Actually, the ad giant says it’s calling its new research arm the Institute of Decision Making. But given their plan to harness neuromarketing to better tap into the “instinctual ways that consumers behave,” we think it should be renamed. At the Cannes ad festival, Draftfcb discussed, according to a report, “how advertising messages have a mere 6.5 seconds to make a connection with the audience.” A Draft exec. told the New York Times that “[U]nderstanding the foundation of consumers’ behavior decisions has become more complex [as they] consume more information and make decisions faster†[than before].  Hence, marketers like Draft–whose clients include MillerCoors and Levis–want to use neuroscience to create ads that deliberately bypass a consumers rational decision-making system.  The ad agency is working with academics at UC Berkeley and Stanford–raising questions about the role scholars should play helping marketers–or anyone else–deliberately tap into our subconscious minds in order to influence our behavior.
Category: Congress
Harvard’s Berkman Center, its online marketing industry connections, and the need to prominently disclose
The Berkman Center is well-known for its work on digital media issues. But it has often failed to address–in its research and public work–the negative consequences of online marketing and interactive advertising. Berkman is partially funded by leading online marketers–including Google and Microsoft. When Berkman conducts research on such issues as children’s online marketing and privacy [an issue I am involved with], it should always prominently disclose on the first publication page its funding conflicts–including whether Berkman staff work with online marketers. Berkman should tell Congress and the FTC about such conflicts when it submits research and testimony.
For example, Berkman’s faculty co-director John Palfrey works for a venture investing firm that financially backs behavioral targeting and other online marketing companies. Professor Palfrey does disclose on his blog that in addition to his Harvard duties, he is also a “Venture Executive” at Highland Capital Partners. Highland’s “Internet and Digital Team,” which Prof. Palfrey serves on, has one current investment in Affine Systems, a video targeting company. Affine’s Video Platform explains it enables marketers to engage in behavioral targeting: “Affine integrates behavioral data from exchanges and exclusive third-party partnerships. This data is used to audit and optimize campaigns as they run. Detailed analytics are collected, and valuable retargeting data is generated with every campaign.” [“What makes the Video Targeting Platform special is the amount of insight it provides…by taking advantage of the data provided by Affine’s data partners, you can even target specific demographic or psychographic groups, and reduce the waste that is currently expected from online video buys.”]. Highland also invests in search engine and interactive TV companies serving the China market and many others. [Given the investments in China’s online market by Mr. Palfrey’s company, it also raises questions about Berkman’s Global Network Initiative role evaluating how companies like Google and Yahoo operating in China and elsewhere address human rights]. Previous online marketing (and behavioral targeted related) investments made by Highland included the youth online targeting company Bolt, Coremetrics, and mobile ad targeting company Quattro.
The well-known online analyst and commentator Dana Boyd is a Fellow at Berkman, and has made it clear she also works for Microsoft Research. But given Microsoft Advertising global efforts to extend the power of online marketing and personalized data collection, including its online ad research lab in Beijing, its support for neuromarketing in digital ads, and its extensive behavioral and online targeting apparatus–including for junk food targeting youth in its gaming divisions, we hope Ms. Boyd will more closely examine her employers work in the area.
Online Ad Lobby and Chamber Celebrate Victory over Consumer Protection & FTC
Yesterday, the online ad lobby [IAB, ANA, DMA]–working with Chamber of Commerce–scored a major political victory by forcing the Financial reform bill conference committee to drop proposed provisions that would have strengthened the FTC. Under the House bill, the FTC would have been given the same kind of regulatory authority most federal agencies have [APA rulemaking]. Marketers and advertisers are celebrating their win, because it keeps the FTC on a weakened and short political leash. While consumer protection is significantly expanded because of the CFPB and new financial rules, the FTC is to remain largely hamstrung. The online marketing and advertising lobby [including ANA, DMA–see below] were afraid that the newly invigorated FTC under Pres. Obama would require the industry to protect privacy online and also become more accountable to consumers engaged in e-commerce.  I heard IAB and Chamber are dancing in the streets! Congressmen Barney Frank, Henry Waxman and Sen. Rockefeller deserve praise for working hard to protect consumers, including their proposal on the FTC.
Here’s what two of the ad groups placed on their sites about the FTC issue:
Progress on FTC Enforcement Provisions in Wall Street Reform Conference
June 23, 2010
The marketing and media community has made substantial progress on defeating the broad expansion of FTC powers that is included in the House version of the Wall Street reform bill. But we still need your assistance to keep these provisions out of the final bill.
Yesterday the Senate conferees presented an offer on the bill that rejected the new FTC powers that are in the House version. Chairman Dodd indicated that while he may support changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking process, there is no Senate provision and these issues are too complex and important to be resolved in the context of the Wall Street reform bill. Conferees hope to finish the conference this week so the final bill can be cleared for the President’s signature next month.
The House conferees may still continue to push for these provisions, so it is very important that marketers contact the Senate conferees to express our appreciation for their support and to urge them to remain strongly opposed to these new powers for the FTC in this bill. Contact information for the Senate conferees is located here and our letter to Senate conferees is available here. Please let the Senators know if you have plants or operations in their states.
ANA took part in a very important meeting yesterday with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller on these issues. We argued that these issues are very important to the entire marketing community and deserve careful consideration outside of the context of the Wall Street reform bill. The Chairman strongly indicated that he will continue to push for changes in the Magnuson Moss rulemaking procedures this year.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dan Jaffe (djaffe@ana.net) or Keith Scarborough (kscarborough@ana.net) in ANA’s Washington, DC office at (202) 296-1883.
http://www.ana.net/advocacy/content/2418
DMA Asks Financial Reform Conferees to Keep FTC Expansion Out of ‘Restoring American Financial Stability Act’
June 10, 2010 — The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) today was joined by 47 other trade associations and business coalitions in sending a letter to each of the conferees on H.R. 4173, the “Restoring American Financial Stability Act†(RAFSA), urging them to keep language that would dramatically expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) out of the final bill.
As the House and Senate conferees work to reconcile their versions of the financial regulatory legislation, the associations — which represent hundreds of thousands of US companies from a wide array of industry segments — expressed strong opposition to provisions in the House version of the bill that would expand the FTC’s rulemaking and enforcement authority over virtually every sector of the American economy.
“The balance struck in the Senate bill is the right one,†said Linda Woolley, DMA’s executive vice president, government affairs. “That bill makes the most sense in the context of financial reform legislation, maintaining the FTC’s existing jurisdiction without expanding its rulemaking and enforcement authority over industries and sectors that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Issues of FTC expansion deserve their own due consideration and debate in the more appropriate context of an FTC reauthorization, as has been done in the past.â€
DMA and the other associations strongly believe that granting the FTC broad new authority is not a necessary or relevant response to the causes of the recent recession and, therefore, asked the conferees to oppose the inclusion of any provisions that would expand FTC authority, rather than making changes to the Commission that would have a fundamental impact on the entire business community and the broader American economy.
For more information please visit www.dmaaction.org.
http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=1449
Location Privacy for Mobile Marketing: Time for Congress/FTC/States to Protect Consumers
Last year, CDD and USPIRG filed a complaint on mobile marketing, privacy and deceptive practices at the FTC. We know that it woke up the commission to the issue–but they are acting too slow. The recent decision by Apple to expand its data gathering for location ad targeting on the iPhone (and do a about-face on the privacy issue, really) is just one example of why safeguards are required immediately. As Mobile Marketer explained in an article about what Apple is doing:
“Location is an important element that illustrates the promise of mobile and social,†he said. “Look at the way that the mobile environment is developing—proximity marketing is really the direction that we’re headed [Noah Elkin, senior analyst at eMarketer].
“Being able to marry data about a user’s location and data about a user’s likes and dislikes—being able to present a relevant offer—raises the bar in terms of the relevancy of the advertising messages. Apple acquired Placebase and Quattro recently, which gives it a mapping platform and an ad network.
“Collecting user positioning data is the next necessary ingredient for ‘location intelligence,’ which will bridge the gap between these two acquisitions and enable them to deliver a really relevant experience based on place and time,†Mr. Goodman said [Alistair Goodman, CEO of 1020 Placecast].
Meanwhile, companies like Loopt that merge social and mobile marketing techniques are extending how they target consumers, inc. data collection. Loopt explains in its new “mobile rewards” service for marketers that:
Loopt Star offers retailers a virtual loyalty card, allowing them to connect directly with their customers when they’re out and about, driving foot traffic and encouraging repeat visits. It offers retailers and businesses a unique “cost per visit†business model.
“Hyper-local advertising should be about much more than simply clicking on a banner ad—it should be about connecting with brands and getting rewarded for loyalty. Brands want to turn their existing customers into better ones,†said Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of Loopt. “Loopt Star enables brands to create customized campaigns that reach their customers in a completely targeted, interactive way that rewards the behaviors they want.â€
In addition to brand-specific customized rewards, Loopt Star will also allow the person with the most check-ins at a specific place to become the “Boss†of that location. Leaderboards allow users to compete with their Facebook friends to for the most check in points. Dozens of hidden Achievements will also be available to Loopt Star game players at launch — to be won when certain check-in actions are performed.
Loopt Star adds a key social component by being the first mobile location App based purely on Facebook Connect. Users can share their current location in real-time with all of their friends on Facebook, and alert friends via their Facebook News Feed about special offers they see on Loopt Star that are available to anyone. With its close integration into Facebook, Loopt Star allows Facebook friends stay up to date on where friends are and what they’re doing…
Brands can use Loopt Star to create fun, engaging campaigns that deliver foot traffic, connect with customers, build a strong community and increase their Facebook fan base. Customized brand campaigns can specify:
- The qualifying retail locations
- The qualifying time of day, day of week, or time span
- The qualifying number of check in times
- Whether they need to check in with friends, and the number of friends
- Which rewards are available to friends through the Facebook newsfeed (for example, “the next person to check into Joe’s Restaurant today gets free dessert†can appear on the newsfeed to all Facebook friends.)
- Specific and virtual rewards, such as Achievements, special titles, discount coupons, etc. Special titles allow retailers to offer a custom “Boss†title and graphic to the person who checks in the most at an individual location
Loopt is working directly with top brands to customize all aspects of Loopt Star, from the activity needed to earn the reward, to the type of virtual or real-world reward earned.
For example, Loopt Star users can check into any bar in the United States with two Facebook friends, and everyone instantly earns five free songs from leading popular music recording artists. (To see the songs available to win, go to http://www.amplified.com/loopt.)
Â
Google says it’s “at the forefront of a revolution in Marketing”– that includes for the health industry.
One of the areas requiring online privacy and consumer safeguards is the health and medical area. As CDD told the FDA, the use of behavioral data profiling & targeting, immersive multi-media techniques, social marketing [via stealth-like influencer and word-of-mouth tactics, and brand channels, such as on YouTube, raise a host of concerns. I don’t believe one’s largely private concerns about a health condition or remedy should automatically be fodder for digital marketing. To see how important the health online marketing is to Google (and others), here’s an excerpt from a “Consumer Packaged Goods or Healthcare Industry Marketing Manager job opening:
Google is at the forefront of a revolution in Marketing – a shift from traditional Marketing tactics to new online, mobile and social strategies. Google’s advertising platforms provide savvy advertisers with multichannel marketing opportunities, linking online marketing to brand impact and offline sales.
Consumer Packaged Goods or Healthcare Industry Marketing Manager position shapes Google’s point of view on the changing advertising landscape. This leader will uncover, understand and explain the impact of evolving online media to industries that have traditionally relied more on offline media, such as healthcare, CPG, restaurants, education and more. This is a unique opportunity to set Google marketing strategy within our Emerging Industries practice and advise Fortune 1000 advertisers on cutting edge marketing strategies. You will arm the Google salesforce with marketing programs that establish fresh thinking in the industry and deepen engagement with clients…
Responsibilities:
- Ideate, develop, and execute marketing campaigns that drive Google’s advertising business.
- Develop thought-leadership materials, client/executive presentations, case studies and other content designed to accelerate our business momentum and better engage Google’s customers.
- Develop compelling positioning and messaging for Google’s advertising solutions targeted to companies in industries relatively new to online marketing, such as healthcare and CPG
- Partner with Google’s market research team to identify, execute and package compelling market research that supports Google’s value proposition to large advertisers in these industries.
- Evangelize Google’s value proposition, best practices and perspectives to our customers and our industry peers via events, webinars, and other direct client communications channels.
Protecting Children’s Privacy Online at the FTC: Statement of Kathryn Montgomery, PhD
CDD will soon file at the FTC on how to ensure the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA] can better protect the online privacy of children under 13. It’s a 1998 law that we led the campaign to have enacted. Here’s a brief excerpt from what our colleague Prof. Kathryn Montgomery told the FTC today:
Statement of Kathryn C. Montgomery, PhD
Professor, School of Communication
American University
Protecting Kids’ Privacy Online: Reviewing the COPPA Rule
Federal Trade Commission
June 2, 2010
For the past decade, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has served as an effective safeguard for young consumers in the online marketing environment. Because the legislation was passed during the early stages of Internet e-commerce, COPPA established a clear set of “rules of the road†to help guide the development of the children’s digital marketplace. The law created a level playing field, ensuring that every commercial player—from the largest children’s media companies to the smallest start-ups – would treat young people fairly.
Congress intended COPPA’s basic framework to be flexible, anticipating changes in both technology and business practices, and requiring periodic reviews by the Federal Trade Commission to ensure its continued effectiveness. Today’s children are growing up in a ubiquitous digital media environment, where mobile devices, instant messaging, social networks, virtual reality, avatars, interactive games, and online video have become ingrained in their personal and social experiences. The online marketing practices of the 1990s have been eclipsed by a new generation of tracking and targeting techniques.
In its current review, the Federal Trade Commission must ensure that its COPPA rules include the full range of Internet-enabled or -connected services, including the increasingly ever-present cell phones children use, along with Web-connected gaming devices and online, interactive video. Moreover, COPPA’s definition of personal information must be revised to include the latest methods of identifying and targeting online consumers, covering the so-called “cookies†that are used for interactive marketing data collection, as well as “mobile geo-location information.†With these and other necessary updates, the law will continue to ensure that children reap the benefits of the digital age without compromising their privacy, safety, and wellbeing.
Facebook: Ads, Data, and Dollars–its revenue comes from targeting “on users’ real life data”
Facebook execs frequently claim they don’t share their users personal information with advertisers. They also always add that Facebook isn’t really that interested in advertising revenues. But that’s not correct, as the Facebook Quarterly Business Review: Q1 2010 reflects. Facebook, now cash positive, was said to earn somewhere between $600-700 million in revenues last year–up dramatically from the $150 million generated in 2007. The Quarterly estimates that Facebook should earn over $1 billion in 2010. How? “By growing multiple revenue sources, mostly around advertising,” it explains. Facebook is expected to earn some $350 million alone in 2010 from selling its ad services to big brands, with more growth expected. In the last year, Facebook has “invested heavily in expanding its brand advertising efforts by opening up offices in Paris, Madrid, Milan, Hamburg, Sydney, Stockholm, Toronto and Los Angeles.” The report says that Facebook will eventually earn some $20 billion a year, with a huge increase coming from big brand advertisers.
So-called performance advertising on Facebook [from social games, for example] is expected to bring in between $500-600 million this year. There will also be additional revenues from Facebook’s virtual currency [and soon from mobile and location based marketing as well].
Facebook’s users aren’t informed about the datamining that occurs on what they post and communicate, including to their social networks. We believe these systems require transparency and mechanisms of user control. And FTC and Congressional action.
CDD Statement on Facebook’s new privacy settings [Digital Deja-vu Dep’t!]
Facebook made some positive changes today, but only because of political pressure from policymakers and privacy advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. Mr. Zuckerberg’s failure to acknowledge the political realities don’t bode well for Facebook’s future approach to privacy. He appears to be living a Alice in Digital Wonderland fantasy, where changes are made on privacy only because Facebook has the goodwill of its users in mind. Just last December 9, after all, Facebook made one of its typical self-reverential announcements that it was “rolling out easy-to-use tools to empower people to personalize control over their information.” These changes triggered a user revolt, letters from Senators, an opinion ordering a reversal from the EU, and concern from the FTC.
There are more simplified and manageable privacy settings, and Facebook has made an important first (or back-tracking!) step. Unfortunately, Facebook still refuses to give its users control over the data it collects for its targeted advertising products. The defaults should also be initially set for non-sharing, with the minimization of data collection at the core of Facebook’s approach to privacy.  CDD and other privacy groups will examine these new settings and identify where further changes should be made, including on advertising data. Meanwhile, we want Congress to hold hearings on social networking privacy, with Mr. Zuckerberg as a star witness. Mr. Zuckerberg should be asked to explain how Facebook continues to develop new approaches to data collection and privacy–from Beacon to Instant Personalization–that continually lowers the bar–until the company has to do some form of hasty retreat.  Congress needs to examine how Facebook develops its approach to privacy, and what its business plans mean for the future.
CDD will also press the FTC to investigate Facebook, including acting on complaints filed with EPIC and other groups. It’s time for the FTC to announce guidelines to protect social networking privacy on Facebook and other sites.
Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
jeff@democraticmedia.org
Online ad research done by Profs. Goldfarb and Tucker: fails to address how online marketing really works– and also its implications for privacy, consumer protection and civil liberties
Whenever an industry is in political trouble, there is usually research made public that supports its position. Often, the research is actually funded by the very companies or trade associations involved in the political fight. The new paper “Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising” just released by Professor Avi Goldfarb [U of Tornoto] and Catherine E. Tucker [MIT], appears designed to discourage Congressional and FTC policymakers from enacting privacy safeguards. In this case, according to the authors, the paper wasn’t funded by industry. But in response to my question, Professor Tucker explained that “we have received funding in the past (for other work on internet advertising) from the NET Institute and from a Google/WPP Marketing Research Award. Avi has also received funding Bell Canada.“ The Net Institute’s board, btw, includes employees of Microsoft and Google, among others.
The new report is already being touted as evidence of the cost to online marketers if privacy rules are enacted. But the study is very problematic–and I believe fails to really analyze how online marketing works. The authors examined the impact of privacy rules in the EU and claim they have negatively impacted the effectiveness of online ads. But by only examining banner ads, they miss the point. Online marketing in both the EU, U.S., and elsewhere is really an integrated system involving an array of applications and techniques [where data is collected and used at all points]–from viral, to online video, social media, neuromarketing, games, mobile, etc. Indeed, at our CDD we follow the EU market very closely–including collecting data from EU based online marketers, trade associations, case studies, etc. These reports indicate tremendous success for online ads (and ironically, much of the innovation for online marketing comes out of the UK; Admap just reported it’s the German marketers in the forefront of neuromarketing).
Given the study’s discussion of the Boucher bill, it’s clear there is a political motivation here. But the main fault is how the study misses the key questions and ignores how the market really works. This paper needs to be revised and gets an incomplete!
PS: Btw, I also told the authors that Leslie Harris of CDT is a woman. They had her as Mr. Harris. Perhaps they also need a better fact-checker.
Google to Host Online Ad Lobby as it Campaigns Against Privacy bill
Google is going to help the interactive ad lobby in its campaign to undermine privacy legislation. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) plans a DC lobbying blitz on June 14-15, bringing in its cadre of small publishers.  As the IAB explains, “our day of advocacy gets underway as you divide up into teams for individual meetings with members of Congress and their staffs. Each team will be assigned a “chaperone†to help you make your way around the Hill, as well as answer any questions you might have.”
The message the IAB reps will make will undoubtedly be that the Internet way of life as we know it will end if Rep. Boucher’s proposal–or most any other bill protecting privacy–is enacted. Sort of the Internet meets the film 2012: all that will be left, if the data stops flowing for targeting, will be a handful of digital survivors. Google, which serves on the executive committee of the IAB board [along with Microsoft, NBCU, Disney, CBS], plays a key role in the lobbying plans. The small publisher/lobbyists are to be “guests of honor at a special networking reception and dinner at the Google offices in Washington, D.C.” Presumably, at the “Cocktail Reception & Dinner – Courtesy of Google,” the troops will be rallied to the `defeat the privacy bill’ cause. A guest speaker at Google HQ for the event is the IAB CEO Randall Rothenberg.
I know Google uses its facilities to host many meetings; I have had lunch there and a dinner once at events where Google was discussing its data collection practices. But Google claims to want to see meaningful national privacy legislation. Yet they are aiding and abetting the anti-online privacy lobby (which is also leading the effort to undermine the FTC’s role in consumer protection). The irony here is that Google appears to have successfully convinced Mr. Boucher that its ad preference manager system should be the basis for a safe harbor in the bill. But Google likely wants to facilitate weakening even Mr. Boucher’s proposal–hence the dinner, drinks and cheer leading that will no doubt be heard across to Capital Hill next month.