President Obama’s Plan to Destroy Advertising, Marketing, the Internet and All Other Forms of Digital Life

President Obama

President Obama

The Obama administration has called for the creation of a Privacy Policy Office to assist in developing an Internet “privacy bill of rights.” The U.S. Commerce Department’s report stopped short of asking directly for privacy legislation. But it is recommending a “framework” to protect people from data collectors.

Just the name of this new office, “Privacy Policy Office,” should be enough to scare any future-thinking marketer half to death. And sadly, there is no reason to be optimistic about what this office might recommend or how the Leadership will respond.

After all, under what circumstances would you think it was OK to be watched? The answer for everyone is going to be, “There are NO circumstances where I would be willing to be watched.” And, if there is a circumstance under which you might agree to be watched, the data collected from whatever behaviors you exhibit will be useless – because people behave differently when they know they are being watched.

And that’s just speaking about real-time/online data. If you were asked, you probably would not agree to have your financial or medical data collected and aggregated. When a credit-reporting agency creates a profile based upon your bill-paying habits, it is really of no benefit to you. You might argue that “good” citizens could be separated from “bad” citizens if such data were to be analyzed … but the reality is that any minor mistake with the handling of that data will almost always inure to your detriment. So why allow it to be used at all. Your data is yours … it is much easier just to say, “no thank you … I prefer my privacy, please.”

Now, the data that online advertising and marketing folks like to aggregate and analyze are data that illustrate how you behave and interact with your connected world: what you watch, what you click, what you don’t click, where you are, who or what you are near, etc. If asked, who, in their right mind, would agree to be watched? I wouldn’t. And, I know it’s perfectly safe … or is it?

Cisco’s Retriever software sits inside of every Scientific Atlanta and Cisco set-top box in the United States. It knows exactly what channel the box is tuned to and for how long. Yes, Cisco (more accurately, your cable television provider) “knows” exactly what you watch. They know it in a way that Nielsen Media Research never will. They know what “you” personally watch. Not people like you, not households, not demographics … you!

If you are watching soft-core porn on Cinemax at 2:00am as opposed to Ice Road Truckers or something on NatGeo … they know. If you have pix-in-pix going with Showtime and Science Channel at the same time … they know.

If you click on an American Express ad on a Turner non-news site, like NASCAR.com and then visit another Turner site like PGA.com, they will show you a follow-up ad. Why? Because … they know.

If you send a Gmail to a friend about fly fishing, then search a few sites on the same subject … they really know!

Who are “they?” At the moment, “they” are a bunch of extremely large log files with aggregated data of millions and millions of users that are parsed by software attempting to figure out how to serve you the most relevant advertising and content. This actually does have a benefit for you and for the businesses that are aggregating the data. You get computer help sorting out the overwhelming amount of information that is available in the Information Age and the businesses get computer help sorting out how to allocate their advertising dollars.

Additionally, you get the benefit of seeing the kind of content that you are most likely to enjoy.

The Administration, the Leadership and every ambitious politician will tell you that all of this comes at a terrible cost. Although, no one can give even one concrete example of how using data to drive relevant content to a consumer has ever hurt anyone in any way. But, why confuse this issue with facts. It’s much easier to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)!

If you truly spy on people, you will get accurate data. After all, if you don’t know you are being watched, you just do life as it actually happens. On the other hand, if you tell people that they are being “watched,” which is not exactly accurate, but is a great shorthand way to scare the hell out of everyone — they will “act” for whoever is watching. This renders the data all but useless.

“They.” Who ever “they” are? “Watched.” I wonder who is “watching?” These are terribly scary, unfortunate terms that everyone is going to interpret as evil.

The war on data-driven creative and advertising has started. Because this is a complex issue, it is being thrown into the same bucket with the data collectors who want to inform insurance companies that you have a genetic defect and should render you uninsureable.

Because this issue is so complex and, because privacy is such an emotional subject, there is a real danger that the data needs of the advertising and marketing industry will get caught in the crossfire. In fact, there is a real possibility that it will become a target in-and-of itself.

This is a real emergency! It is time for the advertising and marketing business to start to advertise and market itself. The brand brief is simple: Make data-driven content acceptable to the American people and make the politicians look stupid for trying to scare everyone about Big Brother when they should be concentrating on securing our actual privacy. If we don’t get this one right, the data-driven advertising business probably has less than a year to live. Let’s get it right! Shelly Palmer

[widgets_on_pages]

Author:

Shelly Palmer

Shelly Palmer is Fox 5 New York's On-air Tech Expert (WNYW-TV) and the host of Fox Television's monthly show Shelly Palmer Digital Living. He also hosts United Stations Radio Network's, Shelly Palmer Digital Living Daily, a daily syndicated radio report that features insightful commentary and a unique insiders take on the biggest stories in technology, media, and entertainment. He is Managing Director of Advanced Media Ventures Group, LLC an industry-leading advisory and business development firm and a member of the Executive Committee of the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (the organization that bestows the coveted Emmy® Awards).

  • Jakob Trollback

    You are forgetting the “by the people for the people” foundation of our government. Our president is not elected to serve advertisers and marketers.

    I marvel at the convenience I get from interacting with a network of services that “knows” me. But should I automatically trust that all this data is, and will always be, safe-guarded by good people? When a totalitarian regime, think russia or china, collect the kind of data you talk about – what we watch and buy – Americans violently oppose the invasion of privacy. But here, when the same data instead is collected by privately held commercial interests, we should just say ok? The business interests are incredibly powerful in america, and what you should be afraid of is a day when all checks and balances are gone.

    Nobody gets happy from consuming stuff. It may be a good vehicle for driving prosperity, but the true benefits are not measured in iPhones but in a rewarding job, affordable living, good health care and time to spare for your friends and family. And this quality of life, not kowtowing to business interests, is the true spirit of “We, the people” that our president and our government must serve.

    As for us businessmen, we’ll just have to deal with those pesky little restrictions that comes with the idea and benefits of democracy.

  • Pingback: Terry Heaton’s PoMo Blog » Blog Archive » Getting it right (behavioral tracking)

  • Sean

    This itself will probably lead to me getting emails from your site, but oh well. The bottom line of this situation is that monitoring and giving us tailored ad content limits our right to choose because we’re only getting what advertisers think that we will like. I am not a fan of the monitoring that goes on but tolerate it because online work has become somewhat of a necessity. If this proposal limits that privacy issue and at the same time helps to somewhat weaken the necessity of the Internet in a professional sense, then this proposal SHOULD pass. The rights of people takes priority over the rights of an advertising firm or tv service. Period. End of discussion.

    • http://www.jonathanmacdonald.com Jonathan MacDonald

      Absolute truth from Sean:

      “The rights of people takes priority over the rights of an advertising firm or tv service. Period. End of discussion”

  • http://www.democraticmedia.org Jeff Chester

    Mr. Palmer should know better–that public interest rules are always required to ensure that the telecommunications and media business operate more in the public interest. In the case of online data collection, tracking and targeting–especially in the financial, health and other sensitive sectors–a democratic society requires individuals to be in as much control as possible. The online marketing and publishing industry will prosper very nicely after some privacy rules are enacted (Mr. Palmer offers excellent examples of set-top box and other data profiling techniques that require safeguards). Neither the Obama Adm. or the FTC are opposed to data targeting–indeed, they want to help the online ad industry in a number of ways (such as addressing how US online marketing companies can expand globally). But what’s needed is some balance. Rather that let online data collectors run rampant, policymakers are asking how can the system work to everyone’s benefit. Rather than exclaiming the data sky is falling, we should all be working to craft an online ad and publishing environment that supports diversity, economic growth and democratic values.

  • http://www.jonathanmacdonald.com Jonathan MacDonald

    Hi Shelly

    I think it’s interesting how the most recent silver bullet in advertising and marketing is in advanced methods of collecting our most private information.

    Many believe, as you have stated, that: “If you truly spy on people, you will get accurate data”.

    Although you write it here in the context of user acceptance – there are those who would read the words as a promise and head forth into behavioural targeting bliss.

    To those, the ‘accurate data’ holds promise that advertising can be more targeted and thus more effective. These, I suspect, are the same people who mistake a click for a potential purchase, and an actual purchase with a positive thought of the product or service.

    Even with ‘true spying’ I would refute total accuracy as serendipity is more capable than any human or technology. But that’s for another day. The larger point is what the cost of spying actually is? Not the benefit or supposed lifeblood to advertisers et al…but the citizen cost.

    And that cost is trust.

    It’s a timely article to publish in this of all months, which I personally see as even more justification of a world where our trust of companies and organisations, as users/consumers/customers, can only come from those companies and organisations respecting citizen privacy, preceded with credibility, authenticity, consistency and positive interactions.

    Spyware or other less salacious terminology and methodology does not fall into any of the above states.

    However, the promise still lives strong in the minds of those who attempt to short cut this, claim their technology is totally undetectable, or worse, claim that people don’t care about their own privacy anymore.

    Although millions of people on networks like Facebook seem to be carefree (or careless) with their own information, I wonder whether that provides reasoning or prediction of what the future may look like.

    What this boils down to is this:

    What if the most private information is the most valuable?

    Do you:

    A: Find even more subtle ways of getting it whilst keeping an increasingly suspicious public at bay?

    Or:

    B: Put citizen’s privacy under their own control in an honest and decent way?

    If the answer is B, then people’s private information can only be gathered upon their permission which is therefore mandatory for understanding preference (which enables us to commercially communicate more effectively).

    Now – looking back at the headline-grabbing title of your piece “President Obama’s Plan to Destroy Advertising, Marketing, the Internet and All Other Forms of Digital Life”, it would seem the thesis is that forming some form of ‘privacy bill of rights’ will somehow destroy commercial and digital communication.

    I would predict that such a bill, without knowing all the content, may limit the actions of those who wish to spy on people. And I would also predict that such a bill may promote a more humane way of communicating with potential or prospective customers.

    That would be a blessing, if it was to be the case.

  • Bola Rotibi

    I think you raise an important point Shelly in your article but I worry that you are not also party to the FUD that you talk about. Many systems today are able to record and monitor incredible amounts of data and look directly into the packets of communication information that get transmitted through the networks. Companies have access to this data today and whilst most use it strictly for business purposes and follow self policing governance rules, there may come a time that some will over step the line.

    As many of the commentators have already pointed out, privacy is important and it is vital that the individual has control of their data. But more important are the checks and balances to ensure that there is no ambiguity in what is done with the data that is collected without one’s direct knowledge. It is really about ensuring the foundations for trust are built on solid ground.

    So yes I do believe it will be important to have some form of legislation to ensure that our basic rights are maintained and that all know what can be done with the data and what can be seen. Why should it be any different for the online marketing and advertising community than it is for banks and other financial institutions who can collect equally sensitive data about one’s behavioral habits.

  • gregorylent

    the up-side of advertisers and marketers losing this data …. and no one talks about it …. it is limiting the effects of confirmation bias and social fragmentation that would result from all this targeting.

  • http://justincaron.com justin

    The internet was founded with the intention of being free, open, un-censored and public. what happened?

    • http://www.cbasservices.com Robert

      Information is power – Simon Fraser University on Canada already has a massive monitor of what we, as in everyone in Canada with an IP address, says and does online as part of a “research project” (Canadian reader here). Now if you think control of the internet is bad – just wait until we are all on “the cloud”. Can you say — “All your packets belong to us”

      Unfortunately people do not understand what they are freely giving away for the sake of convenience.

      Cheers and thnks for the article.

  • janine

    I can see no way in which destroying advertising and marketing would make the world or Internet a worse place. Nothing would make me happier than to never be pandered to by an advertiser ever again. Advertising is one of the biggest wastes of money and resources next to political campaigning and blockbuster films, imho.