Facebook Tells Big Advertisers: We’re not “a pure social media site”

That’s what Facebook’s “Chief Revenue Officer” Mike Murphy told big brands like Coca Cola and Pepsi  at an invitation only event focused on better targeting teens and young adults.  The “PTTOW! Youth Media Summit is an annual, invite-only conference focused on the trillion dollar young adult market.  Bringing together the top marketers from the world’s most innovative companies, the event serves as a high-level forum for discussing youth media, marketing and culture across every major industry category.”

Facebook was there pitching its wares, helping big brands better target its users.  Mr. Murphy is quoted as saying that its Fan pages have become “a sustainable asset even after the campaign ends.” We all know that Facebook needs ads to thrive.  But it has to become honest with its users–and privacy and consumer protection policymakers–about the data it collects and how it’s used.  It’s also useful to know that Facebook doesn’t see itself only as a social media site–because it’s really part of online marketing [including increasingly for food and beverages linked to the global youth obesity crisis].

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.”

The IAB’s Targeting/Data Collection Glossary: Oh, What a Tangled Privacy Threatened Web They Weave [Annals of Geo. Orwell meets Madison Ave.]

The Interactive Advertising Bureau has released for public comment a telling document that illustrates why Congress and the FTC need to develop some rules to protect consumers.  Take a look at the definitions the IAB has embraced on targeting and data collection–and ask yourself.  Based on what they say, can this really be–as the IAB claims–non personal information? Here are some of the definitions from the Networks & Exchanges Quality Assurance Guidelines [Feb. 2010]:

*Audience Targeting:A method that enables advertisers to show an ad specifically to visitors based on their shared behavioral, demographic, geographic and/or technographic attributes.  Audience targeting uses anonymous, non-PII data.

*Behavioral Targeting:  Using previous online user activity (e.g., pages visited, content viewed, searches, clicks and purchases) to generate a segment which is used to match advertising creative to users (sometimes also called Behavioral Profiling, Interest-based Advertising, or online behavioral advertising).  Behavioral targeting uses anonymous, non-PII data.

*Attribute – A single piece of information known about a user and stored in a behavioral profile which may be used to match ad content to users.  Attributes consist of demographic information (e.g., age, gender, geographical location), segment or cluster information (e.g., auto enthusiast), and retargeting information (e.g., visited Site X two days ago).  Segment or cluster information is derived from the user’s prior online activities (e.g., pages visited, content viewed, searches made and clicking and purchasing behaviors).  Generally, this is anonymous data (non-PII).

*Behavioral Event – A user-initiated action which may include, but not limited to: searches, content views, clicks, purchases, form-based information and other interactions.  Behavioral events are anonymous and do not include personally identifiable information (PII).

*Clickstream Data – A Clickstream is the recording of what a computer user clicks on while web browsing.  As the user clicks anywhere in the webpage or application, the action is logged on a client or inside the web server, as well as possibly the web browser and ad servers.  Clickstream data analysis can be used to create a user
profile that aids in understanding the types of people that visit a company’s website, or predict whether a customer is likely to purchase from an e-commerce website.

*Cookie – A small text file sent by a website’s server to be stored on the user’s web- enabled device that is returned unchanged by the user’s device to the server on subsequent interactions.  The cookie enables the website domain to associate data with that device and distinguish requests from different devices.  Cookies often store behavioral information.

*Cross-site Advertiser Analytics – Software or services that allow an advertiser to optimize and audit the delivery of creative content on pre-bought publisher inventory.  Data can range from numbers of pages visited, to content visited, to purchases made by a particular user.  Such data is used to surmise future habits of user or best placement for a particular advertiser based on success.


*Deep Packet Inspection – A form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data and/or header part of a packet as it passes an inspection point. In the context of online advertising, it is used to collect data, typically through an Internet Service Provider, which can be used to display targeted advertising to users based on previous web activity.

* Retargeting (or re-targeting) – The use of a pixel tag or other code to enable a third-party to recognize particular users outside of the domain from which the activity
was collected. See Creative Retargeting, Site Retargeting.

*Creative Retargeting:  A method that enables advertisers to show an ad specifically to visitors that previously were exposed to or interacted with the advertisers’ creative.

*Unique User – An individual user that has interacted with online content, which is smaller than or equal to the number of cookies observed.  The number of unique users to a website is usually an estimate.  

Microsoft Taps Academics to Help its Lobbying in DC

Microsoft “launched an online forum January 6 for the academic community to participate in a dialogue about policy issues relating to the technology industry,” according to PR Week.  The so-called “Technology Academic Policy” [TAP] group “is aimed at journalists, Capitol Hill staffers, think tanks, and other decision makers,” explained Kathryn Neal, academic relations director for Microsoft. Academic institutions that are participating include UC Berkeley, Harvard University, Northwestern University, and Stanford Law School.  Microsoft, which hired Adfero Group in summer 2009 to support the program, also created a presence for TAP on Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Digg, and Facebook. Academic participants can engage in each medium, including posting videos to YouTube, noted Neal.” Adfero Group says that it helps clients “persuade the powerful.”

Microsoft is playing a game of academic catch-up to Google, which funds scholars and research to help advance it’s own interests.  But there should be real independence between the academy and powerful special interests.  One will have to examine closely Microsoft’s relationship with the following academic institutions aligned with the new TAP program:

“TAP Centers – The following institutions currently contribute to TAP:

  • The Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at UC Berkeley
  • The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
  • The George Washington University Law School
  • The John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School
  • The Program in the Law & Economics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust at Stanford Law School
  • The Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth at Northwestern University
  • Silicon Flatirons — A Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado
  • The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)
  • The Toulouse Network for Information Technology, hosted by the Institut d’Economie Industrielle at Toulouse University
  • The Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition at The University of Pennsylvania Law School (CTIC)”

MicroHoo & Digital Data Consolidation: Despite DoJ okay, FTC Needs to Act and Protect Consumer Privacy

Today’s announcement that Microsoft and Yahoo have received clearance from the DoJ and EU to proceed with its partnership continues the global trend towards online marketing consolidation.  Given Google’s dominance in search, the Microsoft `helps save Yahoo deal’ creates what some hope will be more robust competition in the search market.  But the real issue with the deal is data privacy.  That’s why the Federal Trade Commission needs to dig into this new partnership and ensure consumer privacy is protected.

Microsoft to Advertisers: “Behavioural targeting is transforming the capabilities of online advertising”

In a recent post, Microsoft extolled the virtues of using its behavioral targeting service profiling mobile phone users.  It explained that “campaigns can target individuals based on their online behaviour, including the sites that they visit, the actions they take and the terms they enter into search engines. In the US behavioural targeting on mobiles has already delivered increases in click-through rate of 215% for the fashion and beauty sector, 97% for airlines and 76% for auto advertisers.”

Microsoft Differs from IAB Lobby on Strengthening FTC Consumer Safeguards [via a letter sent to CDD]

We asked both Microsoft and Google, which serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau [IAB]  trade lobbying group, whether they supported its recent letter opposing congressional action to strengthen the FTC. The letter was signed by IAB and other marketing and advertising organizations.  Microsoft has just replied.  We are glad they aren’t in lock-step with the ever so transparent–and terrified of consumer protection policy–IAB.  Here’s what they emailed me today:


Jeff,

 

Thank you for your inquiry.

 

As a company, Microsoft has not taken a position on the Consumer Protection Financial Agency bill.  As a whole, the bill is directed at other industry sectors.  Nor has Microsoft taken a position on the expansion of the Federal Trade Commission’s regulatory authority as proposed in that legislation.

 

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 cited) should not be ignored.  Perhaps there is room for a balanced approach.

 

We understand that the status of the financial reform bill may be uncertain, at least the status of the relevant provision in the Senate version of that legislation.

 

We are open to discussing these issues further with you and other interested stakeholders.

 

Sincerely,

Frank Torres

Director, Consumer Affairs

Where Does Google and Microsoft Really Stand–with the IAB and ad lobby or for Consumer Protection?

Both Google and Microsoft serve on the executive committee of the Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association fighting against consumer privacy proposals in Congress and the FTC.  The IAB just sent a letter signed by other ad and marketing industry lobbyists opposing Obama and congressional proposals to expand the ability of the FTC to better protect consumers.  My CDD just sent emails to officials at both Google and Microsoft asking them to clarify where they stand on the IAB’s letter [see below].  Do our two leading online marketing leaders support financial and regulatory reform, including protecting privacy?  Or does the IAB letter–and Google and Microsoft’s own role helping govern that trade lobby group–really reflect their own position against better consumer protection? Not coincidently, the IAB’s PAC has expanded its PAC contribution giving to congress.

Why does the IAB and other ad groups want to scuttle a more capable FTC?  Think online financial products, including mortgages, pharmaceutical operated social networks, digital ads targeting teens fueling the youth obesity crisis, ads created by brain research to influence our subconscious minds, a mobile marketing system that targets us because it knows our location, interests and behavior.  The IAB is terrified that a responsible consumer protection agency will not only peek under the ‘digital hood,’ as the Obama FTC is currently doing.  But actually propose policies and bring cases that rein in irresponsible and harmful business practices.  So Microsoft and Google:  who are with?  Consumers or the special interest advertising lobby?
*****

letter to Google:  22 January 2010

Dear Pablo, Jane, Peter and Alan:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter  to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Google serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Google support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Google disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Google state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

letter to Microsoft:  22 Jan. 2010:

Dear Mike and Frank:

As you may know, the Interactive Advertising Bureau recently sent a letter to Congress, along with other ad related groups, opposing the expansion of FTC regulatory authority as proposed in the Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill and related reauthorization [http://www.clickz.com/3636212].

Microsoft serves on the executive committee of the IAB’s board.  For the record, does Microsoft support IAB’s stance that, as news reports say, if the FTC is given additional enforcement and penalty-making authority, “the FTC could essentially act as an unelected legislature governing industries and sectors across the economy.”

If Microsoft disagrees with the IAB’s letter, I ask that it make its position public as soon as possible.  I also respectfully request Microsoft state its position regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Agency proposal, as well as its position on expanding FTC authority.

Regards,

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democraticmedia.org

Google, Microsoft, China, Digital Advertising and Human Rights.

It took the equivalent of a Chinese digital Watergate break-in before Google reconsidered its position on China and their anti-democratic and censorious policies.  Google should never agreed to a censored version of itself in the first place.  But China represents what will be the world’s number one online marketing gold mine, irresistible for those in the interactive advertising business.  l hope that Google will actually withdraw from China, until democracy is assured.  But meanwhile, it’s interesting to briefly explore what Google and other online marketing companies are doing in the China market, including Hong Kong.

Google’s research division in China has been investigating “”Large-scale data mining and its applications for information retrieval.”  Google is still, as of today, listing job openings for its China operation. Google’s DoubleClick features its Hong Kong work (as part of its Asia Pacific focus).  [It’s also important to see what kind of data collection might be done by Google’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange in that market].

But policymakers and the public should also focus on Microsoft.  Microsoft has a key research lab on interactive ads based in Beijing; Microsoft Advertising has a major focus on China and online ads. Microsoft and many others research the online behaviors of Asians, including young users.  Yahoo operates in China as well. Finally, U.S. online ad companies focused on data mining are opening up branches in Hong Kong, in order to better position themselves with the Asia-Pacific market.

Google’s withdrawal from China would be a model for other companies–we hope it does it.  But the focus should be on how the online marketing industry at large, including ad giants such as WPP, are facilitating a system that deprives its citizens of their rights.

Tracking Mobile Users by Behavior and Race: Why the FTC Must Address Mobile Privacy ASAP

Here’s a brief excerpt from the “The mobiThinking guide to mobile advertising networks 2010.”  Our emphasis.

Microsoft Mobile Advertising: Targeting capabilities include device, demographic (gender, age, household income), geographic and behavior.

Advertising.com/AOL: Full suite of targeting options, including device, browser, operating system, carrier, on/off-deck, geography, time-segment, content, and multiple demographic combinations.

Nokia Interactive Advertising: Demographics, location, handset type, and in the US by channels (e.g. auto, news, sports.

Quattro Wireless: a) contextual: media type, channel, publisher; b) demographic: gender, age, ethnicity, education; c) location; d) mobile: carrier, device class, manufacturer, model, features, operating system, browser; e) frequency of exposure.

Jumptap: Jumptap offers 64 different targeting options including: demographic, geographic location, carrier, on/off-deck (operator portal), device types and browser, time of day, day of week, content category and frequency controls. These targeting parameters are derived from multiple data courses, including contextual information and true carrier subscriber information. Premium brand advertising guarantees the ad will appear on certain sections of chosen site at the time specified.

Millennial Media: Audience targeting: Millennial can uniquely identify a user across all sites on the network – they are grouped into audiences, based on their observed behaviors on sites, participation and review of click-stream data, so campaigns can be targeted at specific audiences. (Millennial discloses these techniques, with an opt-out in accordance with the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising, July 2009). Advertisers can also do Run of Network (RON) campaigns or target by channel, custom subnet, takeover, network blocks or demographic. There is also targeting via geography, carrier, handset model/manufacturer/operating system, handset features, age of device, time of day, location, Wi-Fi, etc.