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

Policy / Legal, Regulatory and Legislative News Impacting Digital Content

Archive Archive

Archives

Perspectives | Policy

Ad blocking: It might be time for an FTC assist

This week, we released our 2015 DCN Ad Blocking Report  which shows that 33% of U.S. consumers are very likely or somewhat likely to try ad blocking software in the next three months. Coupled with research by Adobe and PageFair that showed a 41% increase in the use of ad blocking from 2014 Q2 to 2015 Q2 it’s clear we’re seeing a steady, significant rise in consumers using ad blocking software.

Interestingly, Doc Searls notes that ad blocking (which he calls “the biggest boycott in human history”) started spiking right around the time that Do Not Track (DNT) signals began to be ignored. As we’ve written before, we think consumers have been actively searching for ways to control their online experience and better protect their privacy. They started with clearing cookies, then enabling DNT and now they’re blocking ads altogether.

As our research and that by others has noted, ad blocking software meets a number of consumer needs, a major one being poor online experiences due to advertising. Some ads can be intrusive and annoying and pages load much faster without ads (much less endless third party calls).

Consumers are also concerned about their privacy and are looking for better ways to opt out of having their data collected with little transparency. Consumers are concerned about their security and the various unknown entities having access to and potentially compromising their devices.

While meeting consumer experience needs is laudable and an important wake up call for industry, the other side of the coin may be fraught with harmful and shady business practices.

As I wrote in September, ad blockers shouldn’t block conversations between a publisher and a consumer – this kind of back and forth dialogue helps the publisher better understand and meet consumer needs while it also helps educate consumers. After all, let’s keep in mind that most early adopters of ad blocking software tend to be young males (hint: I was once one of them – we didn’t always appreciate the big picture).

Also, as has been reported, ad blocking companies will accept payments to whitelist ads from companies. Of course, those ads need to meet a set of acceptable ads criteria. But those criteria tend to be nebulous and interpreted behind closed doors while the payment is being negotiated, which doesn’t make for a healthy marketplace. Indeed, it is often the case that the ads that are whitelisted are text-only ads that add absolutely nothing to the overall experience for the consumer. I would argue that, rather than read any conceivable text ad, most consumers would rather laugh at a new Geico ad or mock one of Matthew McConaughey’s ethereal, self-indulgent car commercials, especially if that ad was stripped down to a minimum of 3rd party tags and did not track me across the web.

Regardless of what ads should be shown or whether they should be shown at all, I think we can all agree that disrupting an important dialogue between consumers and publishers and shaking down publishers to whitelist ads are not the hallmarks of a healthy ecosystem. It would be helpful for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to examine whether these business practices and agreements are undermining the ability of content creators and consumers to find a value exchange that works for both. The FTC plays an important role in keeping our industry healthy by working with good faith actors to establish best practices, shining a light on new, emerging technologies and bringing enforcement cases to end shady business practices.

Needless to say, these issues are top of mind for DCN and the premium publishers we represent. We’re looking forward to an opportunity to explore this topic, among others, at our December 16th event The Consumer Rules: Lessons from Ad Blocking. It will be held at the Newseum in Washington, DC from 8:30 to 11:00 AM on Wednesday, December 16. Because solving the issues causing and caused by ad blocking requires wide ranging participation, we’re hosting an interactive discussion featuring Jed Hartman, Chief Revenue Officer of the Washington Post; Heather West, Senior Policy Manager, at Mozilla; Ben Barokas, CEO of Sourcepoint; and Fatemeh Khatibloo, Principal Analyst at Forrester Research. Following the panel, we will have a fireside chat with FTC Commissioner Julie Brill.

It should be a lively discussion; it is certainly an important one.

Perspectives | Policy

Can you hear me now? 

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

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.

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.

Perspectives | Policy

Ad Tech: Is opting-out the only way to change things?

Joanna O’Connell had an interesting reaction to news that a few young publishers have decided to spurn ad tech. Without a doubt, the ad tech space is full of promise – new capabilities, greater efficiencies and deeper audience insights. But, I think Joanna is missing the underlying concerns that publishers have with ad tech and why it feels like we’re reaching a breaking point.

Premium publishers are trying to create a premium experience for consumers: one that is clean, well-lit and where they will visit often and engage for the long-term. Part of creating this premium experience is ensuring that consumers feel safe and that they can trust the environment. One factor that impacts consumer trust is understanding when and why data about them and their online behavior is collected – a fairly significant challenge for publishers to fully understand themselves.

It may seem as if understanding how all of their third party partners are collecting and using data about audiences that visit their sites should be easy, especially when data collection and use restrictions can be baked into contracts. But, contracts only go so far. Some third parties have take-it-or-leave-it terms of use, others are simple start-ups that don’t operate on contracts at all, and some third parties reject any limitations out of hand. There’s also the huge challenge of trying to enforce the terms of a contract down the daisy chain of all of the third parties… and their third parties. It begins to feel like a never ending game of whack-a-mole!

Here at DCN, we’ve written a lot about trust in the last 12 months: Trust between advertisers and publishers. Trust between advertisers and consumers. Trust between publishers and audiences. There is increasing and overwhelming evidence that these relationships are under great strain. Advertisers are understandably outraged that large percentages of their ad campaigns are being “seen” by non-human traffic. Consumers continue to turn on DNT signals, increasingly turning to blunt tools like ad blocking software.  And this problem is only on the rise. Just this week,  it was reported that Ad blocking grew by 41% globally in the last 12 months meaning that there a whopping 198 million active adblock users around the world.

We couldn’t agree more with Joanna’s point that, at their best, “ad technologies are tools that can make buying and selling smarter, faster and better.” So yes, we agree with Joanna that programmatic is a fast-moving rocket that digital companies are and should be jumping on. But her qualifier – “if used effectively” – is the crucial point. What does “using effectively” entail? We can’t afford to be blind to the impact of “ineffective use” by third parties. We need to keep our focus on the health of larger digital marketing landscape.

The technologies that underpin the digital delivery of content—from publishers or marketers—must behave transparently and ethically and strive to enhance the customer experience or we will lose the audiences we value most. For the internet to function at its full potential, all of these parties need a foundation of trust built on transparency, choice and fair exchange of value.

Data Security Header
Policy

FCC Wading Into Privacy Matters

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.

Perspectives | Policy | Video

Do You Trust Google to be the Gatekeeper of Your Kids’ Content?

Google’s YouTube for Kids service is getting some attention recently from regulators and policymakers in Washington, DC. The FTC and now Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) are asking questions about how content is selected for YouTube for Kids and how Google helps young viewers understand the difference between content and advertising. It has been alleged that some content is not appropriate for children and that some advertising in or around the content may not be labeled clearly enough for children and their parents.

While Google has a history of innovation, upending old business models and creating new opportunities and experiences via the internet, their “developer mentality” of breaking things to create even better new things may not work the same when it comes to products targeted to kids.

Parents are coming to grips with the fact that their kids have unprecedented access to digital content and experiences. The number of devices and kids’ ability to use them grows exponentially every year. I cannot wait to see where a generation of digitally native kids takes the internet as we know it today. Yet, while there are exciting opportunities to be realized, parents struggle with providing freedom to explore while also setting appropriate limits. At every point they need trusted partners to pave safe paths and to help them protect their children.

youtube_kids_logo_detailA company like Google has not historically had the same relationship with its customers as content creators. Those in the business of creating content, particularly premium publishers, know that their business relies on developing loyal audiences. For some content brands, these relationships have been built with many generations of families. Others are forging new relationships with content consumers.

For content companies, digital has opened up a channel not just to deliver amazing new content experiences, it offers an opportunity to develop richer customer knowledge and offer deeper and more engaging content experiences. As much as ever, these relationships are built on trust. And frankly, when it comes to content for kids, these trust-based relationships with brands are incredibly valuable.

Google needs to ensure that only kid-appropriate content is flagged for inclusion in YouTube for Kids and they must be careful to clearly label advertising to ensure that it is equally appropriate for these audiences.  Allowing parents to flag inappropriate content or advertising doesn’t seem to be enough for a product that is directed at kids. To be sure, the old rules for kids programming on TV may not be quite right for the Internet, so it is incumbent upon Google to find ways to ease parents’ concerns and to educate and protect young audiences. That’s the role that trusted brands have held for decades.

Trust Type Image
Perspectives | Policy

Bulk Surveillance Needs to Be Checked and Balanced

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

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

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)

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.

 

Perspectives | Policy

Hidden Tracking Undermines Consumer Trust

The recent revelation that healthcare.gov was sending highly personal data about consumers to third parties highlighted two important ways that consumer trust is undermined.

One, healthcare.gov needs to be a far better steward of the direct relationship they have with consumers. Rightfully, consumers have an expectation that websites and services will protect their sensitive data and certainly not recklessly broadcast that data to the world.

Second, there needs to be greater transparency and controls for consumers around what data is being collected and used by third parties. Some companies have a presence on a website simply to help that website operate. See the well-written reaction from Tony Haile at Chartbeat  http://blog.chartbeat.com/2015/01/22/chartbeat-healthcare-gov-personal-information/.

The role of some third parties, however, is far less clear or even apparent to an average consumer. Revelations like this one with healthcare.gov highlight the need for a more effective and simple tool for consumers to express choice over how their data is collected and used. Given the explosion in the complexity and capability of the Internet and the different relationships that consumers have with various companies on the web, it is more important than ever for industry to develop a reasonable Do Not Track (DNT) standard that will give consumers a meaningful choice over how their data is collected and used by companies with which they have no relationship.

Read more here:

http://news.yahoo.com/privacy-concerns-over-governments-health-082334975.html;_ylt=A0LEVjYvMb9UJSEAf1wlnIlQ

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.