Category: Congress

Online Advertisers Side with Kids Junk Food Marketers: Opposing Consumer Protection by FTC, Even to Address Childhood Obesity Epidemic

The Interactive Ad Bureau [whose board members include Google, Fox, NBC, Comcast] is working with the marketing and data collection lobby to oppose proposed Obama Administration legislation that would enable the FTC to protect consumers.  It’s clear from the comments below in Reuters, that the IAB is siding with those that don’t want to really address the youth obesity crisis.  If the FTC is allowed to conduct the same rulemaking procedures that the FCC and other agencies already do, it might actually be able to better protect consumers, including kids.  Shame on the IAB and its lobbyist colleagues for being on the side of those against the public health of our nation’s children.  By preventing the FTC to engage in consumer protection, the IAB, ANA and others are supporting the same deregulatory scheme which led to the current financial disaster for so many Americans and our economy.  Here’s the Reuters excerpt:

“A more powerful FTC could boost its oversight of advertising of sugary and salty snacks to children, the online collection of personal data by advertisers and green advertising, said Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers…This (financial reform/CFPA bill) is a fast moving train,” said Zaneis. “The FTC provisions that are likely to be added onto the CFPA bill really are industry’s no. 1 legislative priority.”

Ad Agencies Expand the role of Neuromarketing: Time for EU and US Regulation

The continued growth of neuromarketing to create advertising messages that are crafted to target a consumer (and citizen) subconscious mind should be a top policymaker concern–and we have raised this with both the FTC and EU.  Here’s an excerpt from a recent major marketing company’s plans to expand its neuroscience based efforts:


Millward Brown has tasked its head of innovations Graham Page with setting up a neuroscience division with the goal of supplementing its existing advertising research offer with techniques that aim to uncover the inner workings of the human mind.

Page, who takes the role of executive vice president of consumer neuroscience, said the agency was banking on the division as being one of its big growth areas this year.

Advertisers, he said, were becoming more receptive to approaches like electroencephalography (EEG) brainwave measurement, eye tracking and implicit association tests – all of which will be rolled out across Millward Brown globally in the coming weeks and months.

Page said the company had been experimenting with neuroscience techniques for six years, but the creation of a dedicated division marked “an important milestone”, while the research approaches themselves promised “a different perspective” on how consumers respond to advertising and brand communications… Page said some 60 projects had already been completed across the US, UK and Europe, with clients including Panasonic, Kraft and Royal Mail.Partner companies include EmSense, which supplies Millward Brown with the EEG equipment used to record consumer brain activity.

Ad Exchanges, Real-Time Auctioning of Users and Privacy: “our ability to target across many dimensions”

Last week, CDD, USPIRG and World Privacy Forum filed a complaint with the FTC asking it to protect the privacy of U.S. consumers.   Over the last two years, the growth of the data collection, tracking, analysis and targeting industry online–including the real-time auctioning off a consumer based on sets of their data–raises many concerns.  This blog will be covering the field, as CDD works to encourage the FTC and the EU to address the issue.  For now, it’s always useful to see what people from the online ad business say about these practices. In OMMA magazine, here are some excerpts from an article on the topic.

“We are definitely seeing the most exciting things for us in display in our ability to target across many dimensions,” says David Cohen, U.S. director of digital communications at Universal McCann. “Whether that is behavioral targeting or third-party data or our own platform – that is where we are seeing the most excitement – in targetability.” …“If you are an owner of display advertising, this is a great time to be in the marketplace,” says Dave Zinman, vice president and general manager of display advertising at Yahoo, which delivered 521 billion ad impressions in 2009… A new alphabet soup of suppliers and technologies emerged last year that promised at long last to apply better science to the art of display. Data providers like BlueKai or Media6Degrees helped marketers find the right audiences amidst the endless inventory of the Web. Much hope is circulating around real-time bidding (RTB) at ad-exchange engines like PubMatic, Yahoo’s RightMedia and The Rubicon Project. In these models, user data combines with real-time analysis of available inventory so an advertiser can buy individual impressions across a wide array of sites. Your ad appears only when just the right person hits a page… agencies have jumped on board with their own demand-side platforms (dsps) that buy inventory on the exchanges and networks along with third-party data in order to create their own audiences for clients…At the No. 2 seller of display, Fox, Mark Papia, senior vice president of the Fox Audience Network, is as enthused as anyone about the prospects for laser-targeting through the technologies and data layers that have been assembled over the last year. With 158 million uniques combined with data from Fox and 800 other publishing partners, he believes FAN has the scale and data to profit from next-gen display.

source:  Can Science Save the Banner?  Steve Smith.  OMMA.  April 2010.

Health Privacy: Should Health Marketers Be Able to Target You without Opt-in Consent?

We think not.  Consumers should decide–in advance and fully informed–whether they should be sent ads online for health conditions.  Take a look at WedMD’s privacy policy–which like most marketers hides behind claims that the “cookie”–a digital file placed on your browser”–isn’t personally identifiable.  Here’s what it says [excerpt]:

“Even if you do not register with WebMD, we collect Non-Personal Information about your use of our Web site, special promotions and newsletters…

We collect Non-Personal Information about your use of our Web site and your use of the Web sites of selected sponsors and advertisers through the use of Cookies. Every computer that accesses a WebMD Web site is assigned a different Cookie by WebMD. The information collected by Cookies (i) helps us dynamically generate advertising and content on Web pages or in newsletters, (ii) allows us to statistically monitor how many people are using our Web site and selected sponsors’ and advertisers’ sites, (iii) how many people open our emails, and (iv) for what purposes these actions are being taken. We may use Cookie information to target certain advertisements to your browser or to determine the popularity of certain content or advertisements…Third parties under contract with WebMD may use Cookies or Web Beacons to collect Non-Personal Information about your usage of WebMD’s sites. These third parties may use this information, on our behalf, to help WebMD target our advertising on their sites within their network, and WebMD may further tailor the advertising on these third party sites based on your geographic location (zip code), gender and/or age range to the extent known by these third parties….

WebMD Health Manager tailors the information you receive on your personal Health Manager home page to reflect your interests, concerns and personal health characteristics. We attach a concept unique identifier (CUI) to every piece of information that you provide us. For example, if you complete the HealthQuotient and indicate that you have diabetes, that single piece of information is tagged with a CUI that is specific to diabetes. Every user that indicates he or she has diabetes receives this CUI tag. Each time you view your personalized Health Manager pages, this CUI tag is matched to content from WebMD about diabetes, and if our automated algorithms determine that this is likely to be an important topic to you, it will appear on your personalized pages…”

We don’t mean to single out WebMD–the entire online health and pharma marketing industry requires scrutiny from policymakers and other consumer advocates.  That’s why my CDD is asking both the FDA and FTC to conduct a privacy and consumer protection ‘exam’ of this industry.  Don’t you think such a process should be covered under the new–and much needed–national health care plan!

NAI New “Study” on Behavioral Targeting: Self-Defense for Privacy-Threatening Data Collection

The Network Advertising Initiative (NAI), the online ad industry’s toothless self-regulatory scheme–has released a report designed to undermine policy safeguards protecting consumer privacy.  The NAI engaged the services of Prof. J. Howard Beales--a former FTC official who largely supported self-regulation of online data collection during his tenure at the agency–to issue a study.  Not surprisingly–and something anyone who follows behavioral online advertising knows–is that these practices work.  When you track, collect, profile a consumer online and know their interests, background, location, you can make a better ad experience.  Privacy is only mentioned once in the report.   The study’s message is really that if it makes money, don’t think of protecting consumer privacy.   The NAI explained in a release that “Behaviorally targeted ads sell for twice the price and offer twice the effectiveness of normal run-of-network ads, significantly enhancing the advertising revenue engine driving the growth of the Internet.”

The suggestion that we should not be concerned about privacy even if these practices threaten consumer protection is absurd.  Anyone who suggests that we should permit a wholesale invasion of privacy (and more) because it helps support online publishing isn’t addressing the critical question.  How can we protect consumers and also have a robust online content system?  Both can–and must–be done.

Online Ads Generate Sales, says Yahoo! Underscores Power of Digital Marketing

One of the ploys online advertisers are using to help deflect the call for privacy and consumer protection rules is that all this data collection & and online marketing really doesn’t amount to much.  But we all know the opposite is true:  online marketing techniques are designed to trigger consumer behavior.  Here’s what Yahoo just blogged, about a speech to advertisers given by their CEO Carol Bartz [our emphasis]:”…a recent study Yahoo! did with a brick-and-mortar retailer that tracked the effect of online ads on more than [sic] million consumers. While everyone involved in the study expected that online ads would drive online buying, the study found that 93% of the effect of the ads caused offline purchases. And every ad dollar spent drove $10 in purchases.“

Time for Digital Marketing Wake-up Call at FDA

As we said the other day, we are now covering the online marketing of pharmaceutical and health products. One reason is that we want policymakers to better understand and assess the unique impact of online marketing techniques on the promotion of drugs. Here’s an excerpt from a DTC Perspectives article on the impact of digital media on pharma marketing:

“In video, this means that your target audience will consume three minutes or more of your branded content, and they will do it without being “forced.” Efficiency of the media buy improves, we see brand recall and favorability metrics increase significantly, and this more educated patient is much more likely to ask for a script. In a recent control/test survey conducted by HealthiNation, brand favorability increased by 30 percent over control and intent to ask for a script for the advertised brand doubled…Accurate and true measurement – Digital means you get what you pay for. If you are purchasing media placements to 100,000 viewers who are interested in heart disease, you get exactly that. Each view is counted and reported…”

source: DTC on Demand: The New Era of Qualified Reach for Consumer Rx Advertising. Raj Amin. DTC Perspectives. March 2010.

Black Box Warning Required for Digital Rx Ads

This week CDD expanded its work on public health & digital advertising to include issues related to prescription drug advertising and health marketing online.  It submitted to the FDA, as part of that agency’s proceeding on Internet and social media marketing, comments.  We are speaking on this issue next week in New York.  And we will be dedicating resources via this blog and other venues on the issue.

But meanwhile we will begin by covering some of the latest developments.  In our FDA comments, we raise questions about the online targeting and data collection practices of online health marketers, including the tracking and targeting a consumer by their medical “condition.”  One of the companies we cited was “Everyday Health” and its “ConditionMatch(TM)” marketing system.  Today, that company posted a release saying it was the “faster-growing health network.”  Here’s an excerpt:  GHM audience is up 93% over a year ago — to 32 million unique visitors monthly — due to growth in consumers’ appetite for sophisticated, condition-specific information on niche sites. Advertisers have followed…

One factor driving the ad gains: a precise targeting capability GHM calls ConditionMatch(TM), which profiles “in-market” consumers (people searching for specific medical and wellness information). GHM delivers three primary audience channels: Consumer Medical, Consumer Wellness, and Healthcare Professionals. The Medical Channel delivers condition-specific audiences (e.g., allergy, diabetes, depression); Wellness bridges a marketplace gap by combining fitness and nutrition sites; and HCP aggregates professional website audiences.

“Pharma and CPG brands want condition specific-audiences of scale,” said Bill Jennings, CEO of Good Health Media. “Our site partners attract more a more frequent, loyal audience than broader health destinations online. We’re able to reach people who are actively seeking specific information on partner sites and across the Internet. That’s the ideal platform.”

When Privacy Groups Raise Money from Facebook, Google, and the companies they are supposed to hold accountable

Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg is the industry draw for CDT’s 2010 fundraising event.  “Gold” sponsors of the “host committee” include Facebook, Google, Microsoft and AT&T.  “Silver” sponsors (and there’s a long list) include Adobe, NCTA, eBay, Verizon, Intel, AOL, Time Warner Cable, News Corp., Visa, Yahoo, Comcast and a bevy of law firms that work on privacy and related issues.  They include Manatt Phelps, Wilmer Cutler, Wilson Sonsoni, and Arnold and Porter.

It’s troubling–to say the least–when any consumer/public interest group takes funding from the industry/industries it is supposed to hold accountable.  Conflict of interest questions and concerns need to be posed whenever the group takes a position and has funding from parties connected to the issue (think about Facebook and Google’s recent privacy problems, let alone legislation and policies now before Congress and the FTC).  It’s great to have extra money.  But we suggest groups “just say no” to such special interest relationships.

Interactive Ad Bureau boasts it “Lobbied extensively and proactively against” FTC Consumer Protection Proposals

In its annual report for 2009, the Interactive Advertising Bureau [IAB] cites as a accomplishment that it “Lobbied extensively and proactively against several proposals— including the FTC Reauthorization Act—that would grant broad newn rulemaking powers to the Federal Trade Commission.“  It also notes that the “IAB PAC had an active year supporting many key Congressional champions of the interactive advertising industry and was able to host the first ever IAB fundraiser.  The PAC begins 2010 with a healthy balance of over $55,000 cash on hand.“