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 logo

Menu

Tags containing: "privacy"

Perspectives

Before gloating over the latest Facebook scandal, publishers should get their data houses in order

Facebook has been under fire ever since the revelation that it allowed the political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest user data and use that information as fodder for the Trump campaign. While outrage against the social media giant is warranted, we also ought to be concerned about the entire digital advertising ecosystem, where everyone — including publishers — is on the hunt for data.

Indeed, rather than just pointing at Facebook, feeling smug and a bit of schadenfreude, publishers and advertisers should take a deeper look at their own practices. And how about going even further: Take a leading role in ensuring user privacy. Think about what you can do to make sure data hunger doesn’t comprise user interest.

Walled Garden War

Anger toward Facebook isn’t anything new for media companies and publishers. If anything, the Cambridge Analytica scandal is just one point on a timeline documenting publishers’ tempestuous relationship with Facebook. At a recent Platforms + Publishers roundtable I produced at Facebook, there were plenty of angry small publishers who pointed to a loss of 50% or more of Facebook-referred traffic. Someone even mentioned that going to Facebook was like going back to an abusive partner. You think things are getting better and then, smack! you are hit with an algorithm change and a poisonous political data scandal.

As Axios’ Scott Rosenberg put it, the current fury against Facebook is personal for journalists because they, along with their institutions, blame Facebook (as well as other tech behemoths like Google) “for seducing their readers, impoverishing their employees, and killing off their jobs.” Given the stronghold Facebook and Google have over the digital advertising industry — which has also rendered publishers and advertisers dependent on the duopoly — any backlash that can knock down these tech companies, even a little, stands to make things better for their competitors and the ecosystem at large.

Data Hypocrisy 

But there are a couple fallacies with that kind of thinking. First, Facebook has played a crucial role in helping news outlets reach their audiences where their audiences are. And it’s no secret that the micro-targeting of a news item to user — based on the data gathered — worked to help the publisher, even if publishers always felt they were on the losing end of the relationship. And Facebook has certainly made a much bigger effort at helping to drive memberships, donations and subscriptions to publishers; in fact, that was the overarching theme of the roundtable I produced at Facebook.

And secondly: While it’s easy to nurture a grudge against Facebook, it’s harder to understand the complex relationships between publishers and platforms – where there can be collaboration and animosity. National outlets may be more vocal about their criticism around Facebook’s ability to adequately compensate publishers. However, local publishers in particular see Facebook, Google and other major tech platforms as potential allies that can help elevate their standing, and help them compete with national outlets.

Not only that, but consider BuzzFeed’s Mark Di Stefano’s scoop that both The Economist and the Financial Times hired Cambridge Analytica to help them grow their subscriber base in the United States. It’s unclear whether the data benefited the two British companies, but clearly, that’s what they were looking for. As media and tech thinker Doc Searls accurately notes, news publishers are also guilty of using third-party tracking apps that return internet advertising to their users. But, as everyone is now realizing, there’s no guarantee what actually happens to that data. “What will happen when the [New York] Times, the New Yorker and other pubs own up to the simple fact that they are just as guilty as Facebook of leaking its readers’ data to other parties, for—in many if not most cases—God knows what purposes besides ‘interest-based’ advertising?” Searls wrote on his Harvard blog.

Taking the Lead

To be sure, the momentum against Facebook (and Google) has been piling up for some time, and the latest scandal is unlike any other that has reached Facebook. As the company reels in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica data leaks, it’s cut third-party data providers out of its ad targeting, added safeguards like an email certification tool for marketers, emphasized its support for local news publishers, and considered more heavily its approach to data collection. Mark Zuckerberg has been forced to discuss the crisis in an apology tour with various news outlets and journalists. It’s safe to say Facebook knows its product (and reputation) is on the line.

But the best reckoning publishers could have right now is not about Facebook, but themselves — and the steps they can take to make sure they have their own data houses in order. As the Association of National Advertisers put it in a statement, “In truth, the Cambridge Analytica controversy is greater than Facebook alone…It’s a brand reputation and data security risk for every ANA member that advertises and monetizes brands on online and mobile outlets.”

One huge step, already started by the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF), is to call for new industry guidelines and standards around data collection that also focuses on prioritizing user protection. The ARF has invited other industry bodies to contribute to the endeavor; now it’s up to the rest of the players in the digital advertising ecosystem, publishers and advertisers included, to do their share to ensure a safer internet. Data is the ultimate feast for everyone, but if the hunger for it leads to toxic consequences, it poisons the entire body.

Perspectives

GDPR: How premium publishers come out ahead

G-day is looming! On May 25, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will kick in and – despite the hype – many publishers aren’t ready for it.

Over the course of Advertising Week Europe, held March 19-22 in London, several panels grappled with the issues surrounding GDPR. It became clear that, while marketers are focused on new ways to reach consumers, publishers are faced with the challenge of understanding consumer consent, and if necessary de-personalizing the message, while maintaining trust and keeping revenue streams flowing.

During the Digital Content Next seminar, I had the opportunity to ask DCN CEO Jason Kint, Anthony Hitchings, Digital Advertising Operations Director for the Financial Times, and Jo Coombs CEO of Ogilvy One UK, whether GDPR (referred to in some circles as the God Damn Privacy Rules) represents a massive headache or a huge opportunity.

Headache or Opportunity

Trust is the number one priority explained Kint. “Trusted relationships and transparency become key as publishers work with vendors and with consumers to ensure satisfaction. Premium publishers could see user loyalty rise, if intrusive messages become standard on all other sites. Premium publishers, with trusted and recognizable brands, stand to come out ahead as the industry experiments.”

“It’s certainly keeping us busy, but I wouldn’t say it’s a headache,” said Hitchings. “For months now, we’ve been doing supplier reviews — due diligence with all our suppliers. We’ve been doing system audits, we’ve been practicing system access requests based on our own platform, and looking at the length of time we hold data for.” Even though this might seem like more than a bit of a headache to many, Hitchings said he’s optimistic, because the FT has a “direct relationship with users.”

The Relationship Business

All the panelists agreed that the nature of the relationship with users is key. Publishers need to be open and honest about data collection. However, it poses a serious threat if the industry at large thinks it’s just fine to grab profiles or take surfing data. “When you know how consumers feel, you start to feel slightly more concerned about what the industry does,” Hitchings added.

“Every single piece of data represents a person, and that person obviously needs to be protected and respected by the brands. We are talking to brands about, not just the media they are purchasing and how they are using consumer data. This is every single touchpoint with a customer. It is their data and they need to be in control of it,” said Coombs.

However, she added that while a lot of work is being done on GDPR from the business side, consumers are not being educated. They need to better understand what they are giving up when they click on a box to agree to get rid of a cookie use banner she explained. “We need to help consumers understand what they are ticking and what they are saying yes to,” she added.

Hitchings pointed out that trying to convey the complexities of ad exchanges to users is “not going to be an easy job.”

“The biggest concern that publishers have right now is the actual execution of how to have that very discussion,” said Kint.

“Publishers that have a trusted relationship [with users] can decide what to put in front of that user. Typically, if a user is visiting a site like the Financial Times, or even a search engine like Google, they have a general idea that their data is being collected and used in certain ways. And they are probably okay with their data being used for personalization of the page, or posting on the message board, or fraud protection, etc. But for a data broker to be watching what they’re doing and then reusing their data across the web is probably outside their expectations,” he continued.

Data Dilemma

“Google currently collects data from about 80% of the top one million sites and uses that data however it wants to maximize its own value. The very notion that Google can continue to do that after GDPR is a concern. Users do not want Google watching the web,” Kint continued.

“There’s a fine line between being personalized, useful and relevant, and being a useful value exchange, and actually being just too creepy,” agreed Coombs.

The issue that hasn’t really been addressed by the industry is third-party risk, said Hitchings. “We’re trying to understand what adtech is doing with data and one piece of due diligence took more than a year! So, I don’t think publishers are going to have the bandwidth to assess the risk for more than a handful of partners,” he explained.

This aligned with Kint’s view that only trusted publishers and partners can be successful post-GDPR. And that’s going to be a good thing for consumers as well. Hitchings pointed out a couple of thousand trackers on every page is just daft — and creepy.

Better known as Brusselsgeek, Jennifer Baker has been a journalist for 20 years, the last  8+ specializing in EU tech policy and digital rights. A member of the Expert Council of the Good Technology Collective, Jennifer is on the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Data Protection and Privacy, and was named by Onalytica as one of the world’s Top 100 Influencers on Data Security 2016. She was also listed by Politico as one of the Top 20 Women Shaping Brussels 2017.

Jennifer writes for some of the biggest names in media, including ArsTechnica, Computerweekly, TheNextWeb, Macworld, PCworld, and The Register. She regularly features as an EU policy expert on BBC radio.

Advertising | Perspectives | Policy

Why the IAB GDPR Transparency and Consent Framework is a non-starter for publishers

The most significant opportunity in more than a decade to steer value towards our members is playing out now in Europe.

It is DCN’s role to help shape the future of the digital ecosystem to bend towards the interests of trusted content companies while your team focuses on the day-to-day operations. We work every day to do this and to raise the bar of trust with both advertisers and consumers.  Unlike other parts of the web media industry, we’re fortunate these efforts often align.  That is, by increasing trust for consumers and advertisers, the brands of DCN will prosper in the long-term. We are starting to see the pendulum swing in our favor – both in consumer subscriptions and the trust and transparency of the advertising market – and are working hard to accelerate it.

Since DCN exclusively represents content companies, we occasionally have a different point of view from other parts of the media ecosystem including intermediaries (e.g. ad tech companies, Google, Facebook). The business model of these intermediaries has for many years relied on harvesting the data generated from advertiser and consumer relationships with our members’ websites and apps. Right now, there is significant debate over how to best participate in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU and what the effects of the roll-out of will be.  The rules of GDPR, which set a new bar for consumer privacy, were finalized years ago and since that time have inspired a rich amount of misinformation, disagreement and fear, only increasing as the GDPR enforcement date of May 25, 2018 approaches.

The IAB and IAB Europe, which are charged with representing a much broader set of stakeholders including hundreds of ad tech companies, Google, Facebook, Oath, and many others with significant intermediary interests, has released its plan to handle the GDPR roll-out.  The IAB framework, which was submitted for industry commenting, was clearly designed by ad tech companies and included endorsement from 23 ad tech companies and, most notably, zero publishers.

The IAB GDPR Transparency and Consent Framework should be considered a non-starter by all publishers as it fails on several levels and requires significant changes.

Details will be discussed in other forums but can be summarized as it:

  1. relies on cookies which are unreliable in many experiences;
  2. pushes all liability to the publisher without providing any control over the CMPs, SSPs, DSPs, exchanges and how they use this data;
  3. outsources the consent relationship with the user to a “Consent Manager Provider” (CMP) operated by an IAB-friendly;
  4. does not leverage the direct relationship between a publisher and its audience to manage consent and store it persistently in the browser (e.g. DNT);
  5. fails to reduce friction for users giving consent for purposes most important to publishers and most acceptable to users;
  6. unintentionally creates more friction with your audience for editorial and product features for the sake of protecting ad tech vendors.

Thus, it will most likely enable a practical use case where global consent is enacted to protect the status quo of maximum behaviorally-targeted advertising and unbridled data collection. In other words, their goal is to use “free” services to encourage users to click, “Turn All On” and opt back into the status quo.

Please reach out to us directly and make certain your business leaders and partners understand there are serious flaws with the IAB Consent Framework.  We strongly urge publishers to hold off signing up with the 23 companies (and Google and Facebook behind the scenes) to support the framework in its current form.

Once again, there is a window here in which publishers can rebuild consumer and advertiser trust. The most significant advertisers in the world are aligned with us on this as they begin to see their pursuit of truly one-to-one advertising across the wider web as economically and legally challenging.  GDPR will create opportunity for audience selection based on cohorts and context which is a significant risk to Google and Facebook. GDPR moves advertisers away from their current buying habits supported by the myth they can simply harvest demand through microtargeting personal data. Creating new demand through context and true relevance is the sweet spot of trust and true publishers.

And where there is significant risk to Facebook and Google and opportunity for growing consumer trust, you will come out ahead.

Advertising | Perspectives

Ad Ops: the unlikely GDPR heroes

10 actionable steps to charting a publisher’s course to digital GDPR compliance

Yes, it is the topic du jour, but somehow many are still adrift when it comes to the European Union’s impending General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which goes into effect on 25 May 2018—under 100 working days or five short months away. Countless articles summarise requirements into generalities covering organisation-wide data elements, such as customer, partner and vendor information. More often than not this approach doesn’t mean much to Ad/Revenue Operations (Ad Ops) professionals.

The Ad Ops Challenge

GDPR presents three significant hurdles to Ad Ops:

  1. Identifying known data collection activity;
  2. Confirming it is legitimate under GDPR (i.e. that the rules are being met); and
  3. Detecting and remediating unauthorized data collection, which is potentially considered a data breach.

The highly-dynamic and opaque nature of the digital ecosystem often means that all three of these hurdles are difficult to clear without adversely affecting a media publisher’s strategic revenue channel. So, the key issue to resolve is this: how does a publisher go about managing data in a GDPR-compliant way but without undermining its business model(s) and therefore its commercial viability?

The answer, as usual, is Ad Ops. For this group, GDPR presents an important opportunity. As the frontline of digital operations, Ad Ops professionals are in the unique position to influence, drive, and co-create strategies to protect and optimise revenue in the changing regulatory environment. In fact, they have a powerful legitimate reason to control audience data collection activities on their digital properties and demand compliance from upstream partners.

10 Steps to GDPR Compliance

The daily demands placed on Ad Ops can be overwhelming, with the complexities—and vagaries—of GDPR an unwelcome intrusion. But it’s a critical opportunity. Here’s a 10-step approach (with supporting GDPR references) towards GDPR compliance for media-oriented websites and mobile apps:

1. Participate in an internal GDPR Task Force [GDPR Articles 37-39]

Every business— large and small—should have a GDPR ‘Task Force’ or something similar. This could be organised by a senior data privacy leader, such as a Data Protection Officer (DPO), which is now a requirement for many organisations. The Task Force should be staffed with key personnel across the organisation who interact with any type of personal data, i.e. operations, IT, privacy and risk, security, HR etc, and should include individuals across strategic markets as the GDPR has a global reach (see GDPR Article 3). As part of the Task Force, Ad Ops can explain the role of consumer data in the digital environment to deliver user-specific content and advertisements and how it supports the publication’s mission and contributes to revenue.

It is important to understand that the scope of personal data is broader than under existing EU data protection law. Under Article 4 of the GDPR, personal data is defined as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person.”

To this extent, typical data collection, use and sharing activity generated from everyday access of websites and/or mobile apps for digital advertising purposes (i.e. cookie deployment or device identification) should be treated as personal data. Therefore, the term ‘non-Personally Identifiable Information’ should no longer exist as personal data under the GDPR is broader than PII, which is a significant change for digital advertising.

2.  Evaluate the Privacy Risks [GDPR Articles 25, 35 & 36]

The Task Force will probably be responsible for developing a centralised roadmap for the organisation’s digital data and designing the plans to implement necessary processes and changes (including budgetary considerations) required to comply with the new law. Many organisations will need to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA–a valuable  exercise for good data hygiene), mapping the kind of data collected and processed. (Here’s a good template to follow.)

The DPIA should enable revenue and Ad Ops teams to get up close and personal with all data collection and processing activities, and knowing with whom data is being shared. There are many companies that can assist with DPIAs to develop a point-in-time data picture, which is a critical start to identifying data in the publisher ecosystem. However, the ever-changing digital environment requires continuous monitoring for compliance in order to provide an audit trail or truly demonstrate ongoing compliance. The bottom line is that the GDPR seeks to introduce a ‘Privacy by Design’ approach: removing or minimizing data or ‘pseudonymising’ it (e.g. hashing) to minimize the privacy risks.

3. Create an Authorised Partner List [GDPR Article 30]

Accountability is a central theme within the GDPR: you are required to record and account for all data processing activities. Ultimately, publishers will need to know and understand what data is being collected and processed, and who it is shared with—a serious challenge for the dynamic digital environment.

This means Ad Ops needs to develop a list of all parties that execute on the website (including contracted second parties and any subsequent parties called during the rendering of the visitor experience), analyse digital behaviour to understand data collection or targeting needs, and block those that exhibit anomalous or unapproved activity.

Conducting a data audit, compiling inventory and documenting authorized partners is a good first step; however, these will have to be continuously evaluated with an eye towards changing partner activity, new digital supply chain partners, international data transfers and consumer understanding of tracking/identification and its value to the digital experience.

4.  Get Legal! [GDPR Article 6]

It may seem strange for Ad Ops teams to concern themselves with too many legalities, but with the GDPR it is imperative that those involved in data collection activities understand the consequences of their actions. The regulation outlines six legal bases to justify the processing of personal data:

  • the user’s consent (which is defined more stringently than under current data protection law)
  • the use of contracts involving the user
  • legal compliance (i.e. with another law)
  • protecting the interests of an individual
  • when it is in the public interest to do so
  • when it is the organisation’s legitimate interests to do so (provided it doesn’t override the rights of the individual)

Digital advertising will require the user’s consent, not least because it is required for the storing of information or gaining access to information already stored on a device—whether personal or not—(i.e. via a cookie) under the existing ePrivacy Directive (See Step 6.) This is where Ad Ops needs to work closely with the compliance teams: an innovative consent mechanism will be required for digital advertising activities. But, keep in mind that some data processing activities (e.g. for network security or when tackling fraud) may warrant different legal bases.

5.  Enforce Digital Partner Compliance [Articles 26-30]

The GDPR introduces obligations (and liability) for all organisations, whether a ‘data controller’ or ‘data processor’. Find out how data partners are preparing for the GDPR and establish a working group with key partners to discuss compliance strategies. This requires first knowing your upstream partners from SSPs and exchanges through to DMP and DSPs. Some data partners are likely to have to conduct a DPIA as well—guide the process for them. In time, revisit, review and adapt contracts or agreements with existing partners to ensure that shared obligations and responsibilities under the GDPR are accounted for and that partners are complying with digital asset policies for your company. If a partner chooses to not comply with your policies reconsider your relationship with them.

6.  Obtain Consent [GDPR Articles 7-9]

Consent is the new king in digital advertising, so review where and how you obtain it. Under the GDPR, consent must be given freely, specifically, and unambiguously, and it requires affirmative user action. Some pre-GDPR consent mechanisms (i.e. so-called ‘implied’ consent) may not be valid when the GDPR applies. And it remains to be seen if existing consent management platforms can properly handle authorized cookies delivered by third-party partners in addition to a publisher’s first-party cookies. It’s important that practical and user-friendly consent mechanisms are adopted. Where appropriate, review existing consent mechanisms and explore evolving market solutions to suit your business. EU regulators have provided some draft guidance on consent.

7.    Be Transparent [GDPR Articles 12-14]

Revisit and restructure your Privacy Notice to ensure that it meets the requirements of GDPR. It is likely it will need to include more information than your existing one (such as all the technologies used to process data, including by third-party solution providers). Ad Ops teams will be directly responsible for any data collection activities. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Code of Practice provides a good template to follow, including what information to include, how the Privacy Notice should be written, and how to test, review and roll it out. But don’t stop there. Consider enhancing transparency by deploying additional measures including ‘Just-in Time’ mechanisms, video messages or the EU AdChoices programme.

8.  Give your Customers Greater Control over their Information [GDPR Articles 15-22]

The GDPR seeks to give people greater control over their data and therefore includes many rights for individuals, such as the Right to Erasure and the Right to Data Portability. Media publishers will need to put in place processes to achieve these for their customers. Beyond consent, publishers need to provide mechanisms for consumers to solicit information collected and used by the publisher and absolutely honor requests for data removal. The ability to offer this functionality and test its reliability are further proof points to demonstrate compliance. Where appropriate, point to existing controls such as unsubscribe mechanisms and opt-out points, and consider other innovative data control solutions.

9.  Designate a Lead Supervisory Authority [GDPR Article 56, 60-61]

Choose who your ‘Lead Supervisory Authority’ (i.e. regulator) will be when the GDPR becomes effective. This regulator will act as a single point of contact for the enterprise’s data activities throughout the EU. Documenting and opening up communication channels with the Lead Supervisory Authority now is critical to understanding how future enforcement will be carried out. Keep an eye on Brexit: if you are hoping to designate the UK ICO you may have to think again.

10.  Prepare for any Data Breaches [GDPR Articles 33-34]

Implement (and test) procedures to detect, report, investigate and resolve a personal data breach (e.g. data loss or hack). Keep in mind that the reporting of high-risk breaches to the relevant Supervisory Authority (regulator) needs to happen within 72 hours of discovery—a timeline publishers are not positioned to meet. As Data Controllers, Publishers are ultimately responsible for breach notifications and, therefore, they need to be aware of any breach that occurs throughout the digital supply chain including upstream partners.

Sailing Through the GDPR Storm

All experts agree: GDPR will be a watershed moment for digital publishers. The next several months (let alone years) will be tumultuous as stragglers try to catch up and the more-prepared publishers await the success of their compliance programs.

On a positive note, the winds are favorable for digital publishers to take back control over their audience data. Direct access to the consumer relationship and the control of consumer consent puts publishers at the helm. However, it is up to the unlikely heroes—Ad Ops teams—to ensure smooth sailing when it comes to digital data compliance and risk management.

Since 1999 Matt has been working on the front line of digital advertising in an industry-facing capacity. Most recently he has taken on the role of European General Manager for The Media Trust, a US-based digital security and advertising quality assurance company.

Matt has consistently strived to generate industry consensus from senior leaders and drive innovation through collaboration. He is a frequent speaker, panelist, and chair at industry conferences including Digiday, IAB, dmexco, The Guardian, AOP (UK), Admangerforum, and corporate-operated events. He is an active advisor and investor for advertising and marketing technology start-up enterprises and a senior partner at AtlanticLeap.

Industry-Research

Publishers will diversify, platforms will tackle TV, and more media predictions for 2018

Nearly half of all editors, CEOs, and digital leaders (44%) are even more concerned with the powerful role of social media than they were a year ago, reports Reuters’ Journalism, Media & Technology: Trends & Predictions 2018. Publishers note their disappointment with social platforms, particularly with Facebook because of the platform’s role in the circulation of fake news, the lack of promised video revenue, and the decline in referral traffic to many news websites. As a result, publishers plan to be less dependent on social platforms. As one executive summarizes, “Expect more news organizations to pull out of deals with Facebook, Apple, and Snapchat that they consider are not delivering sufficient financial return, focusing instead on building more direct readership.”

Predictions for Publishers:

Restore consumer trust in journalism

Publishers are continuing to strengthen consumer trusts in news brands. Unfortunately, too often quality journalism is posted side-by side with low quality content and misleading information. Most social platforms fail to distinguish between the two. In 2018, publishers will continue to pressure social platform companies to set standards and do more to differentiate brand news content.

Less reliance on advertising

Publishes are working to diversify their revenues to ensure less dependence on advertising sales. In fact, 62% of publishers say that advertising will become less important over time. Publishers need to shift their strategies from reach and advertising engagement to subscription models and tenure.

Improve data capacity

Publishers believe that data is important to their business needs. Nearly two-thirds of publishers (62%) report that improving data capacity is their most important initiative this year. It’s also imperative for publishers to understand and comply with the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) starting this May. The GDPR requires that publishers ask users for consent to use email addresses, to profile and to share their data with third parties working on their behalf.

Predictions for Social Platforms:

Expanding into TV programming

Social platforms are moving into the television business. While Facebook’s early attempts at Facebook Live failed and Facebook Watch has yet to become a must-view entertainment hub, the company is still forging ahead. Facebook is actively looking to secure broadcast programming rights and plans to develop new content to compete with Netflix and Amazon.

New social messaging offers

Growing messaging and access to news is important for social platforms. Reuters Institute data, shows messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Messenger are growing not just for messaging purposes but for accessing news as well. Facebook is launching a tween messaging app specifically targeting this demo. The idea is to draw the tweens in early and eventually expand their usage to age appropriate entertainment and education content.

Publishers and social platform alike are thinking about new business practices and monetization opportunities with their user base. Importantly, as they shift their strategies to meet 2018 goals, it’s key to keep a consumer focus, especially in the development of new content offerings, personal data information and GDPR compliance and new technology implementations.

Perspectives

Data-driven advertising will change in 2018: The net positive effect of GDPR and transparency

Spend on data-driven advertising is surging as brands continue to realize the benefits of more granular and personalized campaigns. However, the way the advertising industry uses, captures, and analyzes consumer data will change dramatically in 2018. And that will impact just about everything.

Here are two big changes on the horizon that are posed to significantly impact digital advertising:

GDPR is coming – and that’s OK.

In May, GDPR will go into effect. And with it comes new rules surrounding digital data collection. Now, EU audiences will have more control over how their personal information is indexed and used.

In the ad industry, reception to this new regulation has generally been negative. Brands and agencies rely on consumer data to develop personal – and ultimately successful –  advertising experiences. GDPR, however, will treat anonymous and personal data identically, which could have a major impact on ad experiences for consumers in the EU. What’s more, there are significant compliance costs that come with GDPR. Those who don’t obey will face fines, which could amount to as much as 4% of global revenue.

Now, while these new guidelines could cause some early problems for advertisers, GDPR will also bring with it key long-term advertising benefits. For example, GDPR raises the bar for opt-in data collection. While this will reduce the scale of data collected, it will dramatically raise the quality. This means better ad experiences for consumers and stronger ROI. More marketers will realize this as we get closer to the launch date.

Second-party data is king in 2018 ad transparency.

Second-party data was all the rage in 2017 and that will continue this year as well. Essentially, second-party data is someone else’s first-party data that you access directly from them. There is no data aggregator or other “middleman” in the exchange of second-party data. Through a direct relationship with the owner of the first-party data, you can define exactly what data is being bought or sold, the price of the data, and any other commercial terms.

The possibilities with second-party data are endless. Advertisers can choose the data sources they feel are most relevant to their campaign optimization, filtering out all the unnecessary stuff. This is where you can take data-driven marketing to a place that is not only unique, but extremely efficient. And what second-party data may lack in “scale,” it makes up for with precision.

In 2018, second-party data will explode in demand, driven by advertiser calls for transparency and clarity in the data they use. By cutting out the middle-man, marketers can go directly to companies that they know will have the most important or high-quality data. The data is unique and a direct relationship is in place, so quality is never an issue.

With GDPR looming and transparency still an evolving battle, 2018 promises to be an interesting year for advertising data. The industry is changing – and while some aspects of data collection and activation will become harder, as a result, at large, GDPR and the shift towards second-party data are likely to enable a new depth of data quality. That’s a good thing.

As Lotame’s Chief Revenue Officer, Eric Marterella is responsible for overseeing all revenue-focused and client retention initiatives worldwide. Since procuring his degree from Virginia Polytechnic, Eric Marterella has garnered sales leadership experience in various industries for over eighteen years at companies including Digex, AT&T and Cisco. Most recently, Eric served as a Global Vice President at Sprinklr, where he was instrumental in the company’s growth from $20M to a $1.8B valuation. Eric is a co-chairman of a monthly executive leadership forum called The Leadership Breakfast.

Industry-Research

Customers want personalization but trust is a critical component for success

Given the abundance of options for today’s digitally-savvy consumers, it has never been more important to understand their preferences and expectations in order to best serve their needs and retain their business. The intersection of privacy and personalization is a particularly tricky spot to navigate. Today’s consumers are more worried about data privacy than they are about losing their income. At the same time, they expect increasingly personalized digital experiences. There is only one way to bridge that divide, according to the 2017 Accenture Strategy Global Consumer Pulse Research: Build Trust.

Accenture’s research, which surveyed 24,877 consumers in 33 countries, found that 48% of consumers expect specialized treatment for being a good customer. And Accenture believes that this entails “next generation personalization” which they call “hyper-relevance.” Many current personalization tactics are static and relate to certain consumer behaviors. However, Hyper-relevance—like today’s digital consumers—is “always on.” It is much more dynamic, constantly changing and always available.

rather than focusing solely on customers’ purchase behaviors and preferences or relatively fixed attributes, such as their address or number of children, Accenture says it is essential to understand on customers’ needs in a given circumstance and the evolving context in which they make decisions.

As such, data gathered from website visits, social media posts, or previous purchase histories will not suffice. Rather, what’s needed is information that is much more personal in nature—such as health data transmitted via wearable biometric technologies. Needless to say, that’s getting highly personal. And when things get that personal, the potential rewards go up immensely. However, risk also rises.

It is heartening to note that two-thirds of those surveyed said that they are willing to share personal information with companies. But there’s a catch. They will only do so in exchange for some perceived value. And if that value exchange—or the trust upon which it is based—is broken, customers will quickly move on.

Accenture emphasizes that securing and maintaining consumer trust is a prerequisite to achieving the promise of intelligent personalization. They point out that it takes time to build trust, but that it can be shattered with one wrong move. Thus, companies must counter that risk by constantly presenting themselves as trustworthy, keeping their promises, and upholding their end of the value exchange agreement.

As companies seek to deliver hyper-relevance, Accenture makes three recommendations:

1. Look beyond the traditional customer journey

Companies that distinguish themselves with hyper-relevant experiences look beyond the traditional customer journey. They identify and prioritize those areas where hyper-relevance can deliver added value and quickly address the unexpected. Ask questions like: What can we offer once we realize our customer has missed her flight? Received a job promotion? Been forced to flee a hurricane? In these situations, customers need different things and relevance becomes supremely important.

2. Rethink data

Hyper-relevant companies don’t rely solely on descriptive analytics or traditional sources of information. They invest in predictive analytics, collaborate with an ecosystem of stakeholders to capture real-time snapshots of every consumer, and mine data in new ways to understand the customer journey that extends beyond core products and services and across channels. In addition, hyper-relevant companies redouble their data security efforts. They ensure customers have full control of their data across touch points. They eliminate duplicate requests for customer information and permissions. And they make sure all customer data is secure and visible to employees on a need-to-know basis.

3. Earn trust continuously

Trust must be a key consideration when designing hyper-relevant experiences, creating new customer value propositions, and serving as a critical resource when customers need them most. A company’s commitment to delivering the experiences that were promised and meeting customers’ expectations is paramount. Hyper-relevant companies understand their baseline level of trust, and eliminate issues or irrelevant offers that detract from the trust quotient. They make trust sustainable by establishing a rigorous process and a robust, cross-functional governance structure to continuously measure trust and hyper-relevant effectiveness—and act on their findings. Most importantly, they manage trust as the critical growth enabler it is.

The virtuous circle

Companies that are attentive to their customers’ concerns and reinforce their trust quotient are more likely to persuade customers to share personal information. That, in turn, helps to inform the design the kinds of hyper-relevant experiences that today’s consumers expect. So, while companies are finding valuable ways to leverage data to super-serve their best customers, they have also begun to realize that the digital trust consumers place in companies is as critical as the data itself.

Perspectives

Regulation is coming for the tech giants – but how much?

With their enormous size, influence and well wishes to do good for humanity, the American tech giants have long escaped the regulatory and legislative scrutiny of Washington. But increased attention on how Russian operatives may have used Facebook, Twitter and Google to meddle in the 2016 U.S. presidential election — and a mounting anti-Silicon Valley sentiment — are providing an opening for regulation to finally come through. Most Americans don’t necessarily trust the tech companies, yet they maintain high approval ratings, enormous clout and popularity for their products and services.

Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all faced the House and Senate Intelligence Committees this week, and the EU is on its way to passing legislation that will maintain data protection and privacy in Europe. After many years of avoiding regulation, the tech giants are finding themselves cornered from the left and the right, with some sort of American intervention on tap. The question is just how effective it might be, and how much the tech companies’ lobbyists will water down those efforts.

The argument for accountability

Take the case of Google. Among some of Google’s media rivals who are critical of the way the search giant surfaces news stories, the effort to increase government regulation has been dubbed “Project Goliath.” Yelp’s disdain for the company has grown over the years, and recently led to the filing of a federal antitrust complaint against Google for scraping photographs from Yelp reviews.

The News Media Alliance, which represents 2,000 news organizations, in July started advocating for antitrust exemptions in the hopes they might help bump against the Facebook-Google advertising powerhouse (Google is the world’s largest recipient of advertising revenue). The European Union has also fined Google $2.7 billion — the largest antitrust fine the EU has imposed on a single company — for favoring its services over rivals in search results.

And that’s just one company. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft — what New York Times’ senior technology correspondent Farhad Manjoo collectively calls the “Frightful Five” — have been waging a battle over an anti-sex trafficking bill. The bill’s promoters want to curb legal protections for sites that host content promoting sex trafficking, but critics say the bill’s language could restrict free speech. Facebook and Twitter, to name two of the frightful, are continuously in headlines over the platforms’ influence on politics both nationally and globally.

And we can’t forget about Amazon, the massive online retailer that now owns brick-and-mortar Whole Foods and recently clocked more than $1 billion in ad revenues in the third quarter.

Tech lobby ‘armies’

The amount of pressure on these companies, and the momentum with which it is finally cascading, makes it likely that some amount of regulation is bound to happen. Ahead of their Congressional hearings, both Facebook and Twitter made changes to their advertising platforms, with more transparency around political ads in the hopes that self-regulation might ward off a harder fist from Washington.

Yet the power and money of these technology companies, and their influence on Capitol Hill, also means regulation will be hard-earned and hard-won. The New York Times’ Cecilia Kang writes:

“Internet companies are deploying some of the largest armies in corporate America to battle on Capitol Hill. House and Senate staffs say lobbyists for the big technology companies have swarmed their offices in recent weeks. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have sharply increased their lobbying spending — a combined $14.2 million in the third quarter, up from $11.9 million a year earlier. Facebook, which has faced the most scrutiny over the election, increased its third-quarter lobbying budget this year by 40 percent, to $2.85 million.”

To say the rivals and critics of these companies don’t stand a chance in circumventing the giants’ power might be an exaggeration, but money talks. The IAB has also come out in defense of these internet companies, arguing that the problems within their industry are best left for them to solve on their own — not with the help of Washington.

Inspiration from the EU?

If U.S. players in this struggle are looking for inspiration for regulation, their European neighbors might be a good source. Compared to Washington, the EU is much more suspicious of the industry’s altruistic proclamations, and is demanding changes to Facebook and Google’s business practices that emphasize privacy for and consent from consumers regarding their data. Given the EU has already launched a taskforce aimed at protecting WhatsApp user data from Facebook, one can imagine the strict clampdown on tech will continue.

Will the U.S. match up? Likely not. But if the media cycle continues the way it has been in the U.S., and the critical voices here stay loud, it’s safe to say tech’s free pass is long gone.

Industry-Research

Consumers demand increased transparency from tech platforms

Consumers are very familiar with digital recommendations. Suggestions online are a constant and come in all varieties from recommendations on new products to purchase, to new songs for your playlist, to new individuals to connect with to news posts in your newsfeed. As consumers spend more time on social platforms consuming content and expressing their views on just about everything,  more data is collected, and more algorithms are employed to extract value from consumer information. However, consumers appear mystified as to what usage data tech platforms collect and how it’s parlayed into algorithms to impact their content results.

The Tow Center for Digital Journalism examines this question and others in their study, “Readers are hungry for news feed transparency.” In all, they conducted 13 focus groups across four cities with news consumers. The goal was to understand consumer usage and to clarify the role of algorithms in terms of tech platforms’ accountability and transparency, particularly in the distributed news environments.

Key findings include:
1. Tech platforms and news habits

Participants claim that their news and information consumption on tech platforms is more of a consequence and not their main intent upon visiting. They believe the ease and convenience of accessing news when visiting social platforms fuels this pattern of news consumption.

2. Algorithms

News audiences understand few details about platform algorithms. In fact, many participants have little awareness of algorithm usage. While, others see algorithms as filters for relevant content and personalization. Still others think their usage remains independent of algorithms and generally overestimate their degree of control on their news feeds. Interestingly, many participants said they are willing to leave tech platforms because of the lack of transparency with their algorithms and privacy practices.

3. Local news

Participants think local news has little to no visibility on tech platforms.

4. Brand 

Audiences claim they can recognize publishers’ brands on platforms. They also admit to sharing fake news, thinking at the time it was accurate and truthful. Many participants identify what the Tow Center refers to as the “third-person effect.” According to the participants, they of course, recognize solid news brands but it’s “others” who do not and end up sharing fake news.

Participants link fake news to social platforms and place responsibility on them for allowing fraudulent information to be shared. While consumers debate platforms’ ethical responsibilities, they agree that offering ineffective solutions to identify fake news is not the answer. Further, audiences also see platforms as often having political biases. They think platforms are quite challenged in their ability to remain politically neutral.

5. Privacy on social platforms

Participants are concerned with tech platforms’ black box practices and lack of transparency, yet they appear resigned to the practice of data collection. Surprisingly, data collection is viewed as the price paid for accessing these platforms. Not surprisingly, the younger the participant, the more accepting of a platform’s data collection practices.

6. Business models 

Participants acknowledge the value of news content; however, they often engage in practices to avoid publisher paywalls. The ease to which consumers can access news content on social platforms reinforces the practice of non-paid for content.

In terms of advertising, native advertising and the use of sponsored links such as “recommended links” or “partner content” is viewed with little trust and appears to carry negative views on the publisher.

The research suggests a necessary unveiling of algorithm practices for both publisher and tech platforms to maintain a trusted relationship with their audiences. It’s essential to offer tools and education to verify brands and the legitimacy of content and to unveil algorithms, tracking and privacy policies.

Perspectives | Policy

No, Apple isn’t destroying digital advertising. It’s meeting consumer expectations…again

Apple recently announced that iOS 11 will include Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) in Safari. In a nutshell, ITP will go beyond merely blocking 3rd party cookies by segregating any cookie after 24 hours without interactivity on its parent domain’s website. The segregated cookie could still be used for log-ins, but not for tracking and/or retargeting purposes.

Despite a chorus of cries that this move will “sabotage” the current economic model of the internet, I actually think this is just Apple trying to keep up with consumer expectations. For years, Apple has attempted to block 3rd party cookies, although ad tech companies have worked to bypass Apple’s efforts. The thinking has been that consumers only want to be tracked by companies with which they have a relationship. ITP simply ensures that consumers can only be tracked by the companies with which they have a current relationship. There are some kinks, for sure, but overall it makes sense.

After reading some of the reactions to Apple’s move, I had to step outside just to make sure the sky wasn’t actually falling. The response from the ad tech industry has not been surprising. The ad tech lobby has a long track record of protecting legacy models, even when they are probably not the best path for long-term success. However, calling Apple’s move one that will “harm consumers by distorting the digital advertising ecosystem and undermining its operations” seems pretty far off base.

Given the industry’s fear of government regulation, I’m surprised the tech giants aren’t more supportive of private sector moves like Apple’s that seek to address underlying consumer concerns. As we see in the EU’s forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), governments can and will step in if the industry does not demonstrate that it can effectively self-regulate. When our trade bodies fail to step up and put into place strong guidelines that address customer concerns about important issues such as privacy, we put ourselves at risk of increased government scrutiny (many states already have privacy bills in the works.)

Instead, ad tech companies have dedicated massive amounts of capital and resources to developing new ways to track consumers, build larger and more sensitive profiles of consumers and deliver highly targeted ads. For the most part, the returns for investors have been terrific. For consumers – not so much. The well-documented reality is that digital tops the list of consumers’ least favorite forms of advertising. And tracking (aka “targeting”) is one of the aspects of digital advertising cited as particularly irksome.

Think about it: Right now, 67% of digital ads are direct response ads designed to get consumers to click. This is the equivalent of the junk mail cluttering your email inbox and those direct marketing ads that stuff your mailbox and end up in landfills. On top of that, digital ads are often overloaded with calls to unknown 3rd party servers, which dramatically slow the down the page. Worse, on mobile, it not only damages user experience, it soaks up more of a consumer’s data plan.

It’s no wonder consumers are downloading ad blocking software at higher rates each year. It’s no wonder that almost no one ever intentionally clicks on an ad. Suffice it to say that the claim that reducing the persistence of tracking cookies will harm the user experience is absurd. And frankly, a model that relies on these cookies to create an experience that’s driving ad blocker adoption is not one we need to defend.

Contrast that dynamic with Apple. Countless books have been written on how Apple is dialed into the wants and needs of consumers. The company boasts a loyal customer base and for good reason: Consumer experience is the priority. ITP is an extension of Apple’s consumer focus. Given the company’s track record as compared to the current state of digital advertising, ITP is likely to join the long line of successful consumer-friendly features developed by Apple. And if we want to have the same kind of success in the digital ecosystem, respecting the consumer and creating an experience they enjoy must be at the foundation of our advertising efforts.

Perspectives | Policy

Why the GDPR will force you to understand your customers’ needs

When I was 14, I walked door to door selling subscriptions for the local newspaper. It paid a lot better than ditch digger (which I also tried), but it also required thick skin. I quickly learned that I needed a good elevator pitch that captured the essence and value of what I was selling and that helped me make a connection with the person on the other side of the door-frame. If I could do all of that in 10 seconds, then the conversation almost always went well. Sometimes it led to a sale, sometimes it led to “come back later,” and sometimes it just led to a pleasant conversation. All of those outcomes were infinitely better than getting a door slammed in my face. I imagine it was also a much better experience for the prospective subscriber who had just been interrupted by some 14-year-old kid ringing their door bell.

One key to improving my elevator pitch was having a thorough understanding of the product. In this case, the local newspaper. Then I needed to master the value proposition, which meant tuning into the customers’ needs. The key value for most subscribers was the connection to their local community. This was the 1980s, so the paper was the primary way to keep abreast of local politics, sports, events, weather, and to read the classifieds. It was impossible to communicate the value proposition to a prospective subscriber without understanding how a subscription would be helpful to them.

Now, we get all this local information in a very different way. But, what’s now often missing in today’s digital ecosystem is the basic communication with consumers. Some companies do it well – see Apple’s just-in-time notices that allow apps and websites to ask consumers for permission to collect and use sensitive data like location and contacts. However, entire categories of companies aren’t communicating with consumers AT ALL. Just look at the thousands of ad tech companies that track unwitting consumers across the web.

Maybe there’s value to data collection in these contexts. But companies that don’t have a solid value proposition on the added value that they can effectively communicate to consumers better be ready for the door to slam.

The coming enforcement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the likely passage of ePrivacy Regulation in Europe will force companies to better explain what they are offering to consumers. In short, they’ll have to develop an elevator pitch.

For years, industry trade groups have heralded the consumer benefits of big data. But these benefits are often articulated in long-winded, research white papers designed to justify unbridled data collection to regulators. The fact is that, like their predecessor, direct mail, these “highly targeted ads” are more often viewed as creepy than carefully customized. Certainly, customers sometimes appreciate experiences tailored to their past behavior and preferences. However, giving them control over what data is collected and telling them why does not negate that possibility. Effectively communicating the “why” is the essence of the elevator pitch after all.

Starting in the spring of 2018, ubiquitous, non-transparent data collection is not going to fly in Europe. And in a global economy, that means marketers and advertisers everywhere need to pay attention. Companies will have to figure out concise and compelling ways to explain their value proposition to consumers in order to get their consent.

As a young newspaper salesman, I had to knock on the door and—if a customer was willing to open it—I had a brief opportunity to demonstrate the value the local newspaper could deliver. Otherwise, that door would close and I might not get another chance.

Based on my experience, the companies that understand why consumers value their product will be the ones that emerge victorious in this new landscape. Along the way, the whole digital experience might be improved for everyone. And the result will certainly be better than a potential customer opting to download an ad blocker instead.

Research Image
Industry-Research

Today’s paradox of privacy

The Privacy Act of 1974 emphasizes the need for both “notice and choice” to protect consumer privacy online. “Notice” gives consumers the information about data collection and use, and “choice” allows consumers to determine whether their data is collected and shared. But do the checks and balances of “notice and choice” really help to protect consumer privacy?

The Digital Privacy Paradox: Small Money, Small Costs, Small Talk Report by Susan Athey, Christian Catalini and Catherine Tucker from the National Bureau of Economic Research, offers insight on the privacy paradox and the inconsistencies between privacy preferences and actual consumer privacy choices. The research examined how more than 3,000 undergraduates engaged in privacy preferences while choosing an online wallet to store and manage digital bitcoin currency.

Different wallets, different incentives and encryption offerings were proposed to evaluate privacy offerings of different dimensions. Students could choose between four wallets: Blockchain, a hybrid web/self-managed wallet, Circle or Coinbase, both web wallet services or Electrum, a self-managed wallet. Participants were also asked about their preferences in privacy features (privacy from peers, intermediaries and government) and their degree of trust in financial institutions, startups and government to ensure a balanced and randomized sample.

Findings showed that regardless of their privacy preference, students shared their friends’ data when given a small incentive. Surprisingly, even the more privacy-sensitive students responded to the incentive offering.

One incentive gave students a pizza in exchange for three friends’ email addresses. Interestingly, a clear majority of the students chose pizza. Neither gender or levels of privacy sensitivities had any effect on choices. Six percent of the students appeared torn in the decision process and provided invalid emails.

In addition, when privacy required additional effort — such as encryption technology — students often went with without it in their transactions. In total, 55% of participants tried adding encryption and only 49% of those who tried succeeded. The remaining participants transacted without encryption.

Small incentives can misdirect people. To ensure privacy practices, current policies should be reviewed to determine how people can be protected from their willingness to discard privacy practices. Consumers need to make meaningful choices when it comes to privacy and incentives often cloud the decision-making process.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.