Best Little Blog

Enhanced Notice: Recruiting Advertisers Now

On January 27, a collation of online trade groups, including the Future of Privacy Forum and the Interactive Advertising Bureau, released their proposed standards for enhanced notice, which refers to a universal phrase or symbol on ads shown to a consumer based on their demographic or behavioral data.

The proposed logo for enhanced notice is being referred to as the “little i.”:

 

 

Providing transparency and choice has been an area of intense focus over the past year by service providers in the online ad industry. A large part of this focus was gathering data surrounding how consumers interact with enhanced notice touch points, and how enhanced notice can impact the bottom line of both advertiser and service provider.

Last December Clickz published an article that outlined data provided by Google about its initiative around enhanced notice; which was done through Google’s Preference Center.

In this article, Nicole Wong, Google deputy general counsel states, “Of those who visit [Google’s preference center], four times as many people edit their targeting profile as opt out of targeting completely. A good percentage of users are saying they’d rather control [behavioral targeting] than opt out.”

I believe this tells us much about the real story behind privacy concerns. On one side, you’ll find those who constantly condemn service providers about alleged abuses inflicted to consumers privacy online, and on the other side you have data that shows that once consumers have clear notice and choice, they set their preferences to what they are comfortable with versus opting out.

Speculation is just that — speculation, and we shouldn’t be making decisions or regulation that can affect so many organizations and livelihoods without solid information and careful understanding.

That said, I do believe enhanced notice is the right thing to do. I also believe there are other factors driving it other than those who believe that consumers need to know what data is leveraged and how it is used.

This next generation will view privacy in a completely different way than we do. They’re the generation that is growing up posting every tidbit of their life for anyone else in the world to view, and at the same time this is also the generation that is learning how to control what information gets viewed by whom.

The fact that Google sees more people controlling their information preferences versus opting out of data collection shows that the majority of consumers get “it.” Data is going to be collected and used for marketing and consumer experience purposes.

It’s more about the dad who’s worried about what information is Google is collecting rather than the high school student on Facebook who knows how to set privacy settings, and does so accordingly.

I’m not saying that there isn’t room for abuse, there definitely is. This is why it’s important for those companies that do collect data for marketing purposes to open up the books and show us what’s going on. There are rewards when you give users control and visibility.

I implore the rest of the industry to follow suit in respect to enhanced notice and to do so quickly. More specifically, advertisers need to jump on the bandwagon and agree that this enhanced notice the best move in the long run. It’s the right thing to do.

Privacy policies are an antiquated and confusing way to approach privacy concerns. Consumers have no idea why they see the ads they see online, and by not being forthright with them can cause them to fear the worst and opt out.

Companies who are upfront about what data is collected and why will be rewarded. Since releasing enhanced notice ourselves last year, we at FetchBack not only did not see an increase in opt-out rates (just like Google), but also the enhanced notice functionality actually served as education for advertisers as to how targeting like ours works.

Later this year, the Federal Trade Commission could be handed a whole new set of powers and control over issues such as this. It’s important that the industry remain vigilant and keep up the pressure with our peers to adhere to these new standards.

As it’s your “Dad” who’s in control of the FTC, and his lack of industry knowledge, technology and the culture could definitely create problems for everyone. The best defense is a great offense; and in this case, the best offense is enhanced notice.

5 tips to prevent your pitches from stinking

We've all experienced it.

Your phone rings. You answer, and on the other end of the phone is an eager online marketing vendor. You can't get a word in edgewise while you are being told over and over again why you need to buy what they are selling -- and buy now, not later. That's when you recognize the familiar and overpowering smell that makes you feel annoyed and hassled...

It's the smell of "commission breath."

All too often, those responsible for selling the various services that benefit online marketers are so focused on getting their points across and closing a sale that they forget to listen. The prevailing thought is that the best way to prove a point and gain new business is by presenting. I can say through experience and observation, that this is not necessarily true.

For example, a colleague recently told me about a time he visited a prospective client. He arrived at the prospect's office, and was asked if he brought a projector or computer for the meeting. My colleague explained that there would not be a presentation; rather, he was there to have a discussion about their online marketing needs. Surprised, the potential client sighed, "Thank God!" in relief. The conversion that followed covered all relevant points from my colleague's standpoint, and at the same time he was able to listen to his prospect and find a solution for his stress points. 

Come on, who really looks forward to any vendor coming to their offices and spending 30 minutes droning on about the latest scalable, high-quality, dynamic ad generator whiz-bang thing? Talking at you, while selling, selling, selling? It's obvious when all someone cares about is closing the sale and collecting a check, versus wanting to be a valued partner in your business.

Commission breath is more than the smell you detect on the 29th of the month when your vendor calls offering additional widgets and whatnots if you sign up today; it also speaks to how a person handles the entire selling relationship. At the end of the day, it's about listening, not selling.

The good news is that commission breath is completely curable. Here are some breath mints to help:

1. Diagnose the problem and pain. Spend time understanding the true pains your client is experiencing. What do they currently need? What do they like about their current vendors and what do they dislike? What is their current conversion rate? What are their targets for the year? Simply put, ask questions! The more interested you are in helping alleviate their pain, the less pushy you seem.
   
2. Answer questions they ask. How frustrating is it when you ask a vendor a very specific question that requires a specific answer, and in return you get a boilerplate response that was memorized from some training manual? There's no faster way to reek of commission breath than to avoid questions that are asked, and keep pushing your own agenda.
   
3. Know who you are talking to. Do you have a clue who you are speaking with? How much do you know about your prospect and what they do? I recently received a sales call where the person calling didn't take even two minutes to attempt to understand the retargeting product FetchBack offers. Because the caller didn't know who I was or what retargeting was, he also couldn't explain how their product could help me and help FetchBack. If you don't know who you are talking to (or who you should be talking to), you shouldn't be pitching at all.
   
4. Show the culture of your company. Insider tip: Your prospect isn't just evaluating your product. They are evaluating your company and what it will be like to work with you in the future. The culture of your company is apparent in every conversation you have with a client or potential client. Are you interested in helping them be successful, or are you just interested in the next order? Are you being real?
   
5. Be friendly. Yes, I said friendly. It's a simple word and statement, but it means so much. Friendly isn't just asking how a person's day is, or telling them that their kids are cute. Are you enthusiastic? Are you empathetic when there's a problem? Do you have a sense of humor? All of these help build a relationship, and move you farther away from being only interested in closing the sale.

The next time you are meeting with a client, ask yourself if you may start to smell of commission breath. If the answer is yes, take a breath mint and try again.

Self-Regulation No Longer An Option

It's no secret that the behavioral marketing industry has been working to implement self-regulation policies for the past year. The initial purpose of this was to avoid impending legislation that the government is exploring due to concerns brought forth from advocacy groups about consumer privacy and data protection online. The thought was if we could self regulate, the government would be appeased and the threat of litigation would go away. Well, that really isn't the case. In my opinion it's not 'if' legislation will come -- it's 'when' it will come and 'what' will that legislation be.

Now, I'm not predicting that legislation can come any day now -- this is a complex issue. Complex when you take into account the number of forms of behavioral targeting available, the fact that this is a worldwide issue, and that this legislation needs to take into account how to speak to new and emerging technologies in the mobile and RFID sectors.

While I don't believe we aren't going to prevent legislation, I do believe that can still do something about it.

My hope is that our industry would be open and able to quickly change our position. Will we continue to fight or immediately jump in to help craft it? Remember the telemarketing industry, if you will. They were given some of the same warnings we have received, and they chose to fight legislation until the biter, biter end. I think that if they would have accepted that legislation was inevitable and worked with legislators that things could have turned out very differently for them. I believe the same can be true for our industry.

We live in a new environment, in a world that is leaning more and more towards regulation and legislation. There is no way that those who are pushing for get strict measures in place are going to just go away. In fact, their voices are going to get louder as new and more aggressive forms of marketing come in to play.

Do I think legislation in our industry is going to really solve anything? No, unfortunately I don't. The issue is growing too complex to be dealt with via regulation. I still think it will be up to those in the industry to fight the bad characters that will enter our space, much like we are working to do now with self-regulation. It's the complexity and the confusion that legislation can cause is what is the most concerning. Will the powers-that-be truly understand what is going on inside our industry? Will the future legislation bring innovation to a halt? Hopefully not if we give our cooperation and input into the process. That decision is completely up to us -- and I suggest it's time.

What a behavioral opt-in world looks like

Saul Hansell from The New York Times sat down with Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) to discuss his priorities as the chairman of the house subcommittee on communications, technology, and the internet. When asked about privacy concerns with Google's behavioral ad targeting capabilities, Boucher stated, "That would clearly need an opt-in."

He isn't referring to deep-packet inspection; this is for common behavioral targeting that generally uses non personally identifiable information. As an industry we need to step up our education game to legislators. If you disagree or find yourself on the fence, allow me to present what the future of advertising (online and offline) might looking like should opt-in become the rule for behavioral targeting.

Online behavioral marketing disappears
Opt-in for behavioral advertising is not a viable model -- it's an issue of scale. The math behind, the market potential for, and the methods to create a reasonable opt-in scenario don't exist. I don't believe anyone has a firm grasp on how much of the market is behaviorally driven. There are a few studies that attempt to quantify the revenue driven by behavioral advertising, but no one knows how deep this form of marketing penetrates ad networks, publishers, and search. If you also factor in simple targeting features that rely on cookie data to increase campaign performance, I wouldn't be surprised if 20-30 percent of the $25 billion market would be eliminated off the top.

Prices drop
Behavioral targeting produces targeted ads, which perform better than non-targeted ads. With greater performance, comes greater value. Without targeting, advertisers will pay less money for less effective ads, and publishers can expect CPM erosion.

Punch the monkey!
As CPM drops on display inventory, the amount of untargeted ads we see will substantially increase. Dancing aliens and that damn monkey will reign supreme -- cheap, untargeted ads everywhere. 

Aggressive interruption advertising
The ecosystem will do what it can to increase ad performance. As innovation stalls, expect run-of-network ads to return, and to be even more aggressive than ever. Ads will have to be more interruptive, so screen flyovers, page takeovers, interstitials, and other "must view" ads will become the norm.

Publishers will seek new answers
Some will invest in ad sales teams to increase revenues, as network ad volume will continue to decrease. This will further fragment the ad buy for advertisers, now buying directly from a few publishers here and some networks there to get the reach they want. Some publishers will decide it's not worth the effort and discontinue producing original content.

Search monopoly increases
Search will be the only game in town that is targeted enough for all size advertisers, while display will work only for the few advertisers at the top. Advertisers interested in building awareness will buy ads on name brand sites, and CPM's will increase on those sites. Everyone in the middle to low end of the market that can't afford name-brand sites will turn to search, and prices will increase. You think Google is a monster now? Just wait.

Offline pressures
There's no other form of marketing (at least that I'm aware of) that's Opt-In only. Email marketing isn't. Information bought and sold by credit card companies that then send you an offer isn't. If they can regulate similar forms of marketing online, regulation may be coming to the offline market as well.

What does this mean for consumers?

• Ads will still appear; however now less relevant and more aggressive.
• Valuable services will disappear, and the quality of free-content will decrease.
• Paid content/services will increase.
• Dancing aliens will rejoice and monkeys will once again fear the floating bull's-eye.

Based on Boucher's statements about the need for opt-in permission, our industry has to change our perspective -- and fast. It's not about if there will be legislation. It's about what will the legislation be. Remember the telemarketing industry? It was given similar warnings, and it chose to fight legislation. Maybe if it would have worked with legislators, the result could have been different. I believe the same for us.

Is legislation is going to solve anything? I don't believe so. But I do believe it's coming, and now is the time for us to educate, educate, educate. Opt-in isn't the solution for behavioral marketing. Let's help decide what is.

Should Advertisers Play A Role In The Privacy Debate?

Now that behavioral targeting has become more pervasive (and more effective), it is being talked about not only by publishers and advertisers, but also by privacy advocates -- organizations like the NAI and IAB and, in Washington, the FTC.

At issue is if BT players are doing enough to disclosure to consumers how BT works and offering them the opportunity to opt out of being tracked by BT vendors and publishers. There has been much discussion about how to regulate behavioral marketers; but no solution that satisfies everyone.

The BT industry so far has contended that website privacy policies are sufficient disclosure since many of them contain links to opts out opportunities like the NAI site. Google and Bluekai have announced 'preference pages' or registries that allow Web users to say what type of BT they are interested in receiving. But, the other, more common option is to put that information in the Privacy Policy of the site. But the problem with that is that no matter where disclosures are placed on the service provider's site, most people won't ever see them. How will a customer visiting Retail SiteX know that Company Y is going to use their browsing behavior to later display relevant ads to them as they surf the Web on Network Z? The average customer won't. The only way a customer will know what forms of BT advertisers are using is if the advertisers themselves tell them.

I think that it's time for advertisers to step up in this privacy debate. Thus far the pressure for disclosure has been placed on networks, behavioral marketing providers and publishers. The key players in those industries have done a good job of becoming more transparent (though there is still work ahead of us), while advertisers haven't been asked to do anything. Advertisers are clearly benefiting from behavioral marketing, and its time they disclosed what type of behavioral marketing they participate in, and allow customers to opt-out. How they do this is open for discussion: Tag each ad with an opt-out of future ads from the same company? Put a notice on manufacturer's page with the headline "Did You Know We Are Tracking You?" that links to a kinder, gentler explanation?

How should an advertiser disclose that information?

We at FetchBack have asked advertisers we work with to include information in their privacy policy that says they utilize retargeting services, and provide a link to NAI to opt-out of FetchBack's retargeting network. We feel it's an important step for any organization involved in behavioral marketing to take; at least if the industry is serious about being more transparent and self-regulating.