credit cards); health products; and targeting adolescents.

The IAB/UK also fails to reconcile how it describes behavioural targeting to its members and what it says to consumers and policymakers.  For example, the group’s glossary defines behavioural targeting as:  “A form of online marketing that uses advertising technology to target web users based on their previous behaviour. Advertising creative and content can be tailored to be of more relevance to a particular user by capturing their previous decision making behaviour (eg: filling out preferences or visiting certain areas of a site frequently) and looking for patterns.“  But its new “Good Practice” consumer guide says that “Online behavioural advertising is a way of serving advertisements on the websites you visit and making them more relevant to you and your interests. Shared interests are grouped together based upon previous web browsing activity and web users are then served advertising which matches their shared interests. In this way, advertising can be made as relevant and useful as possible.”

Incredibly, the IAB/UK claims that “the information used for targeting adverts is not personal, in that it does not identify you – the user – in the real world. Data about your browsing activity is collected and analysed anonymously.”  Such an argument flies in the face of what the signatories of the “Good Practice Principles” really tell their online ad customers.  For example, Yahoo in the UK explains that its “acclaimed behavioural targeting tool allows advertisers to deliver specific targeted ads to consumers at the point of purchase.”  Yahoo has used behavioural targeting in the UK to help sell mortgages and other financial products.  Microsoft’s UK Ad Solutions tells customers it can provide a variety of behavioural targeting tools so it “can deliver messaging to the people who are actively looking to engage with what you’re offering…With Re-messaging we can narrow our audience by finding the people who have already visited you. It means we can ensure they always stay in touch and help create continual engagement with your brand…Profile Targeting can help you find the people you’re looking for by who they are, where they are and when you want to be seen by them.”  Time Warner’s Platform A/AOL says “Through our Behavioural Network, we can target your most valuable visitors across our network, earning you additional revenues, or simply fulfil your own campaign obligations.  By establishing certain user traits or demographics within your audience, we are able to target those individuals with the most relevant advertising (tied into their common characteristics), or simply reach those same users in a different environment.”  Or Audience Science’s UK office that explains “While other behavioural targeting technologies simply track page visits, the AudienceScience platform analyzes multiple indicators of intent:

•  Which pages and sections they have visited

•  What static and dynamic content they have read

•  What they say about themselves in registration data

•  Which search terms they use

•  What IP data indicates about them, including geography, SIC code, Fortune 500 rank, specific Internet domains,   and more

Because AudienceScience processes so many indicators of intent, it enables you to create precisely targeted audience segments for advertisers.”  And Google, which knows that the UK is “arguably the most advanced online marketplace in the world” has carefully explained to its UK customers all the data they collect and make available for powerful online targeting.

The Notice, Choice and Education “Good Practice” scheme relies on an ineffective opt-out.  Instead of real disclosure and consumer/citizen control, we have a band-aid approach to privacy online.  The IAB also resorts to a disingenuous scare tactic when it suggests that without online marketing, the ability of the Internet to provide “content online for free” would be harmed.  No one has said there shouldn’t be advertising–what’s been said is that it must be done in a way which respects privacy, the citizen, and the consumer.   Clearly, the new IAB/UK code isn’t a model that can be relied on to protect the public.  UK regulators must play a more proactive role to ensure privacy and consumer welfare online is meaningfully protected.

CDD Asks Facebook to Address Digital Marketing & Data Mining in Principles–including for outside developers

We have significant questions about the proposed Principles and Statement and how they will affect individual privacy.  CDD has submitted comments.  Here’s an excerpt:  “Ultimately, users must have full knowledge of and control over any and all user data collected by Facebook or by any third party using Facebook’s platform. Facebook must change its Principles and Statement to give users this knowledge and control. 

We urge Facebook to use this wording:

2. Ownership and Control of Information

People own their information. They have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. As part of user control of their data, every Facebook user has the right to know and fully control if and how data is collected from them, especially if the data is to be used in advertising. Facebook will be transparent in how it collects and analyzes data for advertising, including profiling and targeting of users. Facebook also will detail to users what particular data collecting and mining will be done for advertising purposes. Facebook will ensure that every company that works with it, via third-party applications or otherwise, also details to users if their data is collected or mined, how this data will be collected or mined and for what the data that is collected or mined will be used. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service…

Users need to know how third-party developers use the data accessed or collected, including how the data is used for advertising and marketing. For example, if games and widgets and other third-party applications base their business model on capturing user data for lead generation, the users must be clearly told the details of this data capture and lead generation, and users must give their explicit approval first.  Users have the right to control third-party use, access to, collection or sharing of user data, and Facebook needs to make this clear in its Principles.”