Behavioral Targeting: It’s Time for Industry Standards of Practice — Lack of Clear Guidelines Attracting Fear, Loathing and Worse — Politicians
|
Written By Noah Mallin | July 29, 2008 | Share This
|
|
SearchViews dealt with behavioral targeting a few weeks ago but the tide of bad publicity has now well and truly rolled in. There’s nothing like an election year to bring on the misplaced outrage – in this case towards behavioral marketing and targeting online. What’s even worse is that one numskull company has helped to paint everyone else with a broad brush. But first…
Cast your mind back to 1985 (if indeed you were sentient back then), admittedly not an election year but a fertile time for boogiemen (pun semi-intended). Future first lady-elect Tipper Gore forms the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) after daughter Karenna was confused and shamed by the Prince song “Darling Nikki.” Cue full dress congressional hearings featuring testimony from that most unlikely of trios: John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider. The PMRC accused rock music of being lascivious, dangerous, even Satanic. (Incidentally their list of the worst offenders -the so-called Filthy 15 - makes a pretty great mix.) I think it’s safe to say that the youth of 1985 did not grow up to be wholesale Satan worshippers and that every generation’s music sounds a bit edgy to the one that preceded it. The politicians (and their wives) did get a lot of nice juicy headlines out of their hearings though.
Just last week our fine members of Congress wrapped up similarly silly hearings on online behavioral targeting – only this time the eloquence of a Frank Zappa or, dare I say it, a John Denver was in short supply. Worse, they were able to scrape up a clueless internet service provider off the bottom of the barrel to make everyone else look bad.
The ISP, smallish root-beerily named Embarq, signed up with behavioral targeting firm NebuAd to track their user’s online doings and deliver targeted ads to their subscribers. The problem is that Embarq, in an act of utter stupidity, chose not to share the information that this program was commencing with their users in a clear fashion which would allow them to opt out. In contrast, fellow NebuAd client and ISP Charter Communications “…sent snail-mail letters to its users notifying (them) of a plan to test NebuAd, which inspired the current lawmaker interest in the subject in the first place.”
Embarq’s clever idea was to quietly modify their privacy policy statement deep inside their corporate website. Understandably this upset and disturbed the members of Congress who quickly issued their press releases on how they are fighting for the people’s privacy against evil marketers. This of course is an easier fight than the one against holding phone companies liable for illegal government wiretaps but that’s a post for a different blog (seriously though, it made Lucius Fox cry when Batman did it.)
The bad publicity has blown back on NebuAd and in fact on the whole online marketing sphere. You know its bad when behavioral marketers start to turn on each other like Tacoda’s Dave Morgan who pronounced ISP-level targeting “creepy.” Yes indeed, some are finding it creepy but they aren’t making the fine distinction between search engine level targeting and ISP level targeting.
The record industry responded too late to the PMRC back in 1985 with ridiculous parental warning stickers that may have actually sold more records than not. The underlying act of self-policing is the right lesson to take away, though. Embarq’s response when questioned about their lack of candor with their clients was that they were following the guidelines as broadly laid out by the FTC. Clearly the existing guidelines don’t work, are confusing, or both.
Let’s call once and for all for a clear opt-in/opt-out standard, with no obfuscation. Google managed it with Gmail and it’s proven to have been successful. If users are given a clear understanding of the benefits of targeted advertising many of them will prefer it to the willy-nilly ad content they currently get anyway. Here’s Number 8 on Google’s Gmail terms of use:
“Advertisements. As consideration for using the Service, you agree and understand that Google will display ads and other information adjacent to and related to the content of your email. Gmail serves relevant ads using a completely automated process that enables Google to effectively target dynamically changing content, such as email. No human will read the content of your email in order to target such advertisements or other information without your consent, and no email content or other personally identifiable information will be provided to advertisers as part of the Service.”
Pretty darn clear to me, as it should be to any user – and millions have agreed to these terms of use. Granted it’s contextual rather than behavioral but the idea of someone reading your e-mail carries much of the same stigma (if not more) as someone following your path around the internet.
Gmail users understand what many ISP customers would pick up on — there is value in being served advertisements that actually interest you. As a marketer it’s certainly in my interest to have the most precise tools at hand to target consumers – but it’s equally in my interest to be as honest and forthright as possible with them. With clear industry-wide best practice guidelines, we can have the best of both worlds.
Topics: Advertising: Behavioral, Advertising: Online, Google, Legal Issues, Reprise Media, SEM: Paid Search, Search: News |