Category: subprime crisis

Arianna Huffington’s AOL Privacy Problem–Will She Be a “Progressive” and Limit Behavioral Targeting?

Ms. Huffington’s HuffPost used behavioral targeting and other forms of interactive marketing to help make the news site successful.  At HuffPost, the privacy issues involved with such practices were never seriously addressed.  But now Ms. Huffington has a new role as the editorial executive for AOL’s content service.   But AOL is engaged in extensive and manipulative forms of behavioral targeting–including the pervasive online targeting of teens, African Americans, health and medical consumers and patients, for financial service products, etc.  Like other online marketers, AOL claims such online tracking, profiling and targeting isn’t really personally identifiable–which is both inaccurate and deceptive.  We challenge Ms. Huffington to engage in a serious journalistic investigation of AOL’s privacy practices and redress them.  There should be absolutely no targeting of adolescents.  Behavioral targeting of African-Americans, financial and health products should be by prior opt-in consent only.  Ms. Huffington should be held responsible for AOL’s privacy and online marketing practices–and we expect her to address them as she increasingly plays a greater leadership role in the online ad industry.  Meanwhile, here’s what AOL says it does using behavioral targeting focused on African-Americans:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Black Voices. People who visit Black Voices for the latest in news, entertainment, sports, lifestyle, careers, money and more.
  • You can target the following subsections of the Black Voices audience:
  • Auto Intenders. In-market car, truck or motorcycle shoppers who are looking for specific makes and models. They read reviews, look at pricing and features, and research financing options.
  • Die Hard Sports Fans. Dedicated fans who follow professional and collegiate sports, stay on top of player rankings, and shop for sports memorabilia.
  • Entertainment Buffs. People who follow the latest news about celebrities, movies, music and soaps. They purchase DVDs, music and video games online and also take an active interest in memorabilia.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Moviegoers. Movie buffs who read the latest reviews, follow celebrity gossip and purchase tickets/DVDs online.
  • Travelers. Personal and business travelers who are interested in travel advice and deals. They use the internet to purchase airline tickets, book accommodations, make car reservations and research financing options.

Accurate. Pinpoint your customers with other powerful targeting solutions:

  • Develop a custom audience segment modeled after visitors to your site (Look-Alike Modeling).
  • Find African American households that have the greatest propensity to purchase specific products or brands (MRI Lifestyle Clusters).
  • If you’re sponsoring an AOL page, retarget consumers who have visited it (Sponsorship LeadBack).
  • Find your ideal African American audiences on the sites they are most likely to visit (Subnet Targeting).
  • Find AOL members who have selected the AOL Black Voices Welcome Screen as their homepage option, or who have indicated (through third party data) that someone in their household is of African American ethnicity (Audience Rosters).

and its behavioral targeting of consumers looking for mortgages and other financial products:

Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Business Decision Maker. Individuals with an active interest in business news and strategy.
  • Money Minders. Affluent, older individuals who are seeking online financial advice, checking the performance of their investments, getting tax advice, planning their retirement and researching insurance options.
  • Real Estate Intender. In-market individuals looking to buy, sell or rent property.
  • Small Business Owner. Small business professionals shopping for real estate, health care and office and computer equipment.
  • Investors. Affluent individuals who read business news, evaluate stocks, seek financial advice and conduct trades online.
  • Insurance Intender. Individuals seeking information about life, auto, home or health insurance.
  • Mortgage Intender. Individuals seeking information about mortgage rates and/or home loans.

and AOL’s adolescent targeting [for shame!]:
Behavioral. Target consumers based on their interests:

  • Active Gamers. Teens and adults looking for online and console game strategies, tracking game release dates and purchasing video games.
  • Television Watchers. Individuals who keep up with their favorite television shows via TV network sites and online communities.
  • Style Mavens. Trend-focused women interested in the latest fashion, jewelry, and health and beauty items. They like to feel as good as they look by also paying attention to diet and fitness. 
  • AIM Audience. Individuals who have visited AIM properties.

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.

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.

Google Sells To Advertisers: User Profiles for Consumers Looking for Credit Cards [UK]

The new Consumer Financial Protection Board–and the FTC–will have their digital hands full as they begin to investigate the stealth world of online financial marketing.   Disclosure and consumer control has to be built into these applications–but they are not.  Of interest is a trial run by Google in the UK to sell credit cards, part of its move into “comparison” marketing.  According to New Media Age [my emphasis], “Google is testing its own [credit card] comparison product, launched earlier this year.  Currently focused purely on UK credit card providers, it lets users search on Google, click on an interactive ad showing rates from participating advertisers and takes them to a comparison page. Advertisers bid for user profiles that match their target audience and pay on a cost-per-lead basis.”

Take a look at Google’s credit card comparison site; does a consumer know about the advertiser bidding to buy their profile? See also Google similar product selling mortgages here in the U.S.

“Digital Body Language” & Online Financial Marketing–Can Be Hazardous to Your Privacy and Fiscal Health

For the last several years we have watched with dismay the largely stealth online data collection and targeting apparatus assembled for online financial marketing.  Everything from loans, credit cards, mortgages and insurance is increasingly sold online–an entire system has developed that stealthily `-e-rates’ us, including whether we are considered good prospects for various financial products.  Such “scores” become associated with us–without our knowledge.  Online lead generation is one field that helps financial online marketers and others identify whether we are the kind of person who should be pursued for a loan, for example.  One company explains that the:  “shift to online from face-to-face sales has crippled our ability to see body language when interacting with prospects leaving us less able to connect with prospects to determine their level of interest. The solution? Savvy marketers step in to read prospects’ “digital body language” and use that knowledge to guide the buying process. What web pages did prospects click on? What emails excited their interest? What breadcrumbs are they leaving that show their paths through the buying process?  Digital body language can arm sales people with deep insights into the areas and levels of interest of every prospect. Furthermore, digital body language allows marketers to determine which leads should be passed to sales at all.”

As the FTC and Congress–and we assume state regulators–work to ensure consumer protection in the digital marketing era, online financial services must be at the top of their agenda.

Tim Muris, the Facebook Connection, and the FTC: The Need for Disclosure in the debate over Protecting Consumers Online

Former Bush FTC Chair Tim Muris is helping lead the charge against proposals that would ensure the FTC can be an effective consumer protection agency.  His critique of Obama and House-backed proposals in the financial reform bill that gives the FTC the ability to act on behalf of consumers is being cited by some in Congress.  Muris is trotting out the tired refrain that the FTC would not act responsibly if given the same rulemaking authority almost every federal agency has.  He suggests that the FTC would–horror!–actually protect children from junk food ads [1 out of every 3 kids in America is obese–and ads play a role] and also ensure our privacy is protected online.  When you think privacy, think about all the things you do using the Internet–involving your money, health, family/kids–and remember that digital marketers are eavesdropping on what you do–and selling that information to the highest bidder.

But two sources tell us that Mr. Muris is representing Facebook at the FTC–he is a lawyer at O’Melveny and Myers.  Facebook is now the subject of a FTC complaint by privacy groups, as well as the growing focus of data protection commissioners.  When Mr. Muris speaks about the FTC, especially his concerns that if given the ability to enact safeguard rules it would address privacy and online marketing, it is extremely relevant that he has at least one client allegedly involved.  During his tenure at the FTC, Mr. Muris relied primarily on industry self-regulation when it came to protecting privacy online.  That posture has resulted in consumers being victimized by a data collection “wild west,” which even industry now admits.  Facebook’s work with Mr. Muris places the social network service in the company of those working to defeat safeguards to protect America’s kids from ads that promote obesity. Given Facebook’s own growing role as a fast food advertiser, questions need to be raised about their involvement fighting FTC consumer protection proposals.  It is also another area where Mr. Muris needs to acknowledge his own commercial connections.

Facebook Teams with JP Morgan Chase in Campaign Targeting Charities. But what about the bank’s role in the financial scandal?

As we have reported, banks and other financial institutions are using digital marketing techniques, especially social media, as part of their PR efforts.  Banks want to reposition themselves as our friend, and hope we will forget their role in helping bring us the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression.  In it’s current voting contest for charities, “Chase Community Giving” will award $1 million to the charity getting the most votes (with $4 million doled out to others).  One of the advisors for this effort is Facebook’s exec in charge of its PR and lobbying Elliot Schrage.

Nothing said, of course, of Chase’s role in the economic crisis, including the bail-out funds it received [click here to see the Facebook/Chase video]. Meanwhile, Chase gets Facebook’s help, likely including lots of data on user behavior.