Big Brands and Adware

I’ve discussed before how privacy/spyware concerns are going to restrict behavioral targeting related spending by big, well known brands.

This might be the first step in that process. From the article:

THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S efforts against adware have so far focused on the supply side by filing lawsuits against companies that unlawfully install ad-serving software. Now, one agency commissioner says it might be time to target demand, by naming the big brands that use adware to market their products.

“A little shaming here might go a long way towards protecting consumers’ safety and privacy,” said the FTC’s Jonathan Leibowitz

It is important to note that this effort is not just associated with Spyware, but with any behavioral targeting technology:

Walter Mossberg, tech columnist for The Wall Street Journal ,went even further — condemning not just adware and spyware, but also cookies placed on consumers’ computers by ad-serving and analytics companies that he said “are under the delusion that it’s okay to force their way into our computers for advertising, marketing and research purposes.”

Stop Badware

From today’s SJ Mercury News:

A coalition of academics, consumer advocates and technology firms is taking aim at malicious software, launching a site today that it hopes will help protect consumers and place software makers under the harsh glare of scrutiny.

The Stop Badware Coalition said it intends to shine a spotlight on companies that trick Internet users into downloading programs that steal personal information, launch unwanted ads and spread computer viruses.

The effort is being run by Harvard University’s Berkman Center and the Oxford Internet Institute, with help from Consumer Reports. Technology companies Google, Lenovo and Sun Microsystems are providing undisclosed funding for the multi-year, multimillion-dollar project.

“I wish we were getting a handle on this problem, but I think it’s pretty substantial,” said Vint Cerf, Google’s Internet evangelist, about the malicious software problem. “There’s an uneasy feeling that going online is risky.”

Check them out at www.stopbadware.org.

Regulating Marketing Delivery

Eric Goldman has a great overview of the state of “Regulating Marketing Delivery” on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Definitely worth reading.

iTunes Spyware

Apple is getting into a little trouble with their new iTunes release:

From Kirkville: “Yesterday’s update to iTunes 6.0.2 comes with a surprise: it’s spyware and adware. … Apple has overstepped its limits, and this spyware (because it sends information to a server) and adware (because it displays information to attempt to sell you products) is a very serious breach of the trust I have long had in Apple’s products.”

Perhaps more troubling than the actual activity is the way that Apple has done it. From Boing-Boing: “As Marc at Since1968 points out, there’s no language in Apple’s privacy policy that addresses this specific behavior.”

That, for me, is the heart of the matter. In order to make good on the promise of ever better personalization, and to help consumers improve their Return on Attention, you need to collect information about them. If Apple were upfront about this, and provided a clear and easy way for people to either opt-in or opt-out (opt-in is better), this would never have become an issue. Interested consumers would have embraced the new feature, the same way they have embraced Attention Recorder.

Problems only arise when you violate consumers’ trust and take their privacy lightly.

Cookies Seen as Privacy Threat

From AdWeek :

“Well over half of users believe Internet tracking cookies invade their privacy, according to a new poll.

In a survey of 150 Internet users, 64 percent said cookies represent an invasion of their privacy. The poll was conducted by online ad network Blue Lithium, which recruited participants through banner ads.”

I haven’t seen the details yet (and recruiting via banner ads does not seem terribly sound and that is a small sample size. But I digress…). But the Behavioral Advertising folks everywhere should continue to be worried. Cookies have been around a long time (“The Blue Lithium survey… found 83 percent of respondents claim they are familiar with cookies”), and rightly or wrongly, consumers still have concerns. Unless the industry figures out a way to make more people comfortable with this, they are at serious risk for a backlash and/or regulation.

This is also going to continue to be a large roadblock for brand advertisers. As a friend at P&G told me a little while ago, it is just too risky when consumer sentiment is so negative.

Spyware litigation

For those interested, Eric Goldman’s blog provides a great overview of Adware and Spyware related legal issues.

Google and Spyware

Niall Kennedy has a very good article on “Google’s total information awareness potential”. His basic premise: “Google is already well on its way to building an information awareness network on its own sites as well as the sites of hundreds of thousands of willing webmasters and millions of desktop clients.”

This is not a new issue. John Battelle discussed the potential a while back but Niall goes into more detail about Google’s current status. And, Google is not the only one trying to build this potential – see Kandoodle’s latest activities, also described by Niall.

The issue that Niall doesn’t address is that of privacy. Most consumers/users do not really know that Google is collecting all that information. And, once they do realize it, how will they like the fact that they have it and are using it? Will there be a user backlash? A regulatory backlash?

Personally, I think that the backlash will start with advertisers. Why, you ask? Well, it is true that advertisers stand to benefit from this. Consumers are getting harder to reach, and Google’s Total Information Awareness would advertisers realize the Holy Grail of “One to One Marketing” – boosting marketing ROI. So what’s not to love?

The backlash. More specifically, the threat of a backlash. Advertisers will be wary to embrace something that has the potential to generate a lot of negative buzz. All it takes is a couple of well placed and well known examples, and advertisers will get scared away. Not the SMB folks currently advertising on Google, but the large brand advertisers that are going to be the engine of growth.

Already, there are some pieces of the backlash starting. Liz Lawley talks about her attempt to prevent Google’s information gathering by using GoogleAnon.

The future, I think, is actually the opposite of these data collection schemes. It is Permission Marketing – the idea that companies should allow consumers to opt-in to the types of messages they want. Not spy on consumers and give them what you think they want. Ask them what they want, and let them choose what they would like to see. This idea is supported by none less than P&G, one of the largest advertisers in the world and arguably the best.

Groups like AttentionTrust are leading the way in online Permission Marketing. Everyone should watch to see how AttentionTrust continues to evolve.