Category: Behavioral Targeting

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.

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.

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.

Behavioral Targeting Meets Neuroscience: “The ability to tap into psychological and physiological testing for ad targeting is an emerging field”

Here’s an excerpt from the article BT: Can It Mean Behavioral Responses To Ads?:

Companies touting the targeting of online ads to consumers as a mixture of art and science could soon find psychologists employed among their midst…One To One Interactive will open its primary research lab, OTOinsights, to other advertising agencies and research firms… Along with the main lab in Charleston, Mass., a mobile lab that can travel anywhere offers input on eye tracking; click tracking; bio-feedback such as heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response; neuro-feedback such as EEG/active attention; and facial recognition technology that interprets six fundamental human emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted, and neutral…The ability to tap into psychological and physiological testing for ad targeting is an emerging field…There are between 10 and 15 firms…spearheading efforts. …Neurofocus…focuses on EEG electroencephalographic- (EEG-) based neurological testing that reveals the degrees of attention, emotional engagement, and memory retention that consumers experience at the deep subconscious level of the brain.

source:  Laurie Sullivan.  Behavioral Insider.  June 4, 2009.

Behavioral Targeting U.S. Hispanics: Another Example of Why Policymakers Must Be Proactive

Here’s an excerpt from a column written by an executive from a leading behavioral targeting company:

Behavioral targeting can help marketers reach across the cultural divide, helping to identify Hispanic online audiences, or any other ethnic group for that matter…Behavioral targeting is used to create Hispanic audience segments first based on users who have visited Spanish-language sites or any sites with Hispanic-relevant content. You can then create sub-segments based on not only ethnicity, culture, or language, but also interests and purchase intent behaviors observed on those or other sites. You can even identify “purchase influencers” among U.S. Hispanic populations, based on browsing and buying behaviors plus geographic location. You may then serve culturally relevant marketing messages to these segments when they travel to any other site online.

You will also find re-targeting useful, once you have begun to build these behavioral segments. As you serve ads to your Hispanic audiences and sub-segments, you can then re-target them across whichever network or sites you choose, with upsell, cross-sell, or discount offers…Behavioral profiles that have been tagged as part of a Hispanic audience or sub-segment can be given a boost by search data including Spanish-language or Hispanic content keywords or search engines that have been set to Spanish.

source:  How to use BT to reach U.S. Hispanics.   Jeff Hirsch.  April 21, 2009.  imediaconnection

Tracking You Offline for Better Targeting You Online: Why both the FTC and Congress Need to Protect Consumers

There is growing evidence daily about threats to consumer privacy online–all of which have real life consequences for the decisions we make when we buy products.   As the public relies more on using online to apply for credit cards, mortgages, explore health concerns or issues affecting their children and teenagers, it’s absolutely essential the individual–not the business–have full control over their data.  In a trade article on the “profiling” of consumers for online targeting, here’s how they describe linking your offline data with your digital experience.  It shows how the current definition of Personally Identifiable Information, PII, is out of date and fails to protect consumers.  Marketers don’t need your name or address to know your behaviors and target you [excerpt]:

How do marketers get access to the offline purchase data? More importantly, how do they marry it to your online identity without using PII? Usually, this involves the cooperation of several parties. The first might be an online retailer that links a credit card used in an ecommerce transaction with a third-party cookie. The second party is a data partner who owns that particular cookie and pulls in additional purchase history to augment the profile associated with that cookie, and then rents the profile to a marketer. The third is an online ad exchange, which will allow ad hoc purchasing of inventory against a particular cookie across inventory sold on the exchange.

source:  Where do we draw the line on consumer profiling?  Tom Hespos.  imediaconnection.com.  May 21, 2009

Behavioral Targeting Merges with Social Media Marketing for Individual Profiling [Annals of Behavioral Targeting]

As a growing number of people recognize (and taking advantage of), behavioral targeting is part of the social media marketing business model.  Such an approach illustrates why policymakers across the globe must address what is a largely stealth commercial surveillance system.  It has implications for the collection of data on individuals by government as well [my bold].

Here’s a excerpt from a recent announcement by WPP owned 24/7 Real Media Inc.:  “the leading global digital marketing company, has begun a pilot program to integrate social media engagement metrics into its behavioral targeting application. These social media engagement metrics will augment existing behavioral targeting attributes to drive robust advertising response and conversion.  Working with companies such as NuConomy, an innovator in social media measurement, select 24/7 Real Media advertisers are now leveraging non-traditional metrics such as comments, ratings, video plays, and link sharing to customize advertising, increase responsiveness and drive purchases.”

and Nuconomy says that:
“By tracking engagement and site activity at the individual user level, NuConomy’s module automatically builds rich behavioral profiles, or interest maps, for each user – such as who is posting comments on bikes or sharing music recommendations with friends. This level of detail gives publishers a deeper understanding of user behavior so they can optimize their sites and marketing messages for different audience segments, even different individuals.”

PS:  We see that the folks over at the AT&T, Yahoo, AOL, etc. backed Future of Privacy Forum has engaged WPP to help its new research effort designed “to develop a variety of [privacy] notices that will resonate with consumers and begin to test them with users.”

We suggest that as its initial effort, the Forum require WPP to make public all the various methods it uses to collect data from consumers.  Such a list includes WPP’s ad networks, online games, mobile, cable broadband platforms, social media, etc.  That would provide the research initiative a good place to begin, if its effort is to be taken seriously.