Rothenberg: 'Forces Out To Destroy Interactive Advertising'
- by Laurie Sullivan @lauriesullivan, February 24, 2010
There are efforts underway to regulate online behavioral advertising. Proposals making their way through Congress, the Federal Trade Commission and state capitals would define nearly all data exchanged through interactive channels as behavioral, and place all of these types of ads under strict regulations, according to IAB President and Chief Executive Officer Randall Rothenberg. "Up to 70% of interactive display advertising will be regulated," he told attendees at the IAB Annual Leadership Meeting 2010 in Carlsbad, Calif., earlier this week.
Under some proposals, all third-party ad serving would be served up only under explicit consumer opt-in preferences, while others would require all locally targeted online ads to have consumer consent. Rothenberg said the European Union wants to put tighter restrictions on interactive advertising by making all cookies in the EU opt-in by 2011.
"It's happening because well-organized anti-business and anti-advertising groups have gotten the ear of regulators and politicians and purposely inflamed fears about our industry," Rothenberg said. "They have targeted the very technologies that underline our value proposition: The ability to deliver relevant information and entertainment to consumers who want it."
Rothenberg said an anti-advertising advocate often quoted in multiple publications has asked Congress to investigate "the rapid evolution of rich media" and "measures, such as engagement."
Calling on the industry to support self-regulation and speak out on the benefits of online advertising, Rothenberg told IAB attendees not to take the ad-supported Internet for granted, and that people in the ad industry have been silent far too long. He pointed to the recent advertising campaign aimed at informing consumers about privacy and data, and the need to become more active in spreading the word.
About 29 IAB member companies have donated more than 600 million impressions to this campaign, and two dozen companies have contributed in $400,000.
David Moore, 24/7 Real Media founder and IAB board of directors chairman, told MediaPost when you target an ad it turns from nonsensical garbage to "helpful information." Consumers don't understand targeted ads, and that remains the biggest issue the ad industry faces. "It looks like the industry collects information covertly," he said, pointing to online targeted ads.
Targeted direct mail or supermarket loyalty cards do not have restrictions on targeting advertisements based on consumer behavior. Some sell customer lists to third-party companies even if the consumer has indicated they want to keep their information private.
Offline restrictions do not exist. A Do Not Call list has not done much to stop solicitors from calling consumers at home, Moore said. So, if online must adhere to regulations in the long run, he calls for similar restrictions for offline, too. "We're not talking about using a consumer's name and address, similar to the way they do offline," he said. "We're just talking about targeting ads based on behavioral patterns. We don't know if you're a male or a female. The data helps us make inferences based on the sites you visit, but we don't know for sure."
With the amount of data available today, targeting ads to consumers will only become more precise, Moore said.
As if the IAB needed any help wrecking the joint.
Cry me a river, guys. Behavioral targeting is just the latest in a long litany of stupid, lazy ideas from the same folks who decided 15 years ago that it was a good idea to exchange the ability to reach an audience for the ability to target an audience.
Per Mr. Moore's assertion, behavioral targeting can only convert nonsensical garbage that no one wants to see in the first place and everyone is equipped to avoid into helpful information that no one wants to see in the first place and everyone is equipped to avoid.
The only forces out to destroy interactive advertising are the self-professed interactive advertising professionals.
So I'm not defending IAB (even if HQ is here in NYC.) But...
Paula I have no idea what you're talking about.
The article doesn't do a good job of telling us what the "70% of regulated data" will be. Probably because the author isn't privileged to that information. IDK where your sources are...
If the FCC regulates it regulates. I'm not saying it's for better or for worse, but I'm not sure what "property rights" your talking about when it comes to online media.
Look, IAB and companies LIKE IAB have never PUBLICLY had problems with opt-in. That's fact. So to compare behavioral targeting too having someone "scrawl certain symbols and words across" other people's property is a bad analogy. (I don't really understand the banking analogy either.)
Rothenberg is accusing people of being anti-advertising because there's a double standard with digital to traditional. Digital can do more, so they are more intrusive? That's not the right mentality. I'd love to see pundits describe "intrusive interactive media." I have a funny feeling no one would be able to come up with something concrete that isn't either (A) opt in or (B) content related.
for the record... I'm a firm believer of separating PII from IP addresses. So my opinions aren't necessarily coming from an "agency" POV. I support privacy rights. I also support the right for end users to relinquish some sets of PII in favor of more relevant advertising, I.E., more quantifiable and better advertising. (Yes I know, bold statement at the end.)
Nelson,
You hit the nail on the head without even knowing it when you say: "I'd love to see pundits describe 'intrusive interactive media.' I have a funny feeling no one would be able to come up with something concrete that isn't either (A) opt in or (B) content related. "
The solution is to use content (as per your "B" above ) that folks willing self-select (as per your "A" above) and then bundling both visitor and content together on a third-party advertiser's site where the chosen content is willingly consumed within that advertiser's exclusive branded surroundings. In so doing, the clutter is eliminated, the consumer is empowered, and true reach (a brand's best friend) is achieved.
In any event, the IAB hasn't got a clue, as the lack of support here for its self-serving and seriously mis-guided agenda clearly speaks.
On the other hand, as one willing to put my money where my mouth is, I invite you - and/or anyone else so inclined - to call me at 219 878-1006 to talk media futures.
Ditto. "the Brothers Einstein."
I'd call you cause I love tech and would love a clearer vision about the future...
But unfortunately I'm a blue collar guy just reading interesting articles, (and opinions.) LOL I'm no expert at anything outside of Web Analytics or SEO.
I think all of us agree though that IAB definitely has an agenda. The debate is whether they are public or private about that agenda. I'd be much more forgiving if they were transparent about the intent of their stance.
Dave Moore, you hit the nail on the head twice. No matter what we or the above people think of the Internet ad Industry or the IAB why exactly does the Internet Ad business need such tight regulations for in aggregate behavioral ad targeting? While direct mail and other marketers have and use your name, address, direct mail, phone numbers and credit card records for targeting, thats ok. And the internet community is doing wrong by people with behavioral? Forgetting the hunks of data other medias use as noted above, can anyone respond what the big infraction is to consumers with the Internet using inferred, non personal internet ad targeted data?
As far as being internet ad creative being intrusive, I never really got the argument. Seinfeld and every other commercial TV show interrupts your content with watch 5 sets of 4 commercials for about 7 minutes total, but no one puts a shotgun thru their TV or is writing congress, but an Internet popup ad is evil. The point is that advertising must be intrusive to work and all these restrictions will do is kill content.
While behavioral works slightly better than non, the cpms garnered and performance and revs are lower than other forms of media adv, because the Internet is still the least intrusive or targeted. All this will do is limit the amount of free content and sites available to consumers from many publishers that now subsidize their online efforts. Do this and next people will be up in arms about paying for content at the toll booth in front of every meaningful site or the site won't be there at all.
Pick your poison carefully.
I cannot disagree more strongly with the statement, "...advertising must be intrusive to work...".
No, it doesn't. Not any more.
In the past, intrusive advertising "worked" because consumers had far fewer options when it came to media alternatives. The Internet has changed that, giving consumers more power. It's time marketers accept that fact and begin to plan accordingly. The old saying "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" comes to mind. Intrusive advertising has worked, and can work, but why fight with your customer and deliver your message in a negative context when there's a better way?
Simply replace the word "intrusive" with the word "engaging" and you're halfway there.
The cries of "Foul" when referring to the (relative) lack of oversight applied to telemarketers and direct mail marketers completely ignores the fact that they don't track (and keep a record of) every phone call I make and every letter I receive.
Consumers are leary of interactive advertising in general and behavioral targeting in particular because of that...and who can blame them? As if it wasn't bad enough already, when the existence of Adobe's Flash cookies becomes more widely known, that skepticism will only get worse, not better.
If the IAB wants to lead this industry and change consumers' perceptions of on-line advertising, it should create a policy document regarding the overall conduct of Behavioral Targeting among its members. Then, it should take the lead and begin compiling a nation-wide Opt-In List...before the FTC does. Consumers would be free to disclose as much or as little information about themselves as they wanted, while those that declined to opt-in would receive no targeted ads. Try being a little pro-active instead of re-active for a change.
Whatever happens, the key to all this goes back to recognizing that consumers have the power now. Work with them, communicate truthfully with them, entertain them, and above all respect them and watch consumers' privacy concerns disappear (for the most part) in the rearview mirror.
Just for fun, check out this graphic describing just what it is that the FTC is hoping to regulate... http://sites.google.com/a/mcstrat.com/www/practice
Some thoughts ... or fuel to the fire.
1. How do we define what is PII? It's really quite easy I believe. What is 'personal' to one person is not to another. So who is best to judge? The user. So, make ALL tracking double opt-in. It's better to "let the market decide", but the industry seems hell-bent on opt-at as a begrudging solution - until it blows up in their face.
2. Regarding BT a very wise (and successful) marketing friend of mine on a massive global brand once said to me ... niche brands use niche media, while mass brands use mass media - make up your mind which you want to be!
John - GREAT POINTS. To answer:
(1) In my mind, if I worked in BT (or at any marketing firm for that matter) I wouldn't care what my audience thinks is PII. Why you might ask??? Because for me, protecting my audience's information isn't about what I collect - it's about how I organize it. It sounds radical - but currently best practices = collect EVERYTHING but separate the data from the individual. So if I collect all of your search patterns in Google for the last 2 weeks - I separate the search data from the individual that made the search. It's not IDEAL - but neither is our judicial system right? It's the best we got so far. And it's not half bad in my opinion. (And I think it's important to point out that it's not the private sector that mandates the amount of data collected about individuals online - the government actually requires companies like Google to retain search data for 9 months before dumping.)
(2) I think search technology has given marketing & branding agencies the tools to BE niche. Where in retrospect, audiences have learned to tuned out messages that appeal to the masses over the last 2 decades. Mass appeal is fundamentally less engaging. Consumer culture reacts to relevancy and engagement because they are USED to a behavior grounded in search, E.G., I want to know about this - tell me aboutt his. Click.
Nelson, that was my point of aggregation, separating an individuals activity and placing likely individuals into buckets of the last 30 day latent opportunities to serve ~500 groups of relevant, contextually based display ads. In AGGREGATE, not here comes Dave
Woodall and Dave Woodall alone a la direct mail, vs a group you get relevant adv...
ie active car shoppers
insurance shoppers
gamers
car
music
bra and panty shoppers
I work with many legitimate publishers and ad networks that use cookies in this way. IMO that seems significantly far less intrusive then what goes on in direct mail, offline data by using my credit card data, my address and a soft pull of my credit score. Yes people are somehow focused on the Internet vs the real evil unoders of privacy.
Furthering the conversation, if the FTC wants to have full opt-in this could backfire. How? Publishers will follow the rules and more. You want to see my content, then I want a whole host of data on you that we will verify with a double optin for a slew offline and online cross promotional and advertising opportunities. Hey we got your permission when you opted in, then that is the only way you get to see my content. We're just trying to make a profit on our internet publishing expenses. Or you will have pay mightily for my content, so choose your poison wisely.
Dave Woodall you say, "The cries of "Foul" when referring to the (relative) lack of oversight applied to telemarketers and direct mail marketers completely ignores the fact that they don't track (and keep a record of) every phone call I make and every letter I receive." But utilizing your credit records, your address, your presupposed HHI from the zip you live in, how many times you've shopped in the store is all ok with you? That seems fall more intrusive to me because its your personal record as Dave Woodall, not an assimilated group. BD online does not know its "you"