Category: annals of behavioral targeting

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.

Boucher/Stearns Privacy Bill: Fails to Ensure Data Collection Minimization and Forces Consumers to rely on Digital ‘fine’ Print

Yesterday, Reps. Rich Boucher and Clifford Stearns released a “discussion” draft for what they intend to become a new law addressing privacy online.  Mr. Boucher, whom I and a number of consumer and privacy representatives met with in March, is sincere in his desire to address online privacy.  But the bill’s overall orientation maintain (and really nurtures) the intense and pervasive data collection, online profiling, and targeting status quo.  Instead of focusing the goal of the bill on data minimization, a important Fair Information Principle, it really enables the maximization of information collection on consumers.

The bill does make several important contributions, including acknowledging that racial/ethnic and sexual orientation must be considered  “sensitive” information requiring higher safeguards [I played a role in urging Congressional leaders to include racial/ethnic data in the sensitive category].  By acknowledging that a “unique persistent identifier” should be classified as personal information, the draft bill follows what policymakers in the EU have crafted (and the FTC staff has already largely suggested).

But by primarily relying on so-called “notice and choice”–namely privacy policies–the bill fails to protect online users.  There is a growing consensus, backed by research, that privacy policies are inadequate.  The reliance by Mr. Boucher on Google’s ad preference manager system, which allows users to opt-out of more specific ad targeting categories, doesn’t address the key question:  how can we ensure less information is collected and used about each of us.  Nor does the bill protect sensitive information involving health and finance, where it permits a huge loophole that will continue online data practices involving our interactions online with financial and health related sites and services].  Adolescents are left unprotected in the bill–one of its most glaring omissions.

The bill doesn’t really empower the FTC to act effectively in this area, in our opinion.  Under the Boucher/Stearns bill, consumers will still have to rely on digital fine print–written in invisible ink–to protect privacy.  This is not a debate on ensuring online ad revenues for free content–we all support that.  It’s about defining reasonable rules of the online road that balances citizen and consumer rights with the interests of those who collect our data–whether they be commercial or government.

Google Paper on “Opt-in Dystopias”: Doesn’t Reflect What Google Actually is doing with data

The Google Policy blog promoted a paper by two Google employees on the opt-in/opt-out policy debate.  The paper is worth reading, but its use is limited because it doesn’t reflect the actual online marketing data collection process.  Here’s what I just wrote on the Google site:

The authors need to revise their paper based on the goals and actual practices with online marketing and data collection done by Google and its affiliates. While it’s true that the binary opt-in, opt-out debate is unfortunately narrow, it is used to address far-reaching data collection and targeting strategies implemented by Google and other online marketers. The authors, for example, should examine Google’s use of neuromarketing for its YouTube advertising products; or the role of purposefully developed “immersive” multimedia tied to data collection by DoubleClick. They should analyze Google’s advertising goals, including what it promises to the largest pharmaceutical and financial advertisers, for example. Or examine the growing role of merging offline and online data collection tied to a specific user cookie to be auctioned off that is now routinely used in online ad exchanges (Google owns one such exchange). They should also reflect on how Google–when rushing to catch up with Facebook in the social media marketing business–launched its Buzz product without a careful analysis of its impact on data collection. Google’s researchers on privacy, in other words, would be more credible if they carefully analyzed how their own company uses–and plans to use–data. This issue deserves a robust debate–and we know the authors are sincere in their interest to make an important contribution. But they should also have been candid that Google is fighting off policy proposals from privacy advocates that would empower a user/citizen by allowing them to protect their privacy–including using opt-in.  The failure to have global policies that protect privacy is the high social and political cost the public should not have to bear.

Microsoft breaks from IAB Lobby and supports a stronger FTC Consumer Protection Role

I asked both Google and Microsoft their position on proposed legislation that would enable the FTC to protect consumers.  Microsoft, to their credit, has taken a stand, even if it has a caveat.  Here’s what they wrote to me:

“…Microsoft has supported the expansion of FTC authority, including in our longtime support for comprehensive federal privacy legislation and in a recent legislative proposal on protecting consumers related to cloud computing, where we said that the FTC should play a key role.  In the current environment, there ought to be better alternatives to guide the marketplace than de facto rulemaking through enforcement activity.

It is our view that there is merit to having FTC rulemaking authority mirror that of other agencies — we favor increased certainty and the ability for comment on proposed rules that will impact our industry.  At the same time, the reasons the FTC’s existing mechanisms were put in place (as articulated in the industry letter you cite) should not be ignored.  Perhaps there is room for a balanced approach.”

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 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.

A Glimpse into Google’s Ad Exchange: Account Execs are to “acquire high revenue strategic leads” while they have “mindshare”

Google is currently looking for an account executive for its Ad Exchange.  Here’s an excerpt from the posting:

As an Account Executive, you will be charged with initiating and growing partnerships with buyers for the Ad Exchange. You must be comfortable selling the value of the Ad Exchange over the phone and in person. Acquisitions representatives will acquire high revenue strategic leads, close multiple new accounts weekly, and maximize revenue performance during a partner’s first 90 days while we have the greatest mindshare…

  • Optimize new buyer performance to exceed quarterly revenue targets.
  • Drive hundreds of thousands of dollars in new 90-day revenue each quarter.

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.“