Digital Destiny

The self-regulatory proposals released today [2 July 2009]  by five marketing industry trade and lobby groups are way too little and far too late. This move by the online ad industry is an attempt, of course, to quell the growing bi-partisan calls in Congress to enact meaningful digital privacy and consumer protection laws. It’s also designed to assuage a reawakened Federal Trade Commission–whose new chair, Jon Leibowitz, recently appointed one the country’s most distinguished consumer advocates and legal scholars to direct its Bureau of Consumer Protection (David Vladeck). The principles are inadequate, even beyond their self-regulatory approach that condones, in effect, the “corporate fox guarding the digital data henhouse.” Effective government regulation is required to protect consumers. We should have learned a painful lesson by now with the failure of the financial industry to oversee itself. The reckless activities of the financial sector—made possible by a deregulatory, hands-off government policy–directly led to the current financial catastrophe. As more of our transactions and daily activities are conducted online, including those involving financial and health issues–through PCs, mobile phones, social networks, and the like–it is critical that the first principle be to ensure the basic protection of consumer privacy. Self-dealing “principles” concocted by online marketers simply won’t provide the level of protection consumers really require.

The industry appears to have embraced a definition of behavioral targeting and profiling that is at odds with how the practice actually works. Before any data is collected from consumers, they need to be candidly informed about the process–such as the creation and evolution of their profile; how tracking and data gathering occurs site to site; what data can be added to their profile from outside databases; the role that data targeting plays on so-called first-party websites, etc. In addition, the highest possible consumer safeguards are necessary when financial and health data are involved. Under the loosey-goosey trade industry principles, however, only “certain health and financial data” are to be treated as a “sensitive” category. This would permit widespread data collection involving personal information regarding our health and financial concerns. The new principles, moreover, fail to protect the privacy of teenagers; nor do they seriously address children’s privacy. (I was one of the two people that led the campaign to enact the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act).

The failure to develop adequate safeguards for sensitive consumer information illustrates, I believe, the inability of the ad marketing groups to seriously address online privacy. The so-called “notice and choice” approach embraced by the industry has failed. More links to better-written privacy statements don’t address the central problem: the collection of more and more user data for profiling and targeting purposes. There needs to be quick Congressional action placing limits on the collection, use and retention of consumer data; opt-in control over profile information; and the creation of a meaningful sensitive data category. Consumer and privacy groups intend to work with Congress to ensure that individuals don’t face additional losses due to unfair online marketing practices.

[press statement by the Center for Digital Democracy]

Last week, I testified on the threat to both consumer privacy and welfare from the growing data collection, profiling, and targeting interactive online marketing system.  I told Congress it was critical to enact legislation that would protect consumers, especially as they use online and mobile networks for financial and health-related transactions (credit card applications, banking, health inquiries, etc.).  As you can see from the testimony, I said we should be able to have an online privacy policy that  ensures the public is protected, while also promoting the growth of the commercial online medium.

The link to the testimony via a press release is here.

excerpt and my emphasis from new product announcement.  Ask your self as you read, is it anonymous?:  “…Behavioral Targeting is the latest addition to the Amadesa Customer Experience Suite and represents a powerful extension of Amadesa’s personalization continuum…“Amadesa’s site-side Behavioral Targeting algorithm goes above and beyond how most marketers define personalization by incorporating principles more commonly seen in advanced advertising solutions and applying them on marketers’ sites,” explained Rita Brogley, Amadesa’s CEO. “Although the technology is among the industry’s most sophisticated, the integrated user interface makes Behavioral Targeting easy to implement with little follow-up required of the marketer…

• An algorithm that anonymously collects hundreds of user data attributes, including time of day, day of week, IP address, referring URL and more
• In-session updating which captures visitors’ actions and behaviors, incorporates them into personas and acts on these findings in real time
• A sophisticated, yet easy to use, interface with actionable reporting that allows marketers to compare Behavioral Targeting traffic with a control group to track the results of the algorithm
• A quick preview function which lets marketers easily view content options prior to launch...”

From Product Overview:  Amadesa’s Behavioral Targeting (BT) algorithm personalizes site content and media elements for visitors based upon their real-time behaviors. BT analyzes hundreds of data elements to learn which campaign promotion, category image or general creative is most compelling for each individual. By automatically matching the best content to each visitor, BT can have a dramatic affect on conversions and engagement…
source:  Amadesa Adds Site-Side Behavioral Targeting to its Continuum of Personalization SolutionsAmadesa Adds Site-Side Behavioral Targeting to its Continuum of Personalization Solutions.  Press Release.  June 15, 2009.
and Amadesa Product Overview 2009.

excerpt:  “…in-game ads have begun to move out of the “experimental buy” bucket and into the media plan because advertisers now realize that ads in games produce results…Measurement is very important…Earlier this week, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) released new in-game advertising guidelines for public comment to establish a common methodology for counting impressions and to simplify the process of buying and selling in-game advertising… Microsoft’s advertising arm also has been involved in a study that examines the emotional reactions consumers have toward advertising campaigns in and around video games. The first phase of the study — conducted with EmSense, a neuroscience company — compares the findings with similar results from television commercials. The companies discovered that the interactive elements in the video game ad campaigns evoke stronger emotional connections with consumers and more positive emotional associations with the brands.

EmSense analyzed several different advertising campaigns on Xbox 360 games, Xbox Live and MSN Games. Some brands involved in the study include Doritos, Kia, Sprint, Hyundai and Microsoft.

In-Game Ads In The Ad Game.  Laurie Sullivan.  Online Media Daily.  June 16, 2009

PS:  Among the in-game ad categories [excerpt] proposed by the IAB include (and I kid you not!):

 3.1.1.1 Valid Ad Impression:
The threshold for a valid Ad Impression is a cumulative exposure to an ad of ten (10) seconds.   An In-Game Measurement Organization may accumulate ad exposures of shorter time lengths to achieve this Ad Impression threshold…

3.1.2.2 Lighting
Only ads that are visible within the virtual game environment with sufficient lighting during darkness should be counted.

3.1.2.3 Maximum Ad Angle Relative to Game Screen
The angle of the ad must be no greater than 55 degrees relative to the game screen.

As advertisers continue to exert greater influence in online programming content (and as we prepare for what will eventually be a digital version of the 1950’s Quiz show scandals), we are tracking this trend.  Here is an excerpt from Screenplays magazine on a recent Internet “upfront” conference held by ad company Digitas:  Across the board the message was that advertisers aren’t interested in backing web content without having access to precisely the right performance data…Measuring engagement…is a big component of tracking ROI…Carls Jr. recently rolled out an online video campaign with eight YouTube stars, said Alex Levy, director of Branded Entertainment at Google.  “Brands increasingly have an appetite for web content and the DVR has made everything old new again.  We have to keep figuring out how to integrate into the content itself, she said.

New York Web Confab Reveals Hurdles Agencies Have Set for Video Ad Metrics.  Screenplays.  June 9, 2009

The Interactive Ad Bureau, a trade association that lobbies for the online ad industry, wants to help derail legislation that would protect consumer privacy.  On Wednesday, it released a report designed to sway Congress; it claimed that the “Ad-Supported Internet Contributes $300 Billion to U.S. Economy, Has Created 3.1 Million U.S. Jobs.”  Incredibly–and so revealing–was the failure of the report to discuss the privacy issue at all.  In fact, the term privacy is only mentioned once (and doesn’t refer to the civil liberties issues at the core of the debate).

In fact, this report appears more like some sort of term paper where various facts and figures were piled on in an attempt to make an argument.  The report conflates the Internet with the online ad market (and misses the larger critical issues).

But what’s astounding is that it was co-authored by a board member of WPP, the world’s largest ad agency.  Harvard Professor John Quelch has been on the WPP board since 1988, earning some 60,000 pounds a year for his service. WPP has a huge financial stake, needless to say, in the digital ad business.  Professor Quelch is also on the Pepsi Bottling Group board.  The report was developed by Hamilton Consultants, which has represented online giants such as AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, along with other major online marketers Coca Cola, GE and–of course–WPP.

The IAB’s stance appears to be that if Congress protects our privacy, it will somehow undermine the Internet’s role in economic growth.  The opposite, I believe, is true.  An Internet that reflects the values of democracy will do a better job for us all—including the lobbyists and academic consultants working on behalf of the IAB.

Take a look at this YouTube branded ad campaign for Carls Jr.  Look at the nutrition information.  The ad, says Visible Measures, is at the “number one spot on the Top Ad Campaigns chart this week showcases vloggers from the Nigahiga comedy group chomping down for Carl’s Jr.’s How To Eat A Burger campaign, which features the Portobello Mushroom Burger. The campaign grabbed a record-breaking 3.3+ million views…”

excerpt:  “…MTVN  conducted a three-day study of more than 60 gamers at a biometrics lab in Las Vegas; they showed the players various ads and games, all while examining stats like heart rate, respiration, movement patterns and visual attention. Interestingly, they found that 15-second pre-rolls were the most effective way to garner a player’s “focused attention”—beating out 30-second spots, in-game display ads, and even overlays. Pre-roll ads commanded up to 85 percent focused attention, MTVN’s study found, meaning that the vast majority of the viewers paid full attention to the ads…“The question we wanted to answer was do ads need to be more disruptive to be effective?” said Jason Witt, GM for MTVN’s Digital Fusion ad unit. “We can always stick a bigger ad in front of somebody. And we found that you don’t have to be more disruptive, by and large. The proof is that 15-second pre-rolls were the most effective.” The study also found that game ads had 8x higher unaided brand awareness over online display ads in general, and fueled a 12x higher intent to purchase…So for us, the goal is to see what’s the optimal way of connecting to this audience when they’re that rabid and that engaged.” 

source:  Need To Reach Casual Gamers? MTV Says 15-Second Pre-Rolls Work Best.  David Kaplan.  paidcontent.org.  June 10, 2009.

Here’s an excerpt from the article BT: Can It Mean Behavioral Responses To Ads?:

Companies touting the targeting of online ads to consumers as a mixture of art and science could soon find psychologists employed among their midst…One To One Interactive will open its primary research lab, OTOinsights, to other advertising agencies and research firms… Along with the main lab in Charleston, Mass., a mobile lab that can travel anywhere offers input on eye tracking; click tracking; bio-feedback such as heart rate, respiratory rate, galvanic skin response; neuro-feedback such as EEG/active attention; and facial recognition technology that interprets six fundamental human emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted, and neutral…The ability to tap into psychological and physiological testing for ad targeting is an emerging field…There are between 10 and 15 firms…spearheading efforts. …Neurofocus…focuses on EEG electroencephalographic- (EEG-) based neurological testing that reveals the degrees of attention, emotional engagement, and memory retention that consumers experience at the deep subconscious level of the brain.

source:  Laurie Sullivan.  Behavioral Insider.  June 4, 2009.

Google’s Andrew McLaughlin is listed as the “designated agent” and “Assistant Treasurer for its “NetPAC” in a Federal Election Commission filing dated March 16, 2009.  It gave out $270,000 to federal candidates for the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  It’s a veritable political “who’s who” for those receiving the money, including the leading lawmakers overseeing policies that affect Google’s interest, including privacy and intellectual property. Among the recipients include Reps. Barton, Boucher, [now WH chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel, Markey, Speaker Pelosi, Sens. Dorgan, Durbin, Reid, Rockefeller, Smith, etc.

Money for the PAC came from Google execs such as Sergey Brin, David Drummond, Eric Schmidt, Vint Cerf, Mr. McLaughlin, Hal Varian and others.  It’s worth looking at the Center’s coverage of Google’s contributions.

Clearly, corporations and individuals have a right, within limits, to donate to campaigns.  But to me, Mr. McLaughlin’s role running Google’s PAC–as recently as this Spring–illustrates why such activity should be addressed by the White House’s new “Ethics Commitments” for personnel. This isn’t about Mr. McLaughlin or Google.  But no top political operative should be able to make a quick revolving door trip into a federal job that will be connected to their private sector role.