Privacy Shmivacy

Today marked the first time I encountered (or noticed) one of the IAB ads from its "Privacy Matters" campaign. Launched back in December, the goal of the program is to "to educate consumers and provide them with the resources to help them manage their privacy online."

Accompanying the ads is "an information-rich website where consumers can... engage in conversation about their privacy concerns."

Now, I don't know about you, but the only place I've seen people engage in conversation about their privacy concerns en masse is on Facebook via threads related to the latest effort by the social media giant to "extend the social graph" by sharing personal information with little-to-no advance notification and a mere opt-out.

Of course, the data collection, sharing, and targeting practices of IAB members are also opt-out but seldom (if ever) involve personally-identifiable information. Alas, the call to action to "engage in conversation" has produced a grand total of 16 comments to date on the IAB Privacy Matters website.

Google, for its part, took a different tact when it launched Interest-based advertising. For the most part, it avoids using the words "behavioral" and "targeting" altogether. Instead it suggests that its platform makes ads more "relevant" and "useful." I believe I called this approach putting lipstick on a pig.

My personal take? All the campaigning, notifications and wordplay in the world can't change the fact that the reason people don't like behaviorally (or otherwise) targeted ads is because they know someone's getting rich off their data and it ain't them.

As I said before, let's stop educating people about privacy (or even policing it) and just pay them!

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the IAB and its members for doing something to educate the public and keep the vocal minority from becoming a vocal majority. That said, I think we need pop the pig open and see if it squeals rather than just making it over.

Google Interest-Based Advertising: You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig...

Today Google rolled out its Behavioral Targeting platform disguised as Interest-Based Advertising. Will chanding the name from the creepy to the altrustic make a difference?

Hey Joe Consumer, we're not going to track your behavior and show you ads based on what big brother was watching you do. We're simply going to "associate categories of interest — say sports, gardening, cars, pets — with your browser" so you can start "seeing ads about the things that interest you." Now isn't that Googley?!

Of course, Google is going to great lengths to make sure consumers don't get spooked. Each ad will be clearly labeled with a link to learn more about Google's ad serving policies. And they've built something called Ads Preferences Manager, which lets you modify your "interests." Finally, they've created a browser plug-in that (re)enforces your opt-out.

OK, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times -- Don't Police Privacy, Just Pay People! While I applaud the steps Google has taken to inform and protect, none of this would be necessary if advertisers just paid consumers directly for viewing their ads. Why should Google and all the media publishers profit from advanced ad targeting? (I know, I know... it's the quid pro quo for all the great, free content they put out and/or search technologies they provide.) But there's going to come a point where consumers just won't tolerate behavioral targeting because, no matter how nicely you dress it up, it's still a pig.

Don't Police Privacy, Just Pay People!

In case you've been under a rock the past couple weeks, there's been quite the uproar over online privacy in the press.

On Feb. 4, Facebook announced changes to its terms of service including its data retention policy, which the Consumerist interpreted as Facebook basically saying, "We can do whatever we want with your content. Forever." This prompted some indsutry "watchdogs" to ask, "Is Facebook really using its new terms of service to own your data?"

Sure enough, one week later, Mark Zuckerberg caved to the pressure and reverted back to the old terms while it sorts out this mess.

Meanwhile, the FTC put out a 55-page report on "Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising." Many privacy "advocates" say that these guidelines are not sufficient -- Wendy Davis at Media Post has a nice recap of the debate.

Then, a couple days ago, came word that mobile network operators in the UK are going to be selling behavioral data to advertisers. This, no doubt, will set off a firestorm among the populace across the pond.

Why does everyone keep missing the boat here? The way to get consumers comfortable with sharing their data with marketers is not by changing terms of service, imposing self-regulation of opt-in/outs or unilaterally deciding to sell it to advertisers.

As I proved in my Highly Targeted experiment, the best (dare I say, only?) way to get people to part with their beloved data is to pay them for it. There is no quid pro quo in sharing data to receive targeted advertising. People don't want targeted advertising. Sure, if they're going to get bombarded with ads anyway, they'd prefer they be relevant but they'd really rather get no ads at all.

I can think of no better economic stimulus plan than paying consumers for sharing their data. Who needs a one-time tax break when you could be pocketing $20+ a month for looking at targeted ads?

Allow me to show my work...

There are roughly 240 million people over the age of 14 in the U.S. And there is about $3.3 billion spent on advertising each month in the U.S. (for the top 10 categories not including Internet or B2B ad spending). Add in the $1.6 billion spent on online advertising in the U.S. each month and you're looking at $4.9 billion it total U.S. monthly ad spend (again, not including traditional ad dollars from categories outside the top 10 and B2B).

If we cut out the media companies and gave those dollars directly to consumers in exchange for viewing (and rating) ads, every person over the age of 14 in the U.S. could net a minimum of $20 per month in perpetuity.

Forget a CTO, the Obama administration needs a Chief Advertising Officer. Hey Barry, call me!

Tip of the Day

Every quarter, the Resolution Media management team reads a book as a framework for discussion and goal-setting at an all-day offsite. This time around, the pick was Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point, a book I'd been wanting to read for some time.

When I first got my copy of the book and saw the subheadline, "How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference," I knew it was right up my alley -- mind you, this was after I had written the post "Little Things That Make a Big Difference."

Not surprisingly, many of my RM colleagues had difficulty connecting Tipping Point to their day-to-day business lives. After all, it wasn't a straight-forward business book like some others we had read -- Good to Great, The Breakthrough Company, The Ultimate Question, etc. I saw a number of direct applications though.

Sticky is as Sticky Does

In one of his many “case studies, ”Gladwell shows the great lengths the producers of Sesame Street and Blue's Clues went to when researching their target audience and manipulating different variables in their shows to make them more engaging. Sesame Street did A/B testing around where on the screen the letters should appear (and found that the key was to put them close to the characters as that's where kids' attention was). Blue's Clues ran focus groups to see what level of repetition would help ingrain the lessons in children (and found that running the same program five days in a row was the answer).

Not much different than the way we should be approaching digital marketing programs. Test everything as you never know what little difference will drive that connection with the consumer. With today's technology tools, A/B and multivariate testing on landing pages has never been easier. Ditto for creative testing.

Technology, Social Media and Epidemics

Speaking of technology, it's amazing how far we've come in the 9 years since Gladwell first published this book. Back then there was no such thing as Google trends, so the fact that researchers were able to draw parallels between the spread of syphilis in Baltimore and the change of the seasons was quite remarkable (while also being quite the undertaking). Nowadays, Google has products that can help predict flu outbreaks 10 days earlier than the CDC.

As RM's resident Mobile and SEO maven, Bryson Meunier, pointed out yesterday, another key takeaway from the book is the specific factors that can lead to an "epidemic." Gladwell plots out the required conditions for an idea or message to spread rapidly -- and isn't that really the goal of most marketing campaigns? It's all about tapping the "power of the few" -- the mavens, connectors, and salesmen that are critical to achieving viral success -- with a sticky message in the right context.

Now, Gladwell wrote this book long before YouTube, MySpace and Facebook were household names and it was much more difficult to generate viral success via word-of-mouth marketing. Once again, technology -- in this case, social networks -- has changed the game. Today, you can literally map out everyone's 6 degrees of separation and spread the word about big news or a new product faster than it took Paul Revere to saddle up his horse.

But Gladwell's concepts of the power of the few, stickiness, and context are no less relevant. Just ask any marketer that's created a MySpace of Facebook page languishing with a few hundred "friends" or "fans." You still have to identify the folks that are going to most receptive to your message and have the passion, network, and interpersonal communications skills to spread it.

Examples of this are consumer electronics manufactures that send their new products to influential tech bloggers like Malik Om or Michael Arrington in the hopes that they'll like them and blog about them. Or P&G sending samples of new leak-proof Pampers to the mommy blogging briggade. Or companies like BzzAgent that have a network of "early-adopters" to whom they send promo kits and give specific guidance around ways to help spread the gospel. And think about all the mavens (aka "price-vigilantes") that prowl sites like Yelp or Viewpoints, sharing their opinions on people, products, and places.

Links in a Chain

As someone with well over 1,000 connections on LinkedIn and 500+ on Facebook, I really identified with Gladwell's description of Connectors -- "people with a special gift for bringing the world together." He tells the story of Roger Horchow, a Dallas businessman who finds genuine "value and pleasure in a casual meeting."

I can definitely empathize with that sentiment. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason and every person you encounter has a purpose in shaping your life. One of the most formative books I read back in college was The Celestine Prophecy and it speaks to the impact small turns and casual meetings can have and how you should take nothing for granted.

I also believe that the power of one’s network lies in its size. Gladwell calls attention to the “fax effect” -- “Because fax machines are linked into a network, each additional fax machine that is shipped increases the value of all the fax machines operating before it.” In many ways, this is the power of LinkedIn. Each additional connection that I make or my connections make adds to the value of the entire network.

Bullseye Targeting

Gladwell also offers some keen insights into audience segmentation. He notes that "we're friends with the people we do things with, as much as we are with the people we resemble." He points to research showing that "proximity overpowered similarity" when it comes to how we choose our friends.

Think about this in a marketing context. When you're trying to profile your target audience -- the folks that will be most interested in your product/service -- perhaps, it's more wise to focus on a group of "friends" that share similar interests rather than a demographic or geographic segment.

This, of course, is the theory behind behavioral targeting. But Gladwell's insight goes behind the mere BT practices that categorize people who visit luxury travel sites as "upscale travelers." After all, I consider myself an upscale traveler but I've never visited a luxury travel site. This is about targeting me with your message because I'm friends with Jim and he just recently booked a luxury cruise.

There are companies out that offer this type of targeting. One I know well is Media6Degrees. They give marketers the ability to pixel people that convert on your website and then target ads to those people's "friends" based on who they're connected to on MySpace, Facebook, etc. But they go one step further. If you're like me, you have a wide-range of people you're connected with on social networks. Rather than target my entire friend list, they'll pick the 10 friends I'm closest to (my "strong ties”) based on my interactions within the application -- eg, how many times I message them, write on their walls, poke them, etc.

It's the Little Things

The final parallel I drew from the book was the overriding theme of how important the little things are when it comes to reaching a tipping point. When it comes to closing a new piece of business or satisfying a current client/partner/boss, etc. you never know what's going to make it tip.

Looking back at the list I created of “Little Things That Make a Big Difference,” any one of these could be the factor that got you that job, made the sale, impressed your client, etc.

As RM’s new VP of Strategic Partnerships, Tom Kuthy, mentioned at the offsite, the great salesmen that Gladwell covers in the book understand that “non-verbal cues are as or more important than verbal cues.” It’s all about getting face time with colleagues, clients, and partners. One of the little things I recommend is doing away with instant messenger. How can you really get in sync with the other person when you’re both barely paying attention to each other?

Or take another Gladwell observation -- “We all want to believe that the key to making an impact on someone lies with the inherent quality of the ideas we present. But… instead they tipped the message by tinkering, on the margin, with the presentation of the ideas.”

This is what I’m getting at in my post when I talk about naming conventions for files or using headlines as slide titles in presentations. Too often we labor over the content of the deck when the things that can make the biggest difference are the mere packaging of it.

The bottom line is you never know what the difference-maker’s going to be so your best bet is to do them all. There you have it folks -- now go tip off.

The Privacy Lobby

(The privacy lobby, hmm -- sounds like something out of Eyes Wide Shut... the password is Fidelio.)

I just came across this piece in Media Post about a group of privacy advocates that recently met with Obama's FTC transition team to "urge that the government more aggressively regulate the online advertising industry."

One of those advocates, Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection at the Consumer Federation of America is referenced as saying, "her organization was concerned that some consumers could face tangible consequences due to behavioral targeting. For instance, she said, companies could potentially use information gleaned from tracking people online to make different offers to different people."

Stop the presses! Companies could use online data to show different offers to different people!?! We must get the word out! This could be catastrophic. Imagine if all those erectile dysfunction emails were only sent to older men. Of if ads for diapers were only shown to adults with young children. How infuriating would that be!?!

As folks who are hip to my Highly Targeted eBay experiment will know, I believe we need to focus less on protecting consumer's privacy and more on helping them profit from all the data that's available about them online. Rather than spook people with stories of big brother watching, let's show them the value their data offers to marketers such as, gasp... providing different offers to different people.

BlueKai: More Than Just a Pretty Face, er... Consumer Play

Last week I covered BlueKai, a new company that seems to embrace my view of a consumer-controlled data world.

I had the pleasure of catching up with BlueKai CEO, Omar Tawakol, at the OMMA conference in NY on Friday. Omar and I had met when he worked at Medio, a mobile search company. Prior to Medio, Omar was the CMO at Revenue Science, a behavioral targeting firm.

Within a few minutes of talking with Omar, it became clear that the promise of BlueKai was more than helping consumers take a more active role in the data-for-advertising exchange. BlueKai can plug its data into virtually any open-source platform to provide richer data profiles and enable better ad targeting.

Rather than put all its eggs in the consumer basket and scramble to amass a large enough audience to make itself meaningful to advertisers, BlueKai is focusing on large sources of data already available through aggregators such as e-commerce retailers. Tapping these channels, it can deliver proof of concept and create relationships with advertisers and publishers. Once those are established (and the revenue is rolling) BlueKai can turn its attention directly to consumers with its robust and respectful privacy functionality.

Seems like a smart model and Omar has assembled a talented team. Looking forward to watching BlueKai set sail in this blue ocean.

BlueKai: Bridging the Consumer-Marketer Divide

Yesterday, I pointed to the Trans Union Class Action Lawsuit as an undesirable way for consumers to get compensated for sharing their data -- or, more appropriately, having their data shared.

Today, I'd like to turn the spotlight on a company that seems to have found a much more compelling solution.

BlueKai is a company whose goal is "to create a more effective online marketing approach that is driven by intent data and advocacy for consumer participation."

I was turned onto BlueKai by Brian Morrissey of AdWeek via Twitter in response to the links I sent him to my Highly Targeted saga.

At first glance, the BlueKai platform seems to have everything I've been preaching.

Here is their pitch to consumers:
----
"It's all about choice, reward and privacy.

Much like commercials on television, online consumers like you are familiar with receiving messages from marketers in exchange for free or subsidized content across the Internet. While BlueKai has not come up with a solution to eliminate advertising altogether, we've created an anonymous registry of online preferences that helps you manage and control what marketers know about you.

In return, you, the consumer, are rewarded with the 3C's: control, charity, and content.

Control—With the BlueKai registry, you can control and manage your online preferences by selecting or de-selecting topics of interest. Your preferences may be used anonymously to influence which types of marketing messages you receive across partner sites that we work with. Or you can choose to not participate at all. (but we encourage you to read on before you decide!)

Charity—It gets better! When marketers pay to access groups of anonymous listings from the BlueKai registry, you will be rewarded with a credit to donate to the charity of your choice.

Content—By voluntarily sharing your online preferences, you're helping marketers provide polite and relevant marketing to you, while they continue to pay the publishers who manage the websites you frequent. In return, you will continue to reap the benefits of free content that is available across the Internet.

And let's not forget about your privacy concerns

BlueKai's mission is to build the world's most comprehensive registry of online preferences that is diligently dedicated to ensuring your anonymity and privacy. To that end, BlueKai follows these guidelines:

BlueKai does not collect or share personal information such as your name, address, or phone number.

BlueKai does not collect or share sensitive information regarding health, drinking, politics, or adult content.

BlueKai will only share information from your listing regarding your shopping and reading interests. (i.e., interested in cars, interested in air travel, etc.). For example, if you select that you're interested in air travel, BlueKai would update your anonymous profile and you will more likely receive an air travel advertisement across BlueKai partner sites. Remember, although you will always be receiving an ad, this process enables you to receive one that is controlled by you—and thus more suited to your preferences— and gives you an opportunity to donate the proceeds to a charity.

If your privacy settings indicate you don't want to share your anonymous listing—then no marketer will be allowed to access that information from BlueKai.
-----

Just like my Highly Targeted experiment, with BlueKai, all data is non-PII.

Just like my HT endeavor, consumers can control what info is shared. Before I sent my data to the folks that won my eBay auctions, I scrubbed out a few pieces of data that I considered sensitive (individual Facebook profiles I had visited, medicine I had purchased, etc.)

And, just like my HT case, all proceeds go to charity.

Clearly the folks at BlueKai and I are drinking from the same kool aid. However, this last point about all money going to charity leaves me questioning how likely it is consumers will adopt this platform.

While I, for one, was happy to go through the trouble of organizing my data and viewing ads in exchange for helping Susan G. Komen, I don't think the masses will feel the same way -- especially when you consider how wary the general public has become over matters of online privacy and phishing scams.

For people to overcome their skepticism and take the time to manage their data and proactively view ads, there has to be ample reward. In my mind, the only thing that will suffice is $$.

My guess is BlueKai went the charity route to discourage fraud. Anytime you start giving out cash via the web people will create bots and rings to bilk you of that money. By donating the money to charity, there's less incentive for those unscrupulous individuals to put the time and energy into finding ways to game the system.

That said, there has to be a way to create checks and balances to prevent fraud or at least mitigate it such that it doesn't have a significant impact on marketers -- after all, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have been able to do it.

As it happens, BlueKai's CEO is Omar Tawakol, who I met when he was with Medio Systems. I plan to reach out to Omar this week in the hopes that we can reconnect and I can find out more about this platform. Of course, I'll share what I learn here...

Paying Consumers for Data Sharing

I'm back in action after my week with the fam in Nags Head. Surprisingly, I was able to keep my distance from Blogger while on vacation.

As I was digging through my inbox today, I noticed this tidbit from my Grandpa -- who is always good about forwarding jokes, relevant political news, and money-making opportunities (sans the Bill Gates wants to pay you $500 thread -- even he knew that wasn't real.)

Apparently, Trans Union has been hit with a Class Action Lawsuit for selling "lists containing personal and financial consumer information to third parties for marketing purposes."

As readers of this blog know, I'm all for cutting out the middleman and putting cash in consumers' pockets in exchange for sharing their personal information -- although I think that data should be non-personally identifiable -- but a lawsuit settlement is not the way it should go down.

Bottom line, people should be able to monetize their own data without having to sue the companies that are (mis)using it.

Last week, I was tipped off to a company that's developing a product that might enable this. More on them tomorrow.

Score 1 for the Consumer

Yesterday, the Washington Post covered the demise of NebuAd.

If you'll recall, NebuAd was one of the companies I used as an example in my thread building the case for cutting out the middleman in the consumer-marketer data collection-for-advertising exchange.

Per the Post:

"Tech firm NebuAd has put on hold plans to widely deploy an online advertising technology that tracks consumers' every Web click while Congress reviews privacy concerns associated with the technique.

The Silicon Valley company announced this week that founder and chief executive Bob Dykes was resigning. His departure comes as a number of Internet companies have suspended or canceled trials of NebuAd's controversial tracking technique, known as deep-packet inspection, marketed to companies seeking to target ads to Web users."

I hope this deters new entrants trying to build a business off obtaining people's data without their explicit permission and reselling it to publishers and advertisers.

I firmly believe the only model that will work long-term is one that puts consumers in control of their data, allowing them to share what they want with who they want and profit from it -- like I did with my eBay auction.

Highly Targeted = Highy Compensated?

Yesterday, I outed myself as the man, er.... android masquerading as Highly Targeted on eBay last summer.

I was trying to prove out my thesis that putting cash directly in consumers' pockets was the best way to get them comfortable sharing their data and, in turn, deliver "highly targeted" marketing messages to them.

My initial auction drove quite a bit of buzz in the industry.

It was picked up on the Oldtimer's List and AdRants ran the story, "Man Sells Non-Personally Identifiable Information to Marketers on eBay," suggesting that "Consumer Auctions" might be the wave of the future.

iMediaConnection.com also featured a byline by Alan Chapell, "Making Data Integration the Rule," which covered my auction and its implications on the issues of data portability and privacy.

Highly Sought-After

After 1,071 views and 17 bids, my auction finally closed at $355 (which was all donated to Susan G. Komen) with Steve Wax of Campfire Media emerging victorious over Mr. Chapell.

However, rather than target ads to me on behalf of marketers, Steve and the gang at Campfire created a game show using my data to come up with marketing-related questions that I had to answer (anonymously, of course.)

While I had a lot of fun playing around with the Campfire crew, I still did not have a proof of concept. I needed to know if marketers would buy my data for the purposes of serving ads to me and if the non-PII data I was sharing was good enough to make for a mutually beneficial transaction.

It At First You Don't Succeed...

So I listed another auction and this time Chapell was the only bidder, winning my data for the $100 minimum. He then looked to bring more attention to the issues of data privacy with a satirical piece in iMedia. Asking marketers, "Would You Pay $1 For This Man's Data?", Chapell offered to resell my data, clearly violating the terms I had stated in my auction.

Fortunately, no one took Chapell up on his offer but it goes to show how unscrupulous marketers could potentially disrupt even the best laid plans of mice and men, er... androids.

In the end, Chapell never ended up doing anything with my data but, hey, at least the transaction was tax deductible for him!

Third Time's the Charm?

Looking to capitalize on the momentum Chapell built up, I wrote an article of my own for iMedia titled, "Don't Buy My Data Unless It's From Me."

While I was pleased to have raised $455 for Susan G. Komen and excited about the industry buzz, I still did not have my proof of concept. Would a "real" marketer be willing to pay for access to my data? And would they be able to use my non-PII to create effective ads for me?

Tipping the Scale

In the end, my 3rd auction closed with no bids and my 5 minutes of fame, er... anonymity ended.

While I still believe the concept of paying cash to consumers in exchange for their data has legs, the bottom line is that, without scale, there's very little value for marketers.

Why would a marketer shell out $100 or more before seeing my data? That's a big bet to place without knowing if I'm even in their target audience.

I guess I was secretly hoping that an ad network or agency representing a variety of clients might cough over the cashish knowing that, whatever my profile turned out to be, they'd have a marketer that would be a fit.

I think what it came down to was that noone wanted to bother trying to figure out how to interpret consumer data and customize ads accordingly on a one-off basis. Had there been thousands or millions of data profiles like mine available for purchase, it might be a different story.

The lesson here is that, just like with any other emerging digital media play, without the scale to deliver critical mass against a wide swath of consumers, marketers will take a wait-and-see approach. Especially in today's economically-challenged (is that what we're calling it now?) environment.

And Which is the Way That's Clear?

So where do we go from here? Well, now that I've come out of the Highly Targeted closet, I plan to be more vocal about the need to find alternatives to 3rd-party cookie-based targeting platforms.

And I have a few ideas about what those might look like. If you'd like to know more, please contact me.

Sharing The Wealth: The Key To Highly Targeted Marketing

Consumers today have a general mistrust of sharing their data online (whether it be through registration or cookie tracking) because they don't know how that information is being used and they know someone's getting rich off it but it ain't them.

Over the past few days, I've laid the foundation for my hypothesis that cutting out the middlemen from the advertising equation is the best way for marketers to obtain the data needed to successfully target their messages and acquire new customers.

By middlemen, I refer to all the various media and technology companies that collect information about people (whether it be personally-identifiable or not) and broker that data and/or sell ad space to marketers.

Instead, I propose marketers pay consumers directly for their data and the ability to craft highly targeted messages for them.

To see if something like this could fly, 2 questions need to be answered:

1. Will people share their data if directly compensated?
2. Will marketers pay for the ability to get people’s data and show them targeted ads?

Last summer, I decided to see if any marketers would put their money where my mouth is. Under the ghost name “Highly Targeted,” I started an eBay auction offering my data in exchange for cash (which would be donated to Susan G. Komen) and the right to deliver ads to me for 30 days.

Here was the listing...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Item: MY DATA: Non-Personally Identifiable Info for Marketing




Attention Marketers:

Target Ads to Me Based on My Non-Personally Identifiable Information!

It doesn't get any better (or easier) than this... Stop wasting your time trying to guess if I’m in your target audience and what TV shows you can reach me on -- even though I'm in the demo, I don't watch 24. And if I did, I’d tivo through the commercials.

Don’t throw your money away by advertising on billboards, radio stations and bathrooms -- if I’m going to divert my attention from walking, driving, or peeing, it will be to check my Blackberry. Oh, that reminds me…

Forget about advertising on cell-phones -- you thought the backlash from pop-up ads and spam email was bad?

Don’t rely on behavioral or IP data to better target online ads -- all that past web history you have for my home computer? Half of that's my wife’s. And my work PC? I don't live in NYC but that's what my network IP address will tell you. And good luck trying to marry my offline purchases with my other profile data -- remember what happened when DoubleClick bought Abacus back in the day? Besides, that stuff’s just creepy.

Media fragmentation got you down?

Still reeling from the impact of DVR’s, iPods, Do-Not-Call, pop-up and spam blockers?

Well, have I got the answer for you…

I am offering one lucky marketer a treasure trove of my non-personally identifiable information to help you better target ads to me.

Here’s what you’ll get if you win this auction:

-My internet search queries from a recent 30 day period
-My web surfing history from a recent 30 day period
-My online and offline purchase activity from a recent 30 day period
-My Age, Gender, Ethnicity, Marital status and Geo location
-The right to target one ad per day to me for 30 days (now that’s what I call opt-in!)
-Ads can be created in any desired format (video, text, graphic, audio, etc.) but must be delivered via email

Behold the true promise of one-to-one marketing.

But wait, there’s more…

Not only do I certify that I will watch/read/listen to your ads but I will also provide daily feedback as to whether or not the ad appealed to me and if I’d like additional information about the product or service.

Face it, the times they are a changin’ and consumers are in control. It won’t be long before paying consumers to view your ads will be the norm (or at least paying them for the right to access their data). Use me as a beta test to determine how best to target ads based on a variety of non-personally identifiable data.

There’s only one catch -- you must promise to use my data solely for the purpose of targeting advertising over a 30 day period and you must agree not to disclose my data to any 3rd party. That’s not to much to ask, is it?

So how much is all my data actually worth? Let’s start the bidding at $100* and find out. (Did I mention how much disposable income I have? Buy my data and find out just how I’ve spent it in a recent 30 day period. For now, though, let’s just say that I am very brand loyal and have a high lifetime value. )

Buy my data today!

*Note: all proceeds will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow, I’ll reveal the results of the auction and the industry buzz it generated.

IE8: Cookie Monster

The anti-cookie crusade is gaining momentum. Rather than a full blown Do-No-Track initiative, we're starting to see product "enhancements" that make it easier for consumers to opt-out of tracking.

The latest example is Microsoft's IE8 which apparently has an "InPrivate" feature.

Per MediaPost, the next version of Internet Explorer will have "new privacy features that could more readily delete the browsing history and cookies of individual Internet users, making it more difficult for advertisers and publishers to track and serve ads to them."

The article also cites a new Mozilla feature -- "a 'private browsing' tool [that] would offer users greater flexibility in terms of how they adjust their privacy settings."

Juxtapose these developments against the companies racing to find ways to better ways to track and target ads to consumers and the industry seems to be at odds over how to balance consumer privacy with the delivery (and accountability) of relevant marketing messages.

And Microsoft really embodies this struggle. On one hand it's releasing a new feature that allows consumers to easily delete cookies while at the same time fine-tuning an advertising platform that relies on this crucial data to provide targeted placement for marketers.

Readers of this blog will know my POV is that marketers and media owners/aggregators need to cut consumers in on the action and pay them in exchange for sharing their data. Later tonight, I'll share my proof of concept.

Cutting Consumers In On The Action

On Friday, I wrote about the difference between tracking and targeting as it relates to the average consumer's tolerance for data collection and usage in marketing. Basically, my point was that people are generally ok with companies using their data to track performance (it's no different than cashiers asking customers, "How did you hear about us?") but get uncomfortable when that data is used to target them specifically (imagine cashiers asking, "Seeing has how you're a 55-year old woman who bought wrinkle cream last week, may I recommend this collagen treatment?")

Now, many people (primarily those in the marketing industry) would say the latter scenario is not that unfavorable -- people would/should be happy to get more relevant offers in exchange for sharing their data, especially if it's non-personally identifiable.

I disagree.

As far as I'm concerned, there are 2 main reasons people are comfortable sharing their data with you whether it be online or in "the real world."

1. They know you
2. They trust you

It's very rare for a company to be able to check either of those boxes until a person has become an active customer.

Ya Gotta Give To Receive

People are generally willing to share their data (sometimes even personally-identifiable info) for warranties, coupons, discounts, etc. But these tactics typically work better in retention marketing, not acquisition marketing because the consumer knows you and trusts you more once they’ve become a customer.

So how do companies that don't yet have you as a customer and, thus, haven't yet been able to build up any trust get you to give them your data so they can better target their acquisition marketing messages to you?

Well, today, they turn to online media properties and networks who have collected this info and engage in tactics like behavioral targeting.

However, with all the scrutiny being put on these practices by government bodies and the increasingly vocal public outcry, we need to start looking for other methods.

The problem with behavioral targeting as it exists today is that, by and large, people aren't aware it's happening. And when they find out, they get pissed off.

Do You Want the Money or Do You Want the Mob?

So why do we continue to try and find new and innovative ways to leverage 3rd parties (eg, Quividi and NebuAd, which I discussed in my last post) to get people's data and better target ads?

Why don't marketers take their case right to the consumer? And why don't they give them the ultimate incentive to pony up their data?

Cashish. Payola. Dinero.

Let's stop trying to be cute and call it what it is. Me: Marketer. You: Consumer. I need to know who you are to determine if you might like my product. Rather than pay other people to find out who you are and show you my message, I'll pay you directly.

Deal or No Deal?

Is this a viable proposition? Will people part with their data for cold hard cash? Will marketers pay for the right to get people's data in order to better target their ads?

Last summer I did a little experiment to test this out. Tomorrow I'll share the results.

Are Cameras the New Cookies?

I just came across a New York Times article about billboards with cameras that track passersby.

These cameras are trained to detect when people are front of the billboard and analyze their facial features to determine age, gender, even race. In turn, the ad can be tailored to the audience.

Profile Me Not

Somehow the Times manages to find some average Joe consumers willing to go on record saying they don't mind -- "Someone down the street can watch you looking at it -- why not a camera?"

But the vast majority of those polled are creeped out by this practice.

Nonetheless, the fact that some people out there are ok with it will only give hope to companies like the one rolling out these boards. It won't be long before we reach Minority Report state -- remember when Tom Cruise is walking through the mall and the ads are calling out to him by name?

Now, I'm all for making traditional media more accountable but this seems to be crossing the line. I'd much rather see consumer-initiated out-of-home ads where people can interact with the screen and self-profile.

I wonder if people would find this practice more acceptable if the cameras weren't being used to profile people but solely to count traffic?

Tracking vs. Targeting

There's lots of discussion right now about how the ISP's and portals use data collected on the web, especially after the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (can someone please explain to me why those 2 are grouped together?) ordered 33 companies, including Google and Comcast, to provide details about how they are collecting and using personal (and non-personally identifiable) data.

Once again, the Times has good coverage of these developments. It points to a company called NebuAd which is working with the ISPs to gather intelligence on their users and behaviorally target ads to them.

In the early days of the web, tracking software was used solely to measure ad effectiveness (ie, counting impressions, clicks, and sales.) Again, like these new billboards, I wonder if people (and Congress) would be all up in arms with privacy concerns if the technology was only being used to track and not target?

Power to the People

At the end of the day, I don't think it matters how companies use the data they collect -- tracking, targeting, whatever. What matters is if and how they obtain consent from consumers to do it.

Most people today are not creeped out by the fact that a company might know something intimate about them. Heck, everyone and their mother (including mine as of last week) has a Facebook or MySpace profile telling the world their most intimate secrets, er... status updates.

It only becomes creepy when they don't know or aren't asked about how that information is being used. As evidence, look no further than Facebook's debacles rolling out the news feed (which everyone loves now) and Beacon (which will take some time to catch on).

I'm not sure how companies like Quividi (which is behind the billboard cameras) will be able to inform and consent passersby -- something tells me a footnote at the bottom of each board isn't going to cut it. That said, since they're a relatively small company with very few boards, they may be able to get away with it. You can bet the minute Clear Channel rolls something like this out, though, the general public (and Congress) will be all over it like stink on a monkey.

As far as the online ad world goes, most of the behavioral targeting companies have very clear opt-outs and stated privacy policies. And I think consumers are starting to realize the value in having ads that are relevant to them (we can all thank Google for that) as opposed to what they had before -- punch the monkey, smiley central, etc.

However, I staunchly believe the best (and only) policy is a true opt-in. And I'll take it one step further -- it's not enough to get people to opt-in, we have to cut them in. That's right, we have to give them a cut of the action. They know someone's getting rich off these ads -- whether it be the website they're visiting or the advertiser they're seeing, they know someone's making money at their expense.

My solution? Stay tuned...