Online Tracking, No Thanks

As independent-minded consumers, Internet users have no interest in being tracked by online advertisers, based on the findings of a recent Gallup poll.

Major marketers such as AT&T are increasingly tracking users' habits on the Web so they can better deliver specific ads to specific kinds of people, according to AdAge.com.

The practice, known as behavioral targeting, has come under a renewed government scrutiny, specifically by the Obama administration and the Federal Trade Commission.

Asked if advertisers should be allowed to match ads to people's specific interests based on other websites they've previously visited, a clear majority of 67% said no, compared with 30% who said yes.

Marketers defending behavioral targeting argue, in part, that the public might not understand how much this advertising fuels free websites.

“Because there's been so much scare-mongering, people have been frightened about behavioral advertising,” says John Montgomery, chief operating officer of GroupM Interaction, a unit of WPP. “People are now equating it to something more pernicious.’’

What We Do

As a FREE subscription blog, WMB uses Google Analytics to determine which topics trend higher in viewership.

For example, our posts on stem cell research are the all-time “hit” leaders for WMB, and we introduced ChinaWatch, a weekly news digest, based on perceived growing interest in our nation's chief economic competitor.

WMB has Google advertising that “reads” our post content to help customize ads you may or may not be interested in seeing. We do not share your e-mail addresses or seek third-party sponsors (disclaimers are in the blog sidebar).

We offer this disclosure to assure you this blog’s two authors, free-lance writer Ken Cocuzzo and TechMan (tag name for employment reasons), respect and value your privacy as much as our own.

Gov't As Watchdog

The Obama administration and the FTC recently issued reports on the need for the industry to better regulate how advertisers track and target people online.

A recent U.S. Commerce Department report suggests creating a “privacy bill of rights” as well as a privacy policy office that would work with the FTC, the President, and other government bodies to protect online consumer privacy.

“America needs a robust privacy framework that preserves consumer trust in the evolving Internet economy while ensuring the Web remains a platform for innovation, jobs, and economic growth.

“Self-regulation without stronger enforcement is not enough. Consumers must trust the Internet in order for businesses to succeed online,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says.

Do Not Track

The FTC suggests the implementation of a “Do Not Track” mechanism (modeled after the national Do Not Call list targeting telemarketers) that would sit on web browsers and monitor which advertisers can and cannot keep track of people, based on their preferences.

Opponents of a Do Not Track list say it could dramatically decrease the effectiveness of online targeted, or behavioral, advertising.

“Despite some good actors, self-regulation of privacy has not worked adequately and is not working adequately for American consumers,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz says. “We deserve far better from the companies we entrust our data to, and industry as a whole needs to do a far better job.”

The FTC will make policy recommendations and “take action” against companies that violate consumer privacy, “especially when children and teens are involved,” Leibowitz says.

Microsoft and Mozilla, makers of the Internet Explorer and Firefox web browsers, say they are working on a “Do Not Track” feature.

Microsoft recently introduced a function for the latest version of Explorer that lets users build lists of sites with which they don't want to share information.

The industry has a self-regulatory plan in place, called About Ads, which released its opt-out form a few weeks ago. GroupM, for one, plans to offer the program's opt-out icon to its list of around 200 clients which rely on behavioral targeting.

The Final Say

While WMB generally does not favor U.S. government regulation of the Internet, we do believe in consumer privacy protection.

This much is certain: We cannot depend completely on industry self-policing, and consumers deserve the final say in how much they reveal online.

 Ken Cocuzzo

A Green Planet Takes Work

You want to go green and buy environment-safe products, but the labeling and packaging does nothing except confuse and mislead you? Help may be on the way for marketers and consumers who want to make and save money, respectively, while helping the planet.

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed revisions to the “Green Guides” that it gives marketers to help them avoid making misleading environmental claims. The changes are intended to update the guides and make them easier for companies to understand and use.

The proposals include new directions on marketers’ use of product certifications and seals of approval, “renewable energy” claims, “renewable materials” claims, and “carbon offset” claims. The FTC is seeking public comment on the changes until Dec. 10, and then the agency will decide which proposals to make final.

“In recent years, businesses have increasingly used ‘green’ marketing to capture consumers’ attention and move Americans toward a more environmentally friendly future. But what companies think green claims mean and what consumers really understand are sometimes two different things,” says FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “The proposed updates to the Green Guides will help businesses better align their product claims with consumer expectations.”

Leibowitz hits on some valid points, especially when he makes a distinction between the wording of claims on a product and how the public interprets the meaning. As a former journalist in search of facts, not fiction, I can appreciate the FTC’s efforts toward eliminating confusion by consumers and deceptive advertising by marketers.

The Green Guides were first issued in 1992, and revised in 1996 and 1998, to help marketers ensure the claims they make are true and substantiated. The guidance includes: 1) general principles that apply to all environmental marketing claims; 2) how consumers are likely to interpret particular claims and how marketers can substantiate these claims; and 3) how marketers can qualify their claims to avoid deceiving consumers.

Proposed Revisions To The Guides

The revised guides caution marketers not to make blanket, general claims that a product is “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” because the FTC’s consumer perception study confirms such claims are likely to suggest the product has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. Very few products, if any, have all the attributes consumers seem to perceive from such claims, making these claims nearly impossible to verify.

The proposed guides also caution marketers not to use unqualified certifications or seals of approval – those that do not specify the basis for the certification. The guides more prominently state that unqualified product certifications and seals of approval likely constitute general environmental benefit claims, and they advise marketers that the qualifications they apply to certifications or seals should be clear, prominent, and specific.

Next, the proposed revised guides advise marketers how consumers are likely to understand certain environmental claims, including that a product is degradable, compostable, or “free of” a particular substance. For example, if a marketer claims that a product that is thrown in the trash is “degradable,” it should decompose in a “reasonably short period of time” – no more than one year.

Christopher Cole, an advertising-law specialist and partner with the law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips in Washington, says the guides could render most of the more than 300 environmental seals of approval now on packaging and products largely useless and possibly in violation of FTC standards.

Cole says they could also influence efforts, seemingly stalled, by retailers such as Walmart to institute a sustainability-rating system for products, according to Ad Age.

“The headline issue is going to be no more unqualified green claims,” Ad Age quotes Cole. “…You’re not going to be able to say ‘eco-friendly’ without saying … ‘based on the ability to recycle it.’ …That’s going to change practices a lot.”

Your Comments Can Change Things

The FTC is seeking public comment on all aspects of its proposal. Examples include:

•How should marketers qualify “made with renewable materials” claims, if at all, to avoid deception?

•Should the FTC provide guidance concerning how long consumers think it will take a liquid substance to completely degrade?

•How do consumers understand “carbon offset” and “carbon neutral” claims? Is there any evidence of consumer confusion concerning the use of these claims?

WMB believes talk is cheap and results are what really count. The FTC is trying to strike a balance that allows for fair marketing of products and consumer awareness of the products they choose to use. Knowledge is power, and competition can handle the rest of the equation.

If you care about saving the planet, this public comment period by the agency represents an excellent way to help government help us. Sure, it’s easy to whine about how “things never change,” but WMB believes reform begins with all our active involvement.

If you took the time to read this post (and WMB's earlier one on "Going Green" requiring trust), why not spend a few minutes more and check out the FTC’s website links? These Green Guides are key steps in the right direction, your tax dollars truly at work in the form of a government agency doing its job.

As for me, I practice what I preach at writenowworks.com. If you like this post, please share it with family, friends and colleagues!