Category: social media marketing

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.”

Facebook Connect: “über-targeting” for marketers [Annals of Social Media Marketing]

excerpt from online marketing blog [our bold]:

The Benefits of Facebook Connect

For marketers:

First, it facilitates getting mentioned in Facebook users’s news feeds, which has been the holy grail for marketers because it raises awareness of your business and delivers an implied endorsement.

Second, it provides a treasure trove of user data, allowing über-targeting. You can literally customize the content of your page based on the visitor’s Facebook data, such as his age, gender, location, likes, dislikes, relationship status, even networks, groups, and pages he’s joined – or “fanned.” As a simple example, if you know a visitor is a fan of the band U2, you can highlight your U2-theme stationery, T-shirts, dog bones.

Google and WPP Fund Neuromarketing Research for Digital Ads: Ethical Issues and the Need for Policymaker Scrutiny [with an update on the grants!]

The Wall Street Journal and other publications report that Google and ad giant WPP will announce today the $4.6 million grants it will award for academic research designed to “improve understanding and practices in online marketing, and to better understand the relationship between online and offline media.” Among the research efforts given funds are projects that will “analyze internet users’ surfing habits to determine their thinking styles, such as whether they are most influenced by verbal or visual messages or if they are more holistic or analytical, and how to tailor ads accordingly” and an “analysis into how online ads effect blood flow to different areas of the brain. This research would seek to show the role that emotions play in decision making.”   Academics from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard will receive funds, among others. (And for those of us concerned about the role online advertising and data collection is playing in China–and impacts human rights and environmental sustainability–one of the new grants will fund “how Chinese web users respond to different online-ad formats, such as display and search ads”).

As we will tell the European Commission at the end of the month, at a workshop they have organized to discuss interactive advertising and consumer protection, the evolving role of neuromarketing with online advertising raises a number of troubling concerns–and should trigger a serious policy review.   We have not yet seen a final list of the grantees.  But Google should be funding independent research that will honestly explore the impact and ethics of online marketing.  They should be ensuring that the ethical issues of online marketing–such as the concerns raised by their new behavioural profiling and targeting system–receive a honest scholarly review.

The growing controversy over the role pharmaceutical companies are playing with scholarly research on drugs, we think, has implications here.  We believe all the academic institutions receiving these grants must vet them to ensure they truly address the real impact online ad techniques have on individuals and society.

Update:  Google & WPP made the academic research announcement–eleven grants awarded.  Here are some to ponder–and raise questions:

*  “Targeting Ads to Match Individual Cognitive Styles: A Market Test”; Glen Urban, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management;

*  “How do consumers determine what is relevant? A psychometric and neuroscientific study of online search and advertising effectiveness”; Antoine Bechara, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychology/Brain & Creativity Institute, University of Southern California and Martin Reimann, Fellow, Department of Psychology/Brain & Creativity, University of Southern California;

*“Unpuzzling the Synergy of Display and Search Advertising:Insights from Data Mining of Chinese Internet Users”; Hairong Li, Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing, Michigan State University and Shuguang Zhao, Media Survey Lab, Tsinghua University;

*”Are Brand Attitudes Contagious? Consumer Response to Organic Search Trends”; Donna L. Hoffman, Professor, A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California Riverside and Thomas P. Novak, A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California Riverside;

*“Marketing on the Map: Visual Search and Consumer Decision Making”; Nicolas Lurie, Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Management and Sam Ransbotham, Assistant Professor of Information Systems, Carroll School of Management, Boston College.

MySpace Exec on its ad hypertargeting system: We have “massive amounts of data” on our users (and an example using Pepsi)

Excerpt.  on MySpace CEO Chris DeWolfe presentation.  via paidcontent.org:  “MySpace has 76 million unique online users in the US, and 139 million users worldwide; 40 percent of all Americans based in the US are on mySpace…MySpace has been working on its monetization technology currently used online called Hypertarget, which is five algorithms that basically segments the “massive amounts of data” on mySpace users into “enthusiast buckets.” Currently, they have their audience divided into over 1,000 of these segments, and for example, if Pepsi wants to target alternative music users they can serve them up an ad. Said DeWolfe, “It’s incredibly effective, and increases our yields.” This will be moving onto mobile.”

Facebook, Advertising, Third-Party $Apps, Terms of Service, Data Collection & Privacy

The role that third party developers play accessing user data on social networks such as Facebook has long been a privacy concern for us.  The business practices, including data collection, profiling and targeting that form the basis of social networking “monetization” strategies are hidden from public view.  My CDD and USPIRG, in our various privacy complaints to the FTC, asked the agency to examine this area.  Maybe the new Obama FTC will do so.  But for now, here’s some excerpts from Facebook’s advice “on common business models” to application developers, as well as from its list of “third party developers” involved in social media marketing:

“As you think about building your app on Facebook, we want to help by highlighting some keys ways of thinking about your app as a business… Apps that are meaningful, trustworthy and well designed have real staying – and monetizing – power… we host a Platform with instant access to more than 175 million active users… Once you’ve created a sustainable, engaging social application, there are many different ways to help monetize it… Advertising: We at Facebook have had success serving targeted advertisements to our users based on information we know about them. By leveraging the data we give you access to (as detailed in our Developer Terms of Service) and data users share with you directly as a part of your application experience, you can serve highly relevant ads… Virtual Credits / Virtual Goods:… instead of accepting payments directly from users for subscriptions or virtual goods, some applications instead allow users to complete affiliate offers by filling out surveys or agreeing to try new products. There are a number of providers who consolidate these types of offers…
Third Party Providers to Help You Monetize:
Advertising:
AdParlor:  “Over 500 Million users worldwide are on a social networking site. These users are comfortable sharing their age, gender, and location, and can be reached through targeted advertising.”…
Shopitmedia: “you can target based on:
1. Location
2. Gender
3. Age
4. Application Category”…
Affiliate marketing…
Analytics…

Payments

Why CDD Was Prepared to Go to FTC with EPIC on Facebook’s Terms of Service Digital `Bait & Switch’

Yesterday, my group worked closely with the Electronic Privacy Information Center to prepare a complaint on Facebook’s new Terms of Service agreement.  We have been tracking Facebook’s new “engagement” ad targeting efforts, including its “polling” product.  As Adweek recently reported, “The polling ad is part of Facebook’s second effort to integrate advertisers into the fabric of the site beyond standard banner units.”  As explained by eMarketer, “Facebook’s Engagement Ad polling feature may be a precursor to a more full-blown market research program—one that Facebook isn’t quite ready to talk about yet,” said eMarketer senior analyst Debra Aho Williamson. “Social network profiles are a treasure trove of information about consumer preferences, and people talk about brands and products frequently.”

Facebook also recently “announced the release of several new Facebook Platform APIs, all of which enable application developers to access and share more real-time information about their users and their friends.” As InsideFacebook reported, the “release of several new Facebook Platform APIs, all of which enable application developers to access and share more real-time information about their users and their friends…While Facebook apps have been able to set Facebook users’ status updates for a long time, this is the first time developers will be able to access current and recent updates for app users and their friends.”

This latest Facebook flap underscores our call for policy safeguards.

Baby Steps for Online Privacy: Why the FTC Self-Regulatory Principles For Online Behavioral Advertising Fails to Protect the Public

Statement of Jeff Chester, Exec. Director, Center for Digital Democracy:

The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to serve as the nation’s leading consumer protection agency.  But for too long it has buried its mandate in the `digital’ sand, as far as ensuring U.S. consumer privacy is protected online.    The commission embraced a narrow intellectual framework as it examined online marketing and data collection for this proceeding.  Since 2001, the Bush FTC has made industry self-regulation for privacy and online marketing the only acceptable approach when considering any policy safeguards (although the Clinton FTC was also inadequate in this regard as well).  Consequently, FTC staff—placed in a sort of intellectual straitjacket—was hampered in their efforts to propose meaningful safeguards.

Advertisers and marketers have developed an array of sophisticated and ever-evolving data collection and profiling applications, honed from the latest developments in such fields as semantics, artificial intelligence, auction theory, social network analysis, data-mining, and statistical modeling.  Unknown to many members of the public, a vast commercial surveillance system is at the core of most search engines, online video channels, videogames, mobile services and social networks.  We are being digitally shadowed across the online medium, our actions monitored and analyzed.

Behavioral targeting (BT), the online marketing technique that analyzes how an individual user acts online so they can be sent more precise marketing messages, is just one tool in the interactive advertisers’ arsenal.  Today, we are witnessing a dramatic growth in the capabilities of marketers to track and assess our activities and communication habits on the Internet.  Social media monitoring, so-called “rich-media” immersive marketing, new forms of viral and virtual advertising and product placement, and a renewed interest (and growing investment in) neuromarketing, all contribute to the panoply of approaches that also includes BT.  Behavioral targeting itself has also grown more complex.  That modest little “cookie” data file on our browsers, which created the potential for behavioral ads, now permits a more diverse set of approaches for delivering targeted advertising.

We don’t believe that the FTC has sufficiently analyzed the current state of interactive marketing and data collection.  Otherwise, it would have been able to articulate a better definition of behavioral targeting that would illustrate why legislative safeguards are now required.  It should have not exempted “First Party” sites from the Principles; users need to know and approve what kinds of data collection for targeting are being done at that specific online location.

The commission should have created specific policies for so-called sensitive data, especially in the financial, health, and children/adolescent area.  By urging a conversation between industry and consumer groups to “develop more specific standards,” the commission has effectively and needlessly delayed the enactment of meaningful safeguards.

On the positive side, the FTC has finally recognized that given today’s contemporary marketing practices, the distinction between so-called personally identifiable information (PII) and non-PII is no longer relevant.  The commission is finally catching up with the work of the Article 29 Working Party in the EU (the organization of privacy commissioners from member states), which has made significant advances in this area.

We acknowledge that many on the FTC staff worked diligently to develop these principles.  We personally thank them for their commitment to the public interest.  Both Commissioners Leibowitz and Harbour played especially critical roles by supporting a serious examination of these issues.  We urge everyone to review their separate statements issued today.  Today’s release of the privacy principles continues the conversation.  But meaningful action is required.  We cannot leave the American public—now pressed by all manner of financial and other pressures—to remain vulnerable to the data collection and targeting lures of interactive marketing.

FTC’s Behavioral Ad Principles–the last act of the Bush Administration? Why is the Obama White House Allowing the FTC To Remain Under the Leadership Appointed by Pres. Bush?

In a few hours, approximately between 10-11 am eastern, the FTC is expected to release its final “Online Behavioral Advertising Principles.” Originally released for comment in December 2007, the principles are a sort of Valentine’s Day present to the online ad industry from the (supposedly departed) Bush Administration.  From what we know, the FTC principles support self-regulation.  Online marketers will be told they should behave better–and here are suggestions.  It’s like a teacher telling a misbehaving student–‘behave better, dear,’ or else we will have to tell your parent (in this case, the guardian being potential congressional action).

My CDD urged Commissioners Harbour and Leibowitz to issue separate statements on the principles, and call for tougher requirements—especially in the area of so-called sensitive information.  This would include data connected to our financial and health related online activities (think mortgage and loan applications or queries for prescription drugs).  CDD and a coalition of groups also formally asked the commission to impose serious privacy safeguards for both children and adolescents.

But these principles were crafted within the narrow confines of the Bush Administration philosophy prevailing at the FTC.  Only self-regulation is permitted.  Consequently, such an approach likely means these rules leave the online data collection, profiling and targeted marketing system which comprise behavioral marketing off the privacy protection hook.

But one question looms at the moment.  Why has the new Obama administration allowed the FTC to remain under the leadership of Bush-appointee William E. Kovacic? The principles being issued today, in fact, reflect the “old” FTC, not one run under the philosophy of President Obama.  Why is the Obama White House failing to ensure a change of leadership at the FTC?  The agency is responsible for overseeing a huge portion of the economy, including critical financial issues.  It’s also supposed to be the leading agency on consumer protection issues.   The Obama White House should have–by now-found someone who would led the FTC, so it can better protect the public.

The principles being released today were only made possible because of the Bush FTC give-away to Google, when it approved its takeover of online ad giant DoubleClick.  CDD, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and USPIRG fought the merger, including on privacy grounds.  FTC Commissioner Pamela Harbour played a key role forcing the agency (then run by Chairwoman Majoris, whose husband’s law firm represented DoubleClick) to address the privacy concerns. As a consequence of the political pressure from its failure to seriously examine the consumer privacy issues of the Google deal, the FTC staff were told to develop these principles.

The next chair of the FTC needs to take privacy and online consumer protection issues seriously.  The agency does need more resources, but also a new spirit.  If the FTC had been on the job, and was examining how lending institutions were recklessly promoting loans and mortgages, maybe today’s mess wouldn’t be as tragic as it is.  More to come after the commission releases the principles.

The “Revised” Network Advertising Initiative Principles: Ghost-written by Bernard Madoff?

That was really what we felt reading the “NAI Response to Public Comments” released yesterday.  It accompanied the 2008 principles announcement by the self-regulatory trade online marketing trade group.  The “response” is worth reading, because it really reveals the inability of the group to meaningfully address how to protect consumers online.  You would think that an organization which has Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Time Warner and many others as paying members could at least clearly state what happens to our data in the online marketing process.  But the real goal of the NAI is to prevent the enactment of serious state and federal privacy policies that would protect consumers. My group put out a statement yesterday discussing the new principles.

The credibility of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Time Warner are at stake.  They should be able to ensure that their own organization can honestly address the implications of online advertising.  But it’s time to abandon any call for self-regulation.  That has been a failure.  It’s clear that a growing number of consumer and privacy groups are calling for a legislative solution, as well as a more effective FTC.  Responsible online ad companies will support such regulation.

Google’s Doubleclick Using Widgets to “give advertisers the ability to tap into the incredible power of potential brand evangelists”

Google’s Doubleclick division is working with social media and widget advertising company Gigya so marketers can “integrate a viral component into any campaign to allow consumers to “snag” or “grab” the ad onto their personal homepage or social network page.” We think the Doubleclick release is very revealing. So here are some choice excerpt excerpts:

“Widgets are part of a fundamental change within the online marketing arena,” said Ari Paparo, vice president of advertiser products for DoubleClick. “Widget Ads provide audiences with the ability for self-expression and identification with well-loved brands while providing marketers the benefits of virality and engagement along with the measurability of traditional online channels.”…

“Incorporating viral functionality helps give advertisers the ability to tap into the incredible power of potential brand evangelists,” said Ben Pashman, vice president of business development with Gigya,…enabling great creative to enter a user’s social circle, where it may become an even more powerful, user-endorsed ad unit.”

Widget Ads may be distributed in a multitude of ways including branded websites, word-of-mouth outreach and even through another rich media ad… integration with the industry-standard DART platform allows for valuable Widget Ad metrics including impressions, interactions, video metrics, viral “grabs” for different social networks, and reach and frequency…”