Category: interactive marketing

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.

Consumers Union Tells Congress that FTC should do more work on “Online Behavioral Marketing… to protect consumer privacy”

Here’s an excerpt from today’s testimony by CU’s Gail Hillebrand before the House Commerce Committee’s consumer protection subcommittee.  The hearing was on the role of the FTC as a new (and much needed) Consumer Financial Products Protection Agency is potentially created.  The testimony was endorsed by other leading consumer groups, including Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen and US PIRG.

Online Behavioral Marketing – More must be done to protect consumer privacy.
Consumers are being asked to pay a heavier and heavier price in order to take advantage of the full range of goods and services offered through the Internet, as marketers, researchers, data-mining companies and even service and content providers create profiles of personally identifiable information based on consumer behavior.  Internet service providers, content providers and vendors must take greater responsibility in considering the collateral impact their behavioral tracking models have on consumers.
The FTC should:
• investigate the online marketplace in light of new developments in the data mining field;
• expose marketing practices that compromise user privacy;
• issue the necessary injunctions to halt current practices that abuse consumers; and
• adopt policy principles outlining what can be considered technology neutral Fair Information Practices.

Google’s “Health Vertical” Division and the YouTube `Branded’ Channel for Obesity-related Medical Product

Google is in, as we know, the interactive marketing of health products and medical information.  Here’s an excerpt from Advertising Age on one of Google’s new YouTube related efforts.  We are deeply concerned about the role of interactive health marketing, including the techniques used to present information, influence consumer behavior, and collect user data.

Excerpt: In the video, Viki, a middle-age blonde, tears up recounting her moment of truth: A couple of years ago she was so obese that she could not chase after her toddler to keep him from running into the street…If this sounds like a setup for a weight-loss ad, that’s because it is. But not for a diet shake, pill or plan. The video is for Ethicon Endo-Surgery’s Realize adjustable gastric band — a device placed around the stomach that restricts food intake. The video is on Realize Band’s branded YouTube channel.

“Video is such a powerful medium for people who are having this type of surgery,” said Mary Ann Belliveau, managing director of Google Health Vertical. “What the channel does is give the patients a home for this, so they can get a more thorough experience, specifically with the company and the brand.”…The Realize band’s YouTube channel went live June 20 and already has received nearly 8,000 channel views. Ethicon also has a branded site for the band, where patients can learn more about the surgery and join the device’s online support program. In the video on YouTube, Viki describes her own experience with the Realize band. On the Realize website, consumers can read Viki’s diary, as well as those of other patients. Complementing Viki’s story on YouTube, there is a video simulating implantation of the band, and another explaining how to financially prepare for the surgery, which costs $17,000-$26,000 on average…”

source:  Gastric-Band Maker Reaches Out with YouTube Channel.  Marissa Miley.  Ad Age.  July 6, 2009 [sub required]

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]

Protecting Privacy and Consumers: Testimony on Behavioral Targeting Before House Commerce Subcommittees

Last week, I testified on the threat to both consumer privacy and welfare from the growing data collection, profiling, and targeting interactive online marketing system.  I told Congress it was critical to enact legislation that would protect consumers, especially as they use online and mobile networks for financial and health-related transactions (credit card applications, banking, health inquiries, etc.).  As you can see from the testimony, I said we should be able to have an online privacy policy that  ensures the public is protected, while also promoting the growth of the commercial online medium.

The link to the testimony via a press release is here.

Behavioral Targeting as “Anonymous”–Can You Fool all the Regulators All/Some of the Time?

excerpt and my emphasis from new product announcement.  Ask your self as you read, is it anonymous?:  “…Behavioral Targeting is the latest addition to the Amadesa Customer Experience Suite and represents a powerful extension of Amadesa’s personalization continuum…“Amadesa’s site-side Behavioral Targeting algorithm goes above and beyond how most marketers define personalization by incorporating principles more commonly seen in advanced advertising solutions and applying them on marketers’ sites,” explained Rita Brogley, Amadesa’s CEO. “Although the technology is among the industry’s most sophisticated, the integrated user interface makes Behavioral Targeting easy to implement with little follow-up required of the marketer…

  • An algorithm that anonymously collects hundreds of user data attributes, including time of day, day of week, IP address, referring URL and more
  • In-session updating which captures visitors’ actions and behaviors, incorporates them into personas and acts on these findings in real time
  • A sophisticated, yet easy to use, interface with actionable reporting that allows marketers to compare Behavioral Targeting traffic with a control group to track the results of the algorithm
  • A quick preview function which lets marketers easily view content options prior to launch...”

From Product Overview:  Amadesa’s Behavioral Targeting (BT) algorithm personalizes site content and media elements for visitors based upon their real-time behaviors. BT analyzes hundreds of data elements to learn which campaign promotion, category image or general creative is most compelling for each individual. By automatically matching the best content to each visitor, BT can have a dramatic affect on conversions and engagement…
source:  Amadesa Adds Site-Side Behavioral Targeting to its Continuum of Personalization SolutionsAmadesa Adds Site-Side Behavioral Targeting to its Continuum of Personalization Solutions.  Press Release.  June 15, 2009.
and Amadesa Product Overview 2009.

Microsoft uses brain research to improve ads in online games, including for Doritos [annals of neuromarketing]

excerpt:  “…in-game ads have begun to move out of the “experimental buy” bucket and into the media plan because advertisers now realize that ads in games produce results…Measurement is very important…Earlier this week, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) released new in-game advertising guidelines for public comment to establish a common methodology for counting impressions and to simplify the process of buying and selling in-game advertising… Microsoft’s advertising arm also has been involved in a study that examines the emotional reactions consumers have toward advertising campaigns in and around video games. The first phase of the study — conducted with EmSense, a neuroscience company — compares the findings with similar results from television commercials. The companies discovered that the interactive elements in the video game ad campaigns evoke stronger emotional connections with consumers and more positive emotional associations with the brands.

EmSense analyzed several different advertising campaigns on Xbox 360 games, Xbox Live and MSN Games. Some brands involved in the study include Doritos, Kia, Sprint, Hyundai and Microsoft.

In-Game Ads In The Ad Game.  Laurie Sullivan.  Online Media Daily.  June 16, 2009

PS:  Among the in-game ad categories [excerpt] proposed by the IAB include (and I kid you not!):

 3.1.1.1 Valid Ad Impression:
The threshold for a valid Ad Impression is a cumulative exposure to an ad of ten (10) seconds.   An In-Game Measurement Organization may accumulate ad exposures of shorter time lengths to achieve this Ad Impression threshold…

3.1.2.2 Lighting
Only ads that are visible within the virtual game environment with sufficient lighting during darkness should be counted.

3.1.2.3 Maximum Ad Angle Relative to Game Screen
The angle of the ad must be no greater than 55 degrees relative to the game screen.

The Growing Role of Advertising in Online Video (and a Pitch by Google for Greater Ad into Content Integration)

As advertisers continue to exert greater influence in online programming content (and as we prepare for what will eventually be a digital version of the 1950’s Quiz show scandals), we are tracking this trend.  Here is an excerpt from Screenplays magazine on a recent Internet “upfront” conference held by ad company Digitas:  Across the board the message was that advertisers aren’t interested in backing web content without having access to precisely the right performance data…Measuring engagement…is a big component of tracking ROI…Carls Jr. recently rolled out an online video campaign with eight YouTube stars, said Alex Levy, director of Branded Entertainment at Google.  “Brands increasingly have an appetite for web content and the DVR has made everything old new again.  We have to keep figuring out how to integrate into the content itself, she said.

New York Web Confab Reveals Hurdles Agencies Have Set for Video Ad Metrics.  Screenplays.  June 9, 2009

The IAB’s new lobbying “study”–this term paper gets a failing grade [plus, amazingly, it was co-authored by an ad giant board member]

The Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association that lobbies for the online ad industry, wants to help derail legislation that would protect consumer privacy.  On Wednesday, it released a report designed to sway Congress; it claimed that the “Ad-Supported Internet Contributes $300 Billion to U.S. Economy, Has Created 3.1 Million U.S. Jobs.”  Incredibly–and so revealing–was the failure of the report to discuss the privacy issue at all.  In fact, the term privacy is only mentioned once (and doesn’t refer to the civil liberties issues at the core of the debate).

In fact, this report appears more like some sort of term paper where various facts and figures were piled on in an attempt to make an argument.  The report conflates the Internet with the online ad market (and misses the larger critical issues).

But what’s astounding is that it was co-authored by a board member of WPP, the world’s largest ad agency.  Harvard Professor John Quelch has been on the WPP board since 1988, earning some 60,000 pounds a year for his service. WPP has a huge financial stake, needless to say, in the digital ad business.  Professor Quelch is also on the Pepsi Bottling Group board.  The report was developed by Hamilton Consultants, which has represented online giants such as AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, along with other major online marketers Coca Cola, GE and–of course–WPP.

The IAB’s stance appears to be that if Congress protects our privacy, it will somehow undermine the Internet’s role in economic growth.  The opposite, I believe, is true.  An Internet that reflects the values of democracy will do a better job for us all—including the lobbyists and academic consultants working on behalf of the IAB.

Google’s YouTube Pushes Carls Jr. Burgers. 53 grams of fat/870 calories/It’s #1 Video Ad for the Week

Take a look at this YouTube branded ad campaign for Carls Jr.  Look at the nutrition information.  The ad, says Visible Measures, is at the “number one spot on the Top Ad Campaigns chart this week showcases vloggers from the Nigahiga comedy group chomping down for Carl’s Jr.’s How To Eat A Burger campaign, which features the Portobello Mushroom Burger. The campaign grabbed a record-breaking 3.3+ million views…”