Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next

Menu

Category results for "Policy"

Policy

Policy

DCN perspective on ePrivacy regulation

Dear Member(s) of European Parliament,

As you consider updates to the ePrivacy Directive, we are writing to offer the perspective of premium publishers of digital media content. Digital Content Next (DCN) was founded in 2001 and remains the only U.S.-based trade association that exclusively represents premium digital content creators. Several of our members are based in Europe and many more have a substantial presence in Europe.  DCN members include many of the Internet’s most trusted and respected media brands, collectively reaching an unduplicated audience of 230.6 million unique visitors – or 100% of the U.S. online population monthly. Importantly, DCN members maintain direct, trusted relationships with consumers and advertisers.

We agree with the need to update and modernize the ePrivacy Directive to account for new technologies that are employed to track consumers in the digital world and hope to see a text which will more closely harmonize the Directive with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).  As you consider changes to the text of the Draft Regulation, we encourage you to focus on consumer expectations.

Context is Key

Consumers have nearly unlimited choices over where they can find news and entertainment online.  If a consumer does not trust the site or the content, they can and do choose to go elsewhere. This creates a dynamic in which consumer-facing websites and apps must continue to earn the trust of their audiences or risk losing them. A key to maintaining that trust is to collect and use a consumer’s data in ways that meet with the consumer’s expectations.  For example, when consumers visit a premium publisher’s site or app, they expect their data will be collected and used in ways to benefit their experience for purposes such as analytics, fraud protection, personalization, subscriptions and content recommendation.  Consumers also are not likely to be concerned when their data will be used for benign purposes such as audience measurement or other uses where data is aggregated. At the same time, publishers need to be able to monetize their content through advertising in order to minimize costs for consumers. Certainly, there are also societal benefits from properly funded news organizations.

However, most consumers do not approve of their data being collected in one context and then used in a different context.  For instance, absent any transparency, a consumer would not expect or even know that a data broker or a broadband service provider might be tracking their activity across the internet for the purpose of building a profile about them, which could then be used to deliver targeted advertising.  A consumer might see the value in allowing a social media company or a search engine to track their activity while using their website or app, but that consumer would not approve of those companies continuing to track them long after the consumer had left their domain and visited a different website.

Our position is that the ePrivacy Regulation should require transparency and consumer consent in cases where consumer data will be collected and used across multiple contexts.Consumers understand and can see the benefits of the collection and use of their data within a single context. Conversely, collection and use of consumer data across different contexts is far less transparent and  is  much  less  likely  to  result in  direct benefits  for  consumers.  While differentiating between data collection and use within a single context versus data collection and use across multiple contexts would map with an average consumer’s expectation, it would have the additional benefit of avoiding over-notification of consumers.  As the Draft Regulation notes in (22) of the preamble, “end-users are overloaded with requests to provide consent.” When consumers are flooded with notifications in digital media,they tend to become fatigued. They can also become annoyed when notifications cause friction in their digital experience – especially when they are simply attempting to access content from a trusted source.  By focusing consent requirements on non-transparent data collection and use, the ePrivacy Regulation would minimize friction where consumers have trusted relationships while also creating a choice mechanism where a relationship does not exist.

The Role of Browsers

Finally, the current version of the ePrivacy Regulation suggests a central role for browsers in obtaining and storing consumer consent.  While there may be merits to providing clear choices to consumers at the browser level, we are concerned that by making the browsers the sole point of obtaining consent for tracking, there could be an unintended consequence of increasing the leverage of large companies with browsers or platforms in the digital ecosystem, such as Google and Facebook, particularly if their primary business is selling advertising across the web thereby competing with publishers. At the same time, it would not make sense to require publishers to ask consumers for consent to track all of their activity across the internet. Indeed, publishers would likely ask consumers for consent to be tracked by the publisher and their chosen third party partners solely while on the site.  As you consider the role that browsers can and should play, it is important that options are preserved and encouraged for narrow consent required for delivery of the context in which value is being delivered to the consumer.

We appreciate your efforts to protect the rights of European citizens. Please let us know if we can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Jason Kint Signature

Jason Kint
CEO
Digital Content Next

Perspectives | Policy

Why press freedom matters now more than ever

| Leave a comment

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

—First Amendment to the Constitution (1791)

According to Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press report for 2016, press freedom worldwide has declined to its lowest point in 15 years. According to the report, only 13% of the world’s population enjoys a free press. From the heinous attack on Charlie Hebdo to state-sponsored censorship in China to violence committed against journalists covering organized crime in Mexico, it’s clear that journalists are increasingly hindered around the globe. Lest we become complacent, it is important to note that the U.S. only ranks at number 41.

Against that backdrop, it’s especially concerning when Donald Trump says that “70 to 75% of it (media) is absolutely dishonest, absolute scum.” And, he hasn’t stopped there. He mocked a disabled reporter. And, when a reporter asked him a tough question about the alleged funds he raised for veterans’ groups, Trump’s response was to call him “a sleaze.” It would be one thing if this was just bluster. But, Trump has advocated for the re-opening of libel laws so “we can sue (news organizations) and win lots of money.”

To understand what Trump wants to do, you only have to look across the Atlantic at the British libel laws. In order to bring a libel suit in the U.S., a person must prove that the published work was false. However, in the U.K., the onus is on journalists and reporters to prove their claims are true in court, which costs substantial time and money. This creates a chilling effect on reporting and free speech especially with regard to rich and powerful people or organizations.

In 2014, Cambridge University Press said it wouldn’t release a book critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the U.K. because it feared being sued. John Haslam, Executive Publisher at Cambridge University Press noted in a letter to the author that “the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.” More recently, HBO declined to release Going Clear—a documentary about the Church of Scientology—in Britain because of the high costs associated with defending against a libel suit. There are also cases of whistleblowers like Peter Wilmshurst being taken to court by a pharmaceutical company. Wilmshurst, a cardiologist, took issue with the science supporting a specific cardiac drug.  When he proposed to publish data from his experiments, he was sued for libel in an attempt to repress his findings. He successfully defended against the suit, but only after years in court and much cost to him.

Trump hasn’t offered any specifics about his plan to amend libel laws here in the U.S., but his stated goal of being able to “sue and win lots of money” suggests that he would go at least as far as Britain’s laws. And, to be fair, Trump isn’t the only one working to undermine press freedoms. The rich and powerful often want less criticism of their actions. For these reasons, the Founding Fathers made the First Amendment clear: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This fundamental and important boundary for government is essential to the free flow of ideas and leads to an informed public.

In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter that “Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him (man) all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions.”

Nelson Mandela echoed these sentiments in 1994: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. The press must be free from state interference. It must have the economic strength to stand up to the blandishments of government officials. It must have sufficient independence from vested interests to be bold and inquiring without fear or favour. It must enjoy the protection of the constitution, so that it can protect our rights as citizens.”

America should strive to serve as an example of freedom and democracy. We should resist efforts to rein in the press by politicians who are either thin-skinned or trying to hide something. We should support the work of media organizations to shine a light on uncomfortable truths. We should applaud journalists who hold people in power accountable—not make it easier for wealthy individuals, government institutions, corporations and elected officials to silence their critics. Without a strong and independent press, we are less likely to hear opposite points of view—already a problem in American politics. We are more susceptible to demagogues, who feed on false information and half-truths. Without a free and vibrant press, the quality of our public debate will diminish, our political leaders will run unchecked and our democracy will suffer.

Perspectives | Policy

Consumer advocate Julie Brill leaving FTC

| Leave a comment

Julie Brill has been an unwavering advocate for the consumer during her time as FTC Commissioner. DCN had the privilege of hosting her at our event last December “The Consumer Rules: Lessons From Ad Blocking” where I interviewed her on everything from the definition of consumer harm to the notion that privacy today is more about controlling who you communicate with — and how — than seclusion.

Hindsight is 20/20 but many of her concerns over the years related to privacy and consumer trust in the digital ecosystem have come true with the advent of major issues like ad blocking.  I look forward to seeing where her expertise and focus on consumers and privacy takes her as she re-enters the private sector.

 

Policy

Perspective of premium publishers: privacy rules for broadband providers

| Leave a comment

On Friday, February 26, Jason Kint, CEO of DCN, wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler to lay out the perspective of premium publishers with regard to their upcoming privacy rules for broadband providers.  The letter urges the FCC to require broadband providers to provide consumers with transparency and meaningful choice with regard to the collection and use of personal information especially when this data will be used for purposes that fall outside of a consumer’s expectation and outside of the context of the interaction where the data was collected.

For example, a reasonable consumer would expect a mobile broadband provider to collect data about how a consumer uses their mobile device so the company could make improvements to the broadband service or ensure efficient management of the network.  However, consumers would not expect (or even know) if a mobile broadband provider was using this same set of data to tailor advertising to consumers on websites or apps.

As several news outlets reported, at least one mobile broadband provider was inserting a unique identification header every time a consumer’s mobile browser fetched content from a website.  This header was used by advertising partners of the mobile broadband provider to identify individual consumers, track their online behavior and target advertising based on that behavior.  However, neither the mobile broadband providers nor their partners meaningfully disclosed to consumers’ information about this activity or the ability to opt out.  In addition, it was later discovered that the header was being used without the knowledge of the broadband provider by some of their advertising partners to respawn cookies that a consumer had deleted – effectively reversing a consumer’s choice for privacy.

Consumers have different expectations with regard to 1st party, direct relationships versus other types of transactions which are indirect and out of context.  The FCC’s privacy rules should account for the differences in these relationships.  As our letter points out, greater transparency and choice will help rebuild consumer trust and help the digital economy reach its full potential.
Perspectives | Policy

Can you hear me now? 

| Leave a comment

The Internet has ushered in the most profound shift in the history of media. The public is in charge. As the seminal book of the 90s, Cluetrain Manifesto, noted in its preamble,

“We are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers. We are human beings — and our reach exceeds your grasp. Deal with it.”

Yet, at the same time, the Internet boom has also brought endless ways middlemen can take advantage of short-term opportunities without serving these human beings. These self-serving intermediaries do not survive long-term, but they can do plenty of damage regardless of their lifespan. Whether you’re an e-commerce company as respected as Amazon, a publisher as trusted as the New York Times, a brand advertiser as loved as Coca-Cola or a platform as large as Facebook, if you fail to think about your customers and what they most want, you will be replaced. Understanding that we’ve migrated to an on-demand, consumer-driven world is key to building, long-term sustainable businesses.

So how did we get here? It starts and ends with the simple but powerful idea of what the Internet really is. It’s not the web, it’s not your iPhone, it’s not Comcast or AT&T and it’s not Facebook. The Internet is and will always be “packets” traveling between two points without discrimination. The Open Internet that was gifted to all of us by the geniuses that created it and put the consumer in charge for the first time.

At DCN, our members understand that their brands and businesses are built on the delivery of experiences, be it information or entertainment, to advertisers and consumers. Delivering that value builds trust. And, by definition, a premium publisher balances that trust with consumers and advertisers each and every day. To illustrate this ongoing commitment, take a look at our recently released research, DCN Bot Benchmark Report.

Against this backdrop, I recently responded to a request by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to offer comments on the future of cross-device tracking. It’s an incredibly important discussion and I’m thrilled to see the FTC continue to play the role of fostering open and candid discussion without threat of regulation. We’re building the future and these discussions have significant consequences. That being said, this discussion isn’t new. Yes, the method and scope of the discussion has changed. But it’s fairly simple to find the solutions when you wear your “consumer hat” and put their needs, expectations and concerns first.

Thus, it won’t come as a surprise that DCN’s comments to the FTC are focused on consumer expectations. At a bare minimum, any consumer should have transparency into how they’re being tracked across devices and be provided with simple, effective ways to control this tracking. At this point in time, I have deep concerns about incumbent interests once again getting this wrong. The industry currently suffers from an advertising supply chain that acts as a trust vacuum to the point that consumers are now opting entirely out of advertising altogether in what must be considered nothing short of a boycott.

Consider some ways in which cross-device tracking can be used:

Verizon Wireless, the ISP that connects more Americans to the Internet than any other company, has in the previous year been caught and pulled back from publicly broadcasting unique IDs of their customers for advertisers and everyone else to see. They’ve since acquired AOL, all of its inventory along with MSN’s inventory, and announced plans to monetize behavioral data from tracking consumer consumption across their pipes and airwaves. Would a consumer expect this? No. Can consumers control it? Not easily. Value to consumers: Zero. 

Facebook, the largest social platform having achieved one billion active users in a day, has announced plans to begin using the ubiquitous “Like” button to track consumers, before they even click on the button. They’ll do this on other sites, apps and devices if consumers are logged into Facebook anywhere on their device. Would a consumer expect this? No. Can consumers control it? Not easily. Value to consumers: Zero. 

Amazon, the largest e-commerce company in the world, allows consumers to log into multiple devices thereby pulling up their order history and making recommendations on other products they may want to buy. Would a consumer expect this? Yes. Can consumers control it? Yes, they can choose not to use Amazon. Value to consumers: Significant.

ESPN, the largest sports media company in the world, allows consumers to log into multiple devices thereby recognizing their favorite teams and personalizing their sports experiences. Would a consumer expect this? Yes. Can consumers control it? Yes, they can choose not to visit ESPN products. Value to consumers: Significant.

Our industry has spent billions of dollars in advertising technologies over the past few years. These investments have benefited advertisers, publishers and—most often—intermediaries. What clearly demonstrates that this money is not being spent wisely is that the consumer has been left out. Now those same consumers through the rise in adblocking are saying, “Can you hear me now? Deal with it.”

Perspectives | Policy

Straight talk on consumer privacy from FTC commissioner Brill

| 2 Comments

Julie Brill, the outspoken FTC Commissioner, recently gave a stirring summary of how unaddressed consumer concerns have led to the rise of ad blocking software.

From cookies to device fingerprinting and cross-device linking, consumers continue to struggle to understand when they are being tracked, who is tracking them and how to opt out. The problem worsens for consumers when you consider that tracking technologies are becoming nearly invisible and ever more comprehensive. To underscore the concern, the FTC is hosting a workshop on November 16 to examine the practice of “cross device tracking.”

Piling on top of this transparency and education problem, controls for consumers haven’t kept up with the technology developments. And frankly: Ignoring clear signals sent directly from consumers is a perilous path. As Commissioner Brill opined, it’s surprising “the ad tech industry hasn’t been more motivated to offer consumers better tools to protect their privacy, because it has always been the case that consumers could take matters into their own hands.”

Indeed, fighting against better consumer controls has been a major contributor to the rise in ad blocking. Early on, the “cookie” became the boogieman of internet privacy so consumers began to delete them altogether. According to a Pew Research Center 2015 survey, 59% of consumers clear their cookies or browser history – the top method used by consumers to protect their privacy.

A few years ago, Do Not Track (DNT) emerged as a hopeful solution, providing a persistent way to signal consumer choice. But, despite a promise at the White House in 2012, ad tech industry representatives have been fighting a DNT standard for years even though it’s already built into every major browser and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recently finished a reasonable standard for how the signal should be sent and how servers should respond.  The W3C standard clearly reinforces the distinction between 1st and 3rd parties and importantly makes it clear that companies who straddle the line (e.g. Google, Facebook) require consent before tracking users out of context.  So it should come as no surprise that, as Doc Searls notes here, the “hockey stick” rise in ad blocking starts around the same time it became clear that industry wasn’t going to honor DNT signals.

Do you see a pattern here? I do. It’s time for us to get off this merry-go-round of ignoring and then fighting consumers. As Commissioner Brill suggests – let’s “provide consumers with something they clearly want: to see advertising that respects their privacy and that they can trust.”

Perspectives | Policy

Dear ad blocking community, we need to talk.

| 5 Comments

Here at DCN, we’ve been actively engaged on the issue of ad blocking software since last year. Unlike many in the industry, we’ve focused on the consumer and what we consider long-term solutions. We don’t think the digital ecosystem can reach its full potential without consumer trust—as we’ve written about here, here, here, here, here and here. Trust is the foundation upon which consumer demand is sustainably built and we’re hard-pressed to envision a digital business that doesn’t need to be built around consumer demand.

Here at DCN, we haven’t focused on how to wage a protracted tech arms race or destroy ad blocking companies. We recognize the value in having the open development community address inherent consumer concerns. In this case, consumers don’t want ads that are annoying, intrusive or drain their device’s battery – and who can blame them? We’re talking about their data plans, their phones, their computers and, of course, their valuable time. Without a doubt, we need to give them great experiences in exchange for their investment. And that applies to advertising too, as Univision’s Kevin Conroy pointed out: better advertising experiences may be exactly what’s called for to stem the tide of ad-blocking adoption.

This is an industry-wide issue and we all need to step up to address it just as we enthusiastically embraced the progression of digital media and marketing. Unfortunately, the race to invest billions of dollars in ad technologies has focused on following consumers all around the web. Instead, perhaps the industry should focus on developing features and tools in ad tech that assist advertisers and publishers in creating consumer-friendly ad experiences (e.g. warnings for excessive animation, latency/heavy load, too many ad calls and hops). To date, consumer privacy and user experience haven’t been given proper consideration. Now consumers are speaking up with software.

It can’t be denied that blocking all advertising could lead to a world where publishers can’t monetize premium content or experiences. This isn’t just an issue of profitability (though certainly that’s why the vast majority of content companies are in the business), it is also a question of supporting the creation of the content people love—and need. Some content companies are trying an approach that appeals to consumers on that basis—often it’s a reminder message on site entry about ads funding the content they are about to—something those combatting content piracy have tried in the past. And while educating consumers is a valuable piece of the puzzle, it fails to address the systemic issues that got us here in the first place. Long term, the industry must clean up the user experience and provide more transparency and controls for consumers.

As ever, our focus at DCN is on solving issues for our valued consumers and working with the trusted brands that comprise our membership, to seek solutions to this significant challenge. We don’t yet know precisely where the line should be drawn, but we’re talking with anyone and everyone about how to continue to create premium content and delightful user experiences in this new world of ad blocking.

One thing that we are sure of: When third parties cut out our messaging to our customers, that’s crossing the line. When a consumer decides to block advertising and visits sites, we need a way to communicate with them so that we can ask for feedback to solve whatever their issue is that ad blocking addresses. If it is an issue of load time, we need to know. If it is offensive or intrusive ad content or ad experiences, we need to know. If it is due to privacy concerns, we need to know. If they’d prefer an ad-free experience, we need the ability to offer them options, such as subscriptions. It’s beneficial to content companies as well as the consumers. Ad blocking tools cut off the ability for content companies and consumers to engage in a healthy, open dialog and search for solutions – principles that the Internet was built upon.

We are the brands consumers trust. We are the content creators, the publishers, the sites they choose to visit. If a consumer is uncomfortable or unhappy with the experience we provide, they can (as ever) go elsewhere. As the first party that not only creates the content experiences these consumers seek out and spend their valuable time with but, in many cases, have developed long-term relationships with—we certainly have the right to educate and engage in a constructive discussion with these customers.

So let’s be clear: blocking messaging from a site to its customers is wrong. Instead of blocking messages that inform consumers about their options for consuming content on the site, let’s work together on long term solutions that will provide our shared consumers with a better experience, thereby building an even stronger digital ecosystem. Give us a ring to discuss– we promise not to block your call.

Data Security Header
Policy

FCC Wading Into Privacy Matters

| Leave a comment

In response to growing consumer concerns, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is beginning to dig deeper into consumer privacy issues.  And, as with their first foray into these matters, it appears the FCC will take a measured and thoughtful approach.

In its Open Internet ruling (aka “Net Neutrality”), the FCC decided not to waive the Title II privacy rules.  Instead, the FCC announced it would hold a separate proceeding to figure out how the old rules in Title II should be adapted for a broadband world.  As the FCC rightly noted, “broadband providers serve as a necessary conduit for information passing between an Internet user and Internet sites or other Internet users, and are in a position to obtain vast amounts of personal and proprietary information about their customers.”

The FCC subsequently held a workshop  with industry and consumer representatives to learn more about how consumer data is collected, used and retained by broadband providers.  Some workshop participants tried to argue  that ISPs don’t have access to any special set of consumer data and that apps and websites would have the same data, but common sense would tell us differently.  ISPs have a different relationship with consumers than just about any other actor in the digital ecosystem.  Consumers constantly choose which websites to visit and which apps to download, but they cannot avoid or shield their activity from an ISP therefore there are different consumer expectations in regards to their data.  In fact, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been very vocal about the different expectations that consumers have with respect to 1st vs 3rd parties.

Now, as part of this privacy discussion, Consumer Watchdog is asking that the FCC require adherence to a Do Not Track (DNT) standard to protect consumers.  While there are real concerns about how a DNT standard would be administered and whether the FCC has regulatory authority to enforce it, the request isn’t unreasonable.  Even though very few companies honor it today, an increasing number of consumers are activating their browser’s DNT signal in an attempt to block being tracked by various parties across the web.  The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) just this week completed a technical and policy standard for how companies should respond to the DNT signal.  Interestingly, the standard is not that different from the industry’s self-regulatory opt-out program and could provide a roadmap for the FCC and companies.

It is heartening to see the FCC take a measured and thoughtful approach to learn more about how privacy rules should be implemented for broadband.  There is a real opportunity for the FCC to build upon and even strengthen the fine work of the FTC. This important effort will ultimately enhance consumer trust and grow the opportunities for the brands they love.

Trust Type Image
Perspectives | Policy

Bulk Surveillance Needs to Be Checked and Balanced

| Leave a comment

Ever since the National Security Agency’s (NSA) aggressive surveillance activities were disclosed, there has been a raging debate about the legality of the programs and whether limits should be placed on the government’s ability to collect data about citizens.

NSA advocates point to the efficacy of these surveillance programs, but it is important to note that these programs come at a cost – a cost to our international standing, a cost to the basic freedom of citizens. From my perspective, I also see a cost to consumer trust.

The NSA collects all kinds of bulk data about how people use the internet and interact with other people and organizations. This broad and pervasive data collection undermines consumer trust in the Internet as people assume that the government is watching everywhere they go on the Internet. Another way that the NSA activities undermine consumer trust is through Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which empowers the NSA to force private companies to divulge records about their consumers. Data that consumers choose to share with a company they know is part of the value proposition that consumers knowingly engage in. But, when the NSA forces a company to disclose this closely-held data, the value proposition, the company’s reputation and the consumer’s trust are all undermined.

In January 2014, the President’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) questioned whether the NSA has sufficient legal authority to operate the telephone records program under Section 215 and that the program “potentially implicates both the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” As for the efficacy of the program, they noted that, “We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the U.S. in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation.”

With Section 215 of the Patriot Act set to expire on June 1, it is vital that Congress carefully re-balance the NSA surveillance programs to account for all the costs to our society. The U.S. system of government has long been constructed around an effective structure of checks and balances, which has preserved our freedom, liberty and safety.

Perspectives | Policy

Between Consumers, Innovators and Open Internet, FCC Chooses All of the Above

| 1 Comment

Last week, the FCC released the details of its Net Neutrality order. Looking past the sound bites from both sides of this debate, the FCC appears to have a struck a delicate balance that will ensure consumers can continue to enjoy access to the digital content and experiences they love and, at the same time, preserve the ability of current and future content creators to innovate.

The crux of the order is the ban on blocking, throttling or prioritizing content. Rightfully, the FCC is seeking to preserve consumers’ unfettered access to content or experiences on the Internet. Just as importantly, however, the order also protects the ability of content creators to reach their audience without having to seek the blessing of the ISPs.

In the absence of this order, future content creators might have to pay ISPs just to receive fair treatment of their content or, worse, find themselves shut out in favor of content created by affiliates of the ISP. To be clear, large and established corporations would probably do very well in a world where broadband providers served as gatekeepers of the Internet – the small and game-changing innovators, well, not so much. The FCC should be applauded for going to great lengths to ensure that the consumer experience and content creators are protected.

Another key component of the order is the requirement that a broadband provider provide transparency about “the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services.” This kind of transparency is vital to helping consumers fully understand the internet services they have purchased and whether they are getting full value. This information is also critical to content creators who need to know that new applications, content and services will operate as expected.

The FCC also declined to waive (or “forebear”) the consumer privacy requirements under Title II although they won’t apply them immediately. Instead, the commission intends to hold a workshop to explore how the Title II privacy provisions should be implemented to protect consumer privacy. As the FCC rightly notes, “broadband providers serve as a necessary conduit for information passing between an Internet user and Internet sites or other Internet users, and are in a position to obtain vast amounts of personal and proprietary information about their customers.” As we’ve written about before, and the FCC agrees, consumer trust is critical to harnessing the full potential of broadband internet services.

We argued in our comments to the FCC last summer that the FCC should focus their work on the consumer experience. With this order, the FCC has taken important steps to encourage investment and innovation in content creation for consumers, and ensure that the Internet is an open platform that supports consumer choice and the open exchange of ideas and information.

Perspectives | Policy

The President’s Proposed Consumer Bill of Rights Moves the Conversation in the Right Direction

| 1 Comment

Last week, the President publicly unveiled a proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. While the bill language needs some work, the President and his team should be applauded for introducing some good concepts that would improve consumer privacy.

For one, it makes a lot of sense that consumers should understand how their data is collected and used. Reputable companies are transparent with consumers about the ways in which their data may be used and there are multiple ways in which they can (and do) provide consumers with a means to opt-out of various data uses. But there are many companies that aren’t so forthright. Educating consumers is a good first step because the industry won’t fully gain the trust of consumers without first educating them. And without consumer trust, the digital ecosystem can’t flourish.

Another good concept in the Privacy Bill of Rights is the idea of “context,” which again maps back to consumers’ expectations. The bill notes that data collected in one context and then used in another context should be subject to some level of control by the consumer. Depending on the sensitivity of the data and/or its use, this could mean providing the consumer with an opt-out or an opt-in.

By emphasizing the importance of context, the President highlights that fact that every day consumers make conscious and subconscious decisions about whether their favorite websites or digital services provide a sufficient value proposition to continue that relationship. Most consumers are perfectly agreeable to exchanging some of their data for access to free content or to have a more engaging or personalized experience. However the value proposition is eroded when consumers don’t trust that all parties will respect their data–especially if they are not even aware of all the parties that may collect their data. Providing consumers with more controls over unexpected data collection and use would go a long way toward regaining the trust of consumers, which is why we’ve argued for industry to develop a DNT standard.

Finally, the bill notes that de-identified data should be outside the scope of this law. This is an enormously important concept because it allows companies to continue innovating with “big data” sets. By allowing for the use of de-identified data, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs can better understand how data flows, how it might be used differently and develop new technologies that we cannot even imagine today.

As many have noted–and will no doubt continue to be highly vocal about–the bill has some serious flaws in that some of the definitions are overly broad or seem to contradict the President’s intentions. But there are concepts within the President’s proposal that are well worth discussing. As an industry, we should be taking this proposal very seriously because it’s yet another sign that more work needs to be done to regain the trust of consumers.

Industry-Research | Perspectives | Policy

Truste Looks at Consumer Confidence (or Lack of It)

| 2 Comments

In case you missed it, Truste released its 2015 Consumer Confidence Index this week. We’ve been one of the louder voices on the importance of trust among consumers, marketers and publishers. We even baked it into our DNA by crafting our Trust Principles. Consumer and marketer trust is the basis of our members’ businesses and we must constantly strive to build and maintain it.

Unfortunately, that trust is a fragile thing and there is much taking place online that undermines it. For example, consider the rampant, untethered growth in the digital supply chain causes a daunting amount of tracking activity like this to happen. It seems likely that this level of tracking and data collection without more meaningful choice will undermine consumer trust

We are clearly not alone in our concern about consumer trust online. Truste calls it “a hot button issue for Americans with 92% concerned about their privacy when using the internet and 42% more concerned than a year ago.” Other of the key data points and takeaway from the Truste report include:

  • Lack of trust harms publishers: 77% of consumers moderated their online behavior because of privacy concerns. 51% of consumers have not clicked on an online ad because of privacy concerns.
  • Lack of trust harms advertisers: 86% of consumers took active steps to protect their privacy including deleting cookies, changing settings, turning off location tracking.
  • Consumers may be confused, but their behavior is telling: 63% of consumers deleted cookies in order to protect their online privacy but only 10% opted out of behavioral ads. Why the difference? Is it because consumers don’t know that they can opt out? Is it because opting out is difficult to do and reliant on cookies?

I hope this data makes everyone stop what they’re doing to think about how we actually grow trust across the media ecosystem. We need to ensure that the consumer and marketer trust in premium brands remains strong. We need to focus on building the future of trusted content, a future in which brands can stand the test of time because we have built a sustainable model based on a foundation of trust.