Category: online lead generation

Google’s Eric Schmidt on Mobile Marketing [Annals of Why We Need Mobile Privacy and Consumer Protection Safeguards]

Google CEO Eric Schmidt gave the keynote address at the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s “Ecosystem 2.0” conference.  As reported, he explained that [our emphasis]:

“The smartphone is the iconic device of our time,” Schmidt told the record IAB audience of 750 in Palm Springs, California. A year ago, he added, he predicted that mobile use would surpass PCs within two years. “It happened two weeks ago. And the PC is not going to catch up,” Schmidt said, as he labeled the new era, “Mobile First.”…The hyperlocal potential of mobile, Schmidt continued, means that smartphones and tablets bring a practical application to marketing that no other medium can match: A connection that will lead you to the store, open the door, and direct you to a product you need. “A RadioShack ad can tell you where you are and how to get to the nearest store.” And equipped with Near Field Communication chip (NFC), the newest generation of smartphones not only can tell you what to buy, it can enable a tap-and-pay transaction…Think of the offers mechanisms for advertisers,” Schmidt offered. “We’ve spent 20 years trying to get here. And now there’s an explosion in commerce. Particularly for the consumer who says, “I want to buy something and want to buy it right now,” he added, “We can do it.”

And, in large part, that capability means that mobile media consumption “is happening faster than all our internal predictions.”

Some 78% of smartphone internet users already use their smartphones as they shop. And, as consumer comfort with – and acceptance of – new mobile technology continues, Schmidt envisions “a world, in the very near future, where computers remember things and you never need to worry about forgetting anything. You want it to remember something and it will. And you’re never lost. No one is ever lost. You never turn off the [mobile device] and you’ll always know where you are. And where you want to go….”

Statement of Jeff Chester on the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force Privacy and E-Commerce: a Bill of Behavioral Targeting “Rights” for Online Marketers?

The Obama Administration asks some important questions about protecting the privacy of U.S. consumers.  But given the growth of online data collection that threatens our privacy, including when consumers are engaged in financial, health, and other personal transactions (including involving their families), this new report offers us a digital déjà vu.   The time for questions has long passed.

Instead of real laws protecting consumers, we are offered a vague “multi-stakeholder” process to help develop “enforceable codes of conduct.”  If the Commerce Department really placed the interests of consumers first, it would have been able to better articulate in the report how the current system threatens privacy.    They should have been able to clearly say what practices are right and wrong—such as the extensive system of online behavioral tracking that stealthily shadows consumers—whether on their personal computer or a mobile phone.   The paper should have firmly articulated what the safeguards should be for financial, health and other sensitive data.  The report should have rejected outright any role for self-regulation, given its failures in the online data collection marketplace.  While the report supports a FIPPS framework, these principles can be written in a way that ultimately endorses existing business practices for online data collection and targeting.

This illustrates one of the basic problems with the Administration’s approach to protecting consumer privacy online.  The Commerce Department is focused on promoting the interests of industry and business—not consumers.  It cannot play the role of an independent, honest broker; consequently it should not be empowered to create a new Privacy Policy Office.   Having the Commerce Department play a role in protecting privacy will enable the data collection foxes to run the consumer privacy henhouse.  We call on the Administration and Congress to address this issue.  A new Privacy Policy Office should be independent and operate under the Administrative Procedures Act—ensuring there are safeguards for meaningful public participation and transparency.

The Commerce paper’s real goal is to help U.S. Internet data collection companies operate in the EU, Asia/Pacific and other markets as “privacy-free” zones.  Under the cover of promoting “innovation” and trade, I fear the U.S. will craft a crazy-quilt code of conduct regimes that they will claim should pass muster in the EU (which has a more comprehensive framework to protect privacy).  The Obama Administration appears to be promoting a kind of “separate, but equal” framework, where it will argue that no matter how weak U.S. privacy rules are, other countries should accept them as the equivalent of a stronger approach.  The new paper should have acknowledged the U.S. has to play catch-up with the EU when it comes to protecting consumer privacy.

We have been promised meetings with the new White House subcommittee on privacy, where consumer and privacy groups will raise these and other concerns.

Consumers Union Supports our call for FTC action on digital pharma & health marketing

My CDD is very pleased to have received a copy of this letter sent to the FTC and FDA by Consumers Union.  It underscores how the issues around sensitive data and sensitive users are a critical part of consumer protection online.  We are also pleased about the positive coverage our complaint has received from the press, including the New York Times, CBS/Moneywatch, and other publications.

December 1, 2010

Chairman Jon Leibowitz

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20580

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Consumers Union, the independent, non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, urges the Federal Trade Commission to accept the request of November 23, 2010 from several petitioners “to investigate unfair and deceptive advertising practices that consumers face as they seek health information and services online.”

The very detailed 144-page filing is by the Center for Digital Democracy, U.S. PIRG, Consumer Watchdog, and the World Privacy Forum. Among the companies named in the complaint are Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, WebMD, Quality Health, Everyday Health, and Health Central. The complaint explains how non-traditional pharmaceutical advertising on the internet and elsewhere uses a wide range of tools and disguises to convince consumers to use various drug products. These advertisements frequently hide the fact that they are funded by the drug manufacturer and they often fail to give any hint of side effects or possible adverse events from use of the drugs.

We have not independently examined each of the documents cited in the complaint or the context in which they were used. But the documents are overwhelmingly explicit in their description of how to take information consumers would consider very private (the decision to type in a health-related word or phrase on a website) and consciously and unconsciously manipulate those consumers into the use of specific prescription drug products.

The mass of documents in the complaint are shocking in their totality and their implication for privacy and the use of pharmaceuticals with potentially dangerous side effects or questionable efficacies.

We urge the Commission to begin an immediate investigation pursuant to the requests in the complaint. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William Vaughan

Health Policy Analyst

Five Ways to Protect Privacy

[a version we wrote of this ran in Multichannel News]
Five Ways for Digital Marketers to Protect Consumer Privacy

If George Orwell were writing today, 1984’s Winston Smith would be working as a “Doublespeak” specialist crafting privacy policies and creating self-regulatory regimes.  That’s not what consumers and citizens need in the interactive marketing era.   All Americans should have their privacy respected and protected when they go online—including when they use mobile phones.

1.     Tell your users what you actually say to your advertisers—about how the profiling and targeting process really works.  There is a disconnect that is unfair and deceptive between what companies say in their privacy policies and pitch to their clients and potential partners.   Be honest about the “360 degree” ways you engage in online marketing.

2.     Don’t collect information and target consumers based on their interests in finance and health.  These two most “sensitive” categories should be opt-in only.   When consumers go online for loans, credit, mortgages, and health concerns they require the upmost privacy.  Although online financial, health and so-called lead-generation advertising is big business, consumers should not be forced to have their online financial and health behavior stealthfully-tracked and compiled.  The risks to consumers are great if we don’t develop special rules for this data.

3.     Racial and ethnic profiling data should also be opt-in. Hispanics, African-Americas, Asian-Americans and other minorities are increasingly the focus of a growing behavioral targeting and online marketing apparatus.  In the “offline” world, we have witnessed a disturbing use of racial profiling practices to discriminate against individuals.  In today’s online environment, users are being identified as being a member of a racial or ethnic group without either their awareness or consent.  While we all want to see the growth of diversely owned online publishing, it should not be done at the expense of civil liberties in the digital era.  We must prevent the growth of online racial profiling, that when tied to income, geography and other data can be used to create 21st Century forms of discrimination.

4.     Don’t use neuromarketing and other subliminal and subconscious-based advertising.   Fortune 1000 advertisers and online marketers such as Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are using new forms of ad testing and development involving the latest tools of neuroscience, such as fMRI’s and EEGs.  Neuromarketing’s goal is to directly influence a consumer’s subconscious, and when combined with the power of online data targeting,  offers powerful—and frightening—new forms of manipulation.

5.     Users need to consent to having their profiles be bought and sold on so-called online ad exchanges.  Selling off the right to target a consumer online, via real-time auctions that happen in milliseconds, is dehumanizing.  Nor should we permit the growing combination of offline and online databases to be used for targeting, including via these new digital auction houses.

Interactive marketing is now a fundamental operating principle for the cross-platform media economy throughout the world.   But right now, it’s a digital “wild west” that doesn’t serve the interests of consumers, citizens and most marketers.

The new Self-Reg Online Ad Plan–Digital “Deja-vu” All Over Again! See What they Say about the NAI Now!

In 1999, online marketers promised consumers they would protect their privacy.  Leading interactive ad companies created the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) as a scheme to head-off proposals by the FTC that would help regulate online profiling.  Now it turns out, says the online ad industry, the NAI really couldn’t work.  So they have developed yet another self-regulatory effort.  Here’s what online marketers told Ad Week today:  “The move marks the most significant regulation the industry has imposed on companies and goes significantly farther than the Network Advertising Initiative, which held third-party advertisers needed to allow consumers to opt out. Doing so, however, was a cumbersome process.“   So the industry didn’t tell the FTC or consumers that the NAI wasn’t consumer friendly and “cumbersome.”  Yet they have used the NAI as a political bulwark to head-off consumer protection rules.  Shame on them.  Meanwhile, in the same story, it’s revealed that only now–as pressure mounts to protect online consumers—does the industry recognize protecting privacy is important:  “The guys that drive the industry have figured out this privacy stuff does matter,” said Scott Meyer, CEO of Better Advertising Project, which will help companies comply with the requirements.

The new “aboutads.info” website established by the industry fails to provide consumers serious information about cookies and behavioral targeting and profiling.  It reveals how little the industry is committed to protecting privacy and informing U.S. consumers about the process.  To see how this new plan is really designed to protect the data collection business, examine the rules for sensitive information. Beyond the children’s privacy law (COPPA) we got enacted in 1998, this scheme permits full-scale collection and use of financial and health information.   Under the “new” self-reg policies, the narrowest of definitions for respecting your financial and health information has been created:  “Entities should not collect and use financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions or medical records about a specific individual for OBA without Consent.”
Shame on them.  Online marketers spent some $3 billion last year on online financial marketing and will spend $1 billion for pharma and health related targeting in 2010. Consumer data collected by online financial and health marketers, much of which is sensitive and personal, is ok under the industry’s “new” plan.

PS:  The folks at Better Advertising need to take a course in online marketing–and change its new website so it really informs consumers about the process.  What it has now would get a C-minus in any class on online marketing.  They can start with 360 degree targeting, online and offline profiling, rich media, a serious description of online auctions, the tracking process, work on “engagement” and neuromarketing,” social media marketing, etc.  Consumers deserve better.

The new “Digital Advertising Alliance” self-reg plan. See if it tells consumers what its sponsor ad groups really say to each other. That they track and target your “digital footprint”

On Monday, the new self-regulation magical “icon” that is designed to make the online ad industry’s privacy problems disappear will be unveiled.  A new group called the “Digital Advertising Alliance” will unveil the icon-based plan–all timed to help head-off the kinds of protections and safeguards consumers require.  The current financial crisis affecting tens of millions of Americans require that government and big business groups do more than pay digital lip service to consumer protection.

As a kind of litmus test for the new self-regulation effort, see if the icon and the information connected to it really informs you about how data on you is collected and used for profiling, tracking and targeting. For example, last week, the Interactive Advertising Association (IAB), one of the key backers of the new Alliance, released a guide to targeting consumers at the local level.  Here’s excerpts of what they say.  See if that little icon is being honest when you click it.  Of course, we really require rules that eliminate the kind and amount of data that can be collected on you and you family and friends in the first place–as well as honest disclosure on the process.  Note as well that all that data on you is expensive–and others are cashing in on information that belongs to you!  From the new “Targeting Local Markets” guide:

Explicit profile data Targeting. definition–
Explicit data is “registration quality data” collected either online or offline. For online registration data, the user has certain attributes in his or her registration profile at a particular site or service, and that data is associated with the user’s Web cookie or some sort of audience database when the user next logs in. Offline registration data includes the sorts of data held in the massive offline direct response industry databases built up over the last several decades. These are then matched to a user online when that user logs in somewhere that is a partner of the data company. The site at which the user logs in, usually an online mail or similar site, sends the name/email combination to the data company, which then makes the match and sends back data…pricing–In general, first party data commands a far more variable premium than third party data…Third party data is usually available in much larger quantities, and yet there is often a fee of anywhere between $0.50 to $2.00 or more paid to the data provider by the ad seller – thus increasing the cost of goods sold (COGS) on the ad, and therefore increasing the price…

Behavioral Targeting (Implicit profile data Targeting)-definition-
Behavioral Targeting is the ability to serve online advertising based on profiles that are inferred from an individual user’s technical footprint and viewing behavior…As the medium has grown from a “browsing” experience to interactional so have the levels of information gathered. Newer forms of information include the data collected about influences, social preferences through social networks and an individual user’s content created online…The data is often gathered in real-time and can be used for real-time decision-making so that relevant advertising can be delivered dynamically to an individual user during their online session…Behaviorally targeted advertising commands a higher price because of targeted placement versus general run-of-site (ROS) advertising…Behavioral Targeting can be highly accurate when the user is leaving a digital footprint of their activities as they move through the Web.

Online Marketers, Privacy & Self-Regulation: “Repeatedly Failed Promises Syndrome”

To help undermine the impact of the forthcoming FTC proposal to protect consumer privacy, a coalition of online ad lobby groups will unveil yet another self-regulation plan.  According to Mediapost, online consumers will soon see “[I]cons to signify behavioral advertising — or serving ads based on people’s Web activity.”  Since 1999, online ad groups have rolled out self-regulatory regimes promising to protect consumers online.  Each has failed to do so.   This new effort involves the very same groups and companies that offered self-regulatory promises in the past.   For example, see the World Privacy Forum’s report on the failure of the Network Advertising Initiative’s self-reg schemes; that group is part of the new effort, btw.

This new effort is seriously flawed–and before marketers and advertisers adopt it, it must be independently evaluated by consumer groups, independent academics, and the FTC.  We believe that the system will fail to protect consumers–because it will not candidly inform them about how the data is collected and used.  Meanwhile, in a revealing flip-flip, the IAB’s UK counterpart deep-sixed its just released safeguard on retargeting.  According to a new report, “[O]nline advertising trade body the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has withdrawn a code of practice which recommended that behavioural advertising retargeting cookies should expire after 48 hours. The IAB’s Affiliate Marketing Council (AMC) published the code last week. It applied to the practice of ‘retargeting’ web users who had visited a site with ads for that site on other people’s websites, using cookies to track their movements and activities…That code has been withdrawn and will be reworked after further industry consultation, though, the IAB said. The code has disappeared from the IAB’s website.”

Consumers and citizens require real safeguards governed by law and regulation–not flimsy digital promises designed to sanction ever-expanding data collection practices.

Google & Microsoft Tout their Mobile Targeting Clout, inc. Behavioral, Location, Gender, etc.

My CDD and USPIRG asked the FTC in January 2009 to investigate mobile marketing and its threat to both privacy and consumer protection issues (Ringleader Digital, now the subject of lawsuits and stories in the WSJ and NYT, was included in the complaint, btw).  Online mobile marketers, including Microsoft and Google, illustrate how regulators in the U.S. and abroad should require safeguards to protect the public from unfair and deceptive practices–including those that involve their privacy.  In Ad Age, both Google and Microsoft loudly proclaim what their mobile marketing services can do for brands, ads and marketers.  Here are some choice excerpts:

Microsoft:  “Microsoft Advertising’s industry-leading mobile display and search advertising solutions engage more than 43 million on-the-go U.S. consumers each month—regardless of a user’s mobile phone or wireless carrier. Its innovative ad placements and ad formats include display, rich media, search, video and custom in-app ad units…

Advanced Targeting Options
  • Profile targeting: age, gender, household income, location, time of day
  • Behavioral targeting: more than 120 custom segments (e.g., “movie watchers” and “business travelers”)
  • Device: make and model
  • Wireless carriers: on-deck inventory
  • Keyword targeting: exact or broad match…Complete mobile ad solutions for automotive, CPG, entertainment, financial services, retail, technology, telecommunications, travel and other sectors…
  • More than 43 million, or 55 percent of active mobile web users in U.S.
  • More than 80 million active mobile users globally in 32 countries.”

Google: “Today’s consumers are on the move. More than ever before, audiences are searching and browsing the web on their mobile devices. How do advertisers connect with the on-the-go consumer…As customers go mobile, advertisers need smart mobile advertising strategies. With Google, they can easily target and tailor messages according to location and automatically show their customers relevant local business information or phone numbers to enable them to take immediate action. Once a campaign is up and running, marketers can measure their results via detailed reports. Additionally, integrated mobile reporting in Google Analytics allows them to track and optimize conversion, e-commerce and engagement metrics on mobile devices. They can take advantage of Google’s mobile-specific ad formats. Click-to-call text ads, animated mobile banner ads, click-to-download ads and other display ad formats are examples of how Google is innovating for the small screen.  Google closed its acquisition of AdMob, one of the world’s leading mobile advertising networks, in May. AdMob’s innovative rich media ad units—including full-screen expandable, animated banner and interactive video—create opportunities for advertisers to engage with a relevant audience on their mobile devices. Now the Google and AdMob teams are working to create new ways to deliver engaging and innovative advertising experiences that will help marketers drive their businesses forward…

CASE STUDY

CHALLENGE: Esurance, a direct-to-consumer personal car insurance company, wanted to ensure that customers could do business with it on their own terms and at their own convenience… To make the connection between mobile users and Esurance agents, Esurance used Google mobile ads with integrated click-to-call functionality. The CTC ads gave mobile users the option of clicking through to Esurance’s mobile-optimized landing page or initiating a phone call with a licensed insurance agent…Results…

  • Boosted conversion rates: Click-to-call mobile ads drove a 30 percent to 35 percent higher response.”

PS:  Attention Music Lovers.  In the same Ad Age piece, the online music service Pandora exclaims that it can provide:“Through powerful hypertargeting, reach the right person, at the right time, without waste. Target based on age, day, gender, location, mobile platform, time and type of music…Pandora offers a broad array of formats and rich media functions to create an immersive mobile experience, including:

  • Tap to video
  • Drag and drop
  • Tap to app
  • Tap to call
  • Tap to e-mail
  • Tap to expand
  • Tap to find a location
  • Tap to iTunes
  • Tap to mobile webpage
  • Standard banners”

Yahoo’s Targets Millions of Users for its Largest Advertisers, via a “Magic Formula” Powering its Ad Auction System

Preston McAfee Magic FormulaThat’s the formula Yahoo is using to please its largest advertisers, explains an article in The Register.  The report explains that Yahoo’s economist Preston McAfee has created a “magical formula” for its ad targeting service:  “a formula designed to keep Yahoo!’s largest advertisers as happy as possible. It lets each of those guaranteed-contract advertisers pick and choose — in remarkably precise fashion — how their ads are targeted, even though there are more than three trillion possible targets…Yes, Yahoo! has advertisers who only want to reach women between the ages of twenty and thirty. But it also has advertisers who only want to advertise in cities where the sun is shining. There are brokerage houses who only want to advertise when the stock market is up…What is really ‘magic’ about this is that it gave us a backdoor way to price three trillion different pieces of advertiser demand,” McAfee says…The setup also gives Yahoo! fine-grain control over each advertiser’s campaign. “It gives us a dial to favor an advertiser,” he continues. “If one of our advertisers is not getting enough impressions, we turn the dial and increase their bids, to make sure we fulfill the contract.”

But what’s needed is a policy formula–that creates privacy and other consumer protection safeguards.  Online marketing’s use of advanced computing systems and real-time ad auctions of data on individual users underscores the problem–the industry is running amok.   Consumers shouldn’t be subject to powerful invisible technologies that track, profile, target and sell them to the highest bidder.

Google, Time Warner, Washington Post, Verizon, Canoe Ventures [Comcast] Funding Online Ad Lobby’s Campaign Against Consumer Privacy Safeguards

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is a lobbying group that is working to oppose federal (or state) legislation and regulation that would protect consumer privacy online.  It recently led the lobbying campaign that removed from the new financial reform bill a key provision that would have enabled the FTC to better protect consumers.  What companies are helping fund the IAB’s Orwellian named “Consumer Protection and Education Campaign” battling consumer and privacy groups?  Here’s a list of the financial donors, who have ponied up about $500k so far.  Other companies are contributing free online ad space for the IAB’s campaign–1 billion impressions worth. The donors are:
AdMob
AudienceScience
Canoe Ventures
Cars.com
CPX Interactive
eBureau
Eyeblaster
Feeva Technology
Google
IDG.net
IM Services Group
Mediamath
Meredith Interactive
Microsoft
Quantcast
Sharethis
ShortTail
Simulmedia
Time Warner
Traffic Marketplace
Tumri
Verizon
Washington Post
WildTangent