Commentary
A Note About Tracking Cookies
- by dave.b , Max Kalehoff , April 3, 2009
The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital recently served me an unexpected banner across the top of the blog's entry page titled "A note about tracking cookies."
It said: "Some of the advertisers and Web analytics firms used on this site may place 'tracking cookies' on your computer. We are telling you about them right upfront, and we want you to know how to get rid of these tracking cookies if you like. Read more. This notice is intended to appear only the first time you visit the site on any computer."
This is the first time I'm aware of a mainstream ad-supported publisher telling me "upfront" that it is placing tracking cookies on my computer. Considering cookies are like oxygen to online media and advertising, I was taken off guard.
If you had clicked to read more, you would be directed to a page that says: "Tracking cookies are small text files that can tell such companies what you are doing online, even though they usually don't record your name or other personally identifiable information. These cookies are used by these companies to try and match ads to a user's interests. They are used all over the Web, but in most cases, their presence is only disclosed deep inside privacy policies."
advertisement
advertisement
Then, the cookie removal instructions and discontent with industry privacy policy: "We want you to know how to get rid of these tracking cookies if you like. Here are links to pages where you can opt out of the cookies set by our ad-placement contractor and our analytics contractor... We'd prefer a totally opt-in system, but, as far as we know, the ad industry doesn't have a practical one as of now."
To be sure, cookies aren't necessarily bad. In fact, they do a lot of good. But they carry significant and legitimate privacy concerns. They don't always accurately identify what they purport to, and can be used for security attacks.
And that's why it makes sense that All Things Digital would openly disclose usage of tracking cookies to its readers, and promote opting out as a choice. Doing so builds trust with one of their most valuable stakeholders: readers.
The intent was good and I applaud that. But the practicality and validity of this disclosure is questionable. To start, the banner is alarming. It suggests something inappropriate, controversial or harmful is going on. If that's true, then this is an important disclosure, and that banner should remain at all times (if for no other reason than to overcome banner blindness ).
Third, the disclosure page simply explains what tracking cookies are, how to get rid of them and the publisher's desire for opt-in rules. But given the alarming tone, it presented a decidedly mixed conclusion over the goodness or badness of tracking cookies. Consequently, a good intention made this reader more confused. It made me ask: what is the full motivation and story behind the story? And what about the 100-plus other sites I visit each day?
What about them? Perhaps prompting me to ask that question is the point. Fellow Spin columnist Dave Morgan, founder of ad networks Real Media and Tacoda, recently wrote about the online media sector: "There is no question that many of our companies are vulnerable in this area. A number of companies try to be good actors, but don't pay enough attention to protecting privacy to realize that they are doing a bad job giving appropriate notice and choice to their users concerning data capture on their sites. We also have a number of companies out there that are just plain bad actors, who hide behind those that are ignorant. And, finally, we have a number of folks out there with a mindset that just because we can offer 'better' services by capturing user data, and just because many younger users don't seem to worry too much about privacy, we don't have a problem. We do have a problem. It is about to move beyond our control."
Yes, the online media industry so far has failed miserably in adopting strong policies of education, disclosure, transparency and consumer privacy. While correcting the problem starts with the leadership of a few pioneers like All Things Digital, meaningful impact requires industrywide cooperation. Without a larger movement, more public confusion, distrust and backlash are inevitable. Everyone loses, including All Things Digital and the minority that demonstrated good intent early on.
The endgame: A self-enforcing industry needs full industry cooperation. It also needs a real sheriff with meaningful authority, firepower and handcuffs. So who's going to be that sheriff? So far, nobody's stepping up, except for some ambitious bureaucrats in Washington. We may be amidst an economic crisis, but that's not stopping federal regulators from moving in.
To all the publishers out there: What are you really doing about privacy?
... and who says no one notices banners any more... that one all but jumped off the page at you.
I applaud the effort - explaining things which are not well understood, is what publishers do. If they do it very well over time, they develop great reputations and stregthen their brands... More discussions like this - but not on Mediapost, but in the broader press and directed to the average lay-person in laymens terms - need to occur.
Kudos to all things digital.
I agree. This is a subject a really struggle with as a person who wants to see online publishers make money and online advertising flourish but at the same time I am a consumer and a person and I absolutely hate the fact that companies take advantage of people's lack of education and abuse their role. I really don't know which force pulls me stronger. Perhaps the industry just needs to figure out other ways to get at understanding the audience the old-fashion way. A combination of gut instincts, analytics and extrapolations. The openess of the web has born a new generation of people who are comfortable sharing themselves and don't mind if keeping the system alive and kicking means that you, the user, has to be better understood. So yes hooray for AllThingsDigital as I for one will still allow myself to be cookied and applaud their honesty. The company I work for is trying to learn about people at a macro level based on what people are publicly sharing in their user profiles and attempting to figure out what marketing opportunities existing because of what's known about people in general. Check out some stories blog.peerset.com
For those of you who may not know, Google issued a directive to all Adsense users to change their privacy policies by April 8th to reflect what Google calls its new 'Interest-Based Advertising';
"As a result of this announcement, your privacy policy will now need to reflect the use of interest-based advertising. Please review the information at ( ) to ensure that your site's privacy policies are up-to-date, and make any necessary changes by April 8, 2009. Because publisher sites and laws vary across countries, we're unfortunately unable to suggest specific privacy policy language."
While I applaud AllThingsD for popping up the Cookies warning notice and showing the way for the rest of politically correct websites, it does so with the intention of showing it only once (unless you use Windows Washer or a similar program after every web session).
From a purely Machiavellian view, the ability to un-anonymize web users is imperative to the holy grail of one-to-one targeting. This has been happening for eons on CRM and opt-in user platforms.
The whole notion of Privacy violation in an age of the massively-connecteds and mass scale opt-in personal exhibitionism is mayhaps, a case of Much Ado About Nothing?
There are many great tools out there that can make your web surfing privacy put the reclusive Howard Hughes habits to shame. The surfer has a choice to be Osama Bin Laden, and that's what's important.
Rather than going "Never mind the dog, beware of cookie, and don't say I didn't warn you", shouldn't the media industry put its brains into figuring out how to convince the Consumer Republic that cookies help 'you get the most of your web experience in your own terms'?
While lawyers relish violation of 'individual rights to privacy' as a means to line their wallets - the jury is still out on which camp is the greater evil.
Having your cake, and eating it - is what caused this economic conundrum to sink like the Titanic. It's time we call Never Never Land for what it is.