Marketers, Are You Going OOH With Data? Let Consumers Know Why

Mobile, social, and other digital media are increasingly connected to OOH advertising. One of my pet peeves is that when I’m in my home or office, or out and about, I receive real-time reminders about using my geolocation (really, a proximity). And that’s all they say. Period.

My precise location is here. Well, it was here — when I wrote this.

One of my peeves is that when I’m in my home or office, or out and about, I receive real-time reminders that this application, or that plug-in, or this website, would like to detect and use my geolocation (really, a proximity). And that’s all they say. Period.

It’s most usually a short “push notice” — combined with an “accept,” “allow,” or “OK” button to indicate my consent. Most of the time I click in the affirmative, and move on. But as a consumer, I am sometimes left curious as to why. Which is why I’m frustrated.

Notices: Give Me a Push, With a Reason to Pull

My preference would be for a slightly longer notice explaining why my location would be helpful — for the digital property to induce or invite me to send my acceptance more readily.

  • Is my known location being used to improve my user experience, by unlocking a functionality that is location-dependent?
  • Is it to serve interest-based ads on the site or app that are location-relevant?
  • Is such data shared with anyone else — and if so, why?
  • Is it a combination of these?

Sometimes, the need for geolocation is a seemingly obvious request. To use an app for maps, traffic, weather or news pertinent to my location is certainly agreeable. I get it. But if there are reasons beyond user utility, a consumer ought to know what those other purposes are. And I’m not talking about a paragraph buried in Terms and Conditions or Privacy Policies — as important as those disclosures are.

Take advertising. I actually opt for data collection to enable more relevant ads. I understand why such ads exist — and use far more free services, content, and conveniences that are paid for by sponsors and advertisers, who gain access data about me, than I would otherwise pay for myself. Most Americans — and probably most global citizens — like free stuff and increasingly understand this pragmatic, useful exchange. It just doesn’t need to be behind a curtain. There should be no mystery.

This is where self-regulation (disclaimer, I work for the Digital Advertising Alliance, DAA) and privacy-by-design step in: Just tell me why you want to use it! And let me make an informed decision regarding my consent.

Location Data Has Sensitivity — So Transparency and Choice Must Be Heightened

Location data can be sensitive. Advertising may be a helpful use — but what of stalking, civil rights, employer monitoring, government surveillance? And even advertising has a “no” factor, if an algorithm inadvertently discriminates, or a “creep” concern if you feel you’re being unwittingly followed (that is, your device) around a shopping mall or grocery store. (Even if I get a coupon offer.)

So, if we are — as we should — going to be transparent with a push notice, make it short, sweet — and explain in short copy why it is helpful to consumer experience. It only takes a phrase, or a bullet point or two, to explain how and why such data collection serves such outcomes.

That was a key point that Senny Boone, SVP of accountability for the Association of National Advertisers, explained at a recent presentation, which was sponsored by Geopath, a location-based marketing trade organization; and PMD Media, a targeted outdoor and digital advertising firm.

“Business needs to grow. New growth is based on new data and new information provided by consumer interaction, behavior, and insights,” she said, noting the rising importance of place-based information. “Consumers seek more data privacy as business and technology provide less privacy protection and more data tracking — or that is the perception.”

So are we in a conflict with the consumer here? Is this loss of privacy perception accurate?

We shouldn’t be in conflict — if we believe in transparency, she said, and have privacy and a consumer focus in our brand culture.

If you adhere to codes brought forth by our trade associations — both advertising and out-of-home — which largely have synced up in line with DAA Principles, then you are in good company, Boone said.

Give Me One Reason to Stay Here and I’ll Turn Right Back Around

This is particularly true regarding geolocation data, where enhanced notice through push notifications are required — but with a rationale as part of the push. Only then can meaningful consumer consent be given. Last month, two BBB National Programs enforcement cases, successfully resolved, highlighted the need for such enhanced notice. One case involved a fitness app specifically seeking to use location data for interest-based advertising. Takeaway: Use the enhanced notice for location data consent to explain why.

Boone went on to say that mobile, social, and other digital media are increasingly connected to out-of-home (OOH) advertising. She pointed to the Outdoor Advertising Association of America code that says:

We support responsible use of data for advertising purposes. We recognize that mobile phone and digital technology bring benefits to consumers seeking information, way-finding, entertainment, and connection to others. Increasingly, mobile-social-and-online media are connected to OOH advertising. We encourage member companies to work with suppliers that provide appropriate notice and control for the collection of precise location data from mobile phone devices used for advertising purposes. Anticipating technological changes, OAAA will continue to monitor developments in this area.”

Yes, that digital billboard you’re standing near may be wanting to interact with you. Location-based marketing is only set to grow. So make sure to undertake a data audit, know your location data partners, adhere to laws that may exist for any jurisdiction (GDPR, CCPA, etc.) — and follow industry codes for privacy ethics and best practices.

And tell me why my location is so darn useful to me as a consumer — rather than you as the marketer — when such data is sought. Not only is such explanation respectful and ethical, it serves to educate the market about why relevant ads may be that much more engaging (rather than annoying).

Perception is reality, and right now, we need to do a lot more education to get consumers — pragmatic as we are in our behavior — to get our attitudes to match.

 

 

 

 

7 Privacy UX Tips From a Privacy and Marketing Expert

There are all kinds of marketing awards, but how about one for privacy UX? How do you make your customers comfortable with your privacy user experience? It’s not just agencies — but ad tech and martech companies, data providers, analytics firms and even management consulting firms that are in the data-driven mix.

Do we need to have an award for a better Privacy UX?

With the Association of National Advertisers’ acquisition of the Data & Marketing Association last year came new ownership, too, of the International ECHO Awards. As a lover of data-driven marketing (and an ECHO Governor), it’s very exciting to see brands recognize the strategic role of data in driving more relevant consumer (and business) engagement, and the myriad ad and data partners that brands rely on to make this engagement happen.

It’s not just agencies — but ad tech and martech companies, data providers, analytics firms and even management consulting firms that are in the data-driven mix. These are the facilitators of today’s consumer intelligence that forms the basis for smarter and more efficient brand communication. Some folks even eschew the term “advertising” as we move into a world where branded and even non-branded content underlie data-inspired storytelling that are hallmarks of today’s forward-thinking campaigns.

By the way, the call for entries for this year’s ECHO Awards (to be presented March 2020 as ANA moves what was the DMA conference from this Fall to next Spring) is happening soon — though the entry portal is now open. Let me know if you’d like an invite to the launch party in New York (Wednesday, May 22, in the afternoon).

An Important Part of Brand-Consumer Dialogue — Privacy Notices

One category that won’t be part of this year’s ECHOs is related to privacy-specific communication from brands.

You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. Again and again — all over our smartphone and laptops … communications asking for our consent for cookies, for newsletters, for device recognition, for terms and conditions — all in an effort to help enable data collection to serve the brand-consumer value exchange and subsequent dialogue.

Some of this is mandated from Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation, with halo impact in other nations and markets. Others are anticipating such notice requirements from California’s forthcoming privacy and advertising law. Still others are simply adopting heightened transparency (and choice) as part of self-regulatory and best practices regimes, where no laws may yet exist.

All of this devoted to one objective: getting a consumer (or business individual) to say “yes” to data collection about them, their devices and digital behaviors, in an effort to serve them better.

This week, during the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit 2019 in Washington, DC, one expert — Darren Guarnaccia, Chief Product Officer, Crownpeak — offered some research insights from some 17 million preference experiences that Crownpeak has helped to facilitate on behalf of its brands. These experiences are focused on Europe in light of GDPR, but the findings offer good counsel to any brand that is thinking through its privacy UX.

Some Privacy Communications Concepts to Test

Here are just a few of the tips Guarnaccia reported:

  • Privacy Notices are Not Just a Matter of Compliance: Yes, they may be legally required in some jurisdictions – but more vitally, they should be treated with the same discipline and care of any other branded communication. Because the ultimate goal is to earn trust — going beyond compliance and permission. As a result, the whens, wheres and hows of such notices are vital to test and perfect.
  • Avoiding Legal Penalty Is Table Stakes — We Ought to Design Such Notices for Higher Purpose: To extend the previous point on consumer trust, there’s a higher price to pay if a privacy notice simply meets a legal expectation, and nothing more. Many consumers have gone “stealth” — using ad blockers and going incognito on browsers. We must remind, convince or persuade consumers of the value a brand seeks to offer in exchange for permissions and consents for data collection, analysis and application. Are we extending such notice in plain language at the right time?
  • Brand’ the Privacy Communication: This may seem obvious — but it’s often overlooked. Does the privacy notice look like it’s coming from the brand — or from somewhere else (such as a browser or ad tech partner)? In gaining consent, it’s always superior for the notice to be owned, cared and looked after by the brand itself — even if a third-party (such as an ad tech provider) is facilitating the notice. Does the creative of the notice match the colors, fonts and point sizes of the brand content behind it? By extending brand requirements to such communication, a brand is taking “ownership” of the data collection, consent and trust-building directly — as it should, in the eyes of the user.
  • Earn Before You Ask: Oftentimes, the consumer is presented with a cookie or related privacy notice upon entering a brand’s digital property — first page, upon entry. Test giving consumers a more anonymized experience for the few page visits, and then present a notice — “Are You Enjoying What You’re Seeing?” where a data collection permission is then sought. This allows the consumer to indeed value what’s on offer in information on the site.
  • Give Consumers Both an ‘Accept’ and a ‘Decline’ Choice or Button: Many sites offer only an “accept” button, leaving the consumer with an impression that they can “take it or leave it,” with no sense of real control. Test offering both an accept or decline offer — just seeing the word “decline” reminds consumers they are in control — and the actual decision to “decline” becomes more apparent for those consumers who indeed wish to be stealth.
  • Test Progressive Consent: Not every Website (or app) may need immediate access to user data for all purposes of consumer engagement. For data minimization purposes, perhaps ask visitors permission to collect only basic information (say, for contact, site optimization or customer recognition purposes) first. Then, only when necessary for utility, ask permissions for location data or other data categories, alongside the rationale for such collection and consent, as those needs arise. Asking for everything, upfront, all at once, can be a real turnoff — especially if a user is “new” to a brand. Consumers love — and frankly, need to know — the context for the permissions they give (or deny).
  • Test Privacy Notices by Market: Did you know users in the United Kingdom, for example, are 1.4 times more likely to give consent than those in France and Germany? How notices are worded and rationales explained — how transparency is conveyed — can have a big impact between markets, so it’s best to test notices by individual market (and language) to optimize consent rates. In short, national cultures and language nuance matter, too, in privacy communication.

Conclusion

In summary, there’s more payback than just permission. Consent rates in Europe can go as high as 60 to 70 percent — and hurtling over cookie walls at 80 to 90 percent — when privacy communications are optimized. Crownpeak offered far more tips (and real-market examples) in its session — about search engine optimization, personalization, analytics disclosures and other related topics. But there’s also lifetime value, and indeed consumer trust in the balance. We have an entirely new area for many marketers to test, working with their counsel and technology colleagues.

Who knows? Maybe the best such privacy-focused campaigns could still win a 2020 ECHO — based on compelling strategy, creative and results toward an earn-their-trust purpose. Is there a courageous brand ready to show us how? After all, this is one area where we all benefit from ways to raise consumer trust in advertising by sharing successful case studies. We shall see.

As Amped-Up Ad, Data Privacy Laws Near, Self-Regulated Programs Matter More

As we prepare ourselves for federal (and state) legislation around privacy and advertising, it’s worth taking account of our own industry’s self-regulated programs — both those here at home and worldwide.

As we prepare ourselves for federal (and state) legislation around privacy and advertising, it’s worth taking account of our own industry’s self-regulated programs — both those here at home and worldwide.

Why? Because even in an age of regulation, self-regulation — and adherence to self-regulatory principles and ethics codes of business conduct — matter. One might argue that legal compliance in industry is good enough, but business reputations, brand equity and consumer trust are built on sterner stuff.

Having a code of conduct is exemplary in itself, but I’d like to address a vital component of such codes: enforcement.

Self-Regulated programs
Transparency & Accountability in Advertising Self-Regulation Matter Greatly. | Credit: Chet Dalzell

Credibility in Codes Requires Peer Review & Accountability

Behind the scenes, every day, there are dozens of professionals in our field who serve — as volunteers and as paid professionals — to monitor the ethical practice of advertisers, who devise and update the codes we adhere to, who educate companies that proactively reach out to them, who work with companies and brands that go astray to resolution, and who enforce and refer non-compliant companies to government agencies, when necessary.

They may take complaints directly from consumers, competitors and industry observers. They may employ technologies and their own eyes and ears to monitor the marketplace. They may meet regularly as volunteers as a jury to deliberate on any need for corrective action. And, usually, they have a “contact us, before we contact you” operations effect: brands and businesses can proactively ask ethics programs questions about the “right” way (by the consumer) to execute a marketing practice, so it doesn’t prompt a formal query after a mistake is made after the fact.

Importantly, credibility depends, too, on reporting publicly on outcomes — potentially to “name and shame,” but most often to work cooperatively with businesses and to serve as an industry education vehicle in the reporting of correction and the resolution process. Generally, “punitive” is when a non-cooperative company is referred to a government agency for further action. Government agencies, for their part, tend to wholeheartedly welcome any effective effort to keep the marketplace aligned with the consumer. It helps when brands and consumer interests are in sync.

Accountability Programs Deserve Our Industry’s Expertise & Ongoing Financial Support

All told, these important players in our field serve us well, even as we face what might be referred to as co-regulation (government regulation on top of self-regulation). While any potential business mishap — for example, in the handling of consumer data or the questionable content of an ad — has its own set of facts and ramifications, a demonstration of good-faith efforts to adhere to ethical business practices might be seen as a mitigating factor, even as a brand finds itself needing to take a corrective action.

Agility, flexibility and responsiveness … these are all attributes of successful self-regulation — as well as successful accountability. Effective self-regulation serves to keep pace with innovations in our field, and “point the way” for other companies, as issues arise. (The rigidity of laws rarely can accommodate such innovations.)

While industry professionals may serve as volunteers on juries and review panels — it can be fascinating to serve on such panels — there is almost always an infrastructure of programs and staffs underpinning self-regulation success. Trade associations may finance some of these efforts with membership dollars — but usually businesses can lend their own resources directly, too. It’s great to have a seat at the table.

Marketing Ethics & Self-Regulation Programs — A Partial Listing

In all likelihood, there are potentially many more codes of conduct — particularly in vertical fields (pharma, travel, non-profit, retail, etc.) — but here is a brief listing of advertising-related codes and programs that may be helpful to catalog, bookmark, research and support, with some of which I’ve had the honor to be associated:

Please feel free to use the Comments section to suggest others. And thank you to every volunteer and staff person who serves or has served in an industry accountability capacity. It makes a world of difference, with marketplace trust of advertising and advertisers being the ultimate goal.

Marketers Doing the Data Privacy Balancing Act Ask What ‘I Want My Privacy’ Means

It’s not just policymakers who are trying to figure out how to act on consumer sentiments toward data privacy. We all, overwhelmingly, want it — business and consumer.

data privacy
Credit: Pexels.com

It’s not just policymakers who are trying to figure out how to act on consumer sentiments toward data privacy. We all, overwhelmingly, want it — business and consumer.

We are all seeking a U.S. federal privacy law to “repair” what may be broken in Europe (hey, the toaster needs fixing), and to correct any perceived privacy shortcomings in California’s new law (scheduled to take effect in January). Will such a federal law pass this year?

One of the ongoing challenges for policy in this area is what’s been called the privacy paradox. The paradox? Privacy in the form of consumer attitudes, and privacy in the form of consumer demands and behaviors, rarely are in sync. Sometimes, they are polar opposites, simultaneously!

  • Should law be enacted on how we feel, or respectful of what we actually do?
  • How do we define privacy harms and focus regulation only what is harmful and to go light, very light, or even foster wholly beneficial uses?
  • Should private sector controls and public sector controls be differentiated?
  • Do existing laws and ethical codes of conduct apply, and how might they be modified for the digital age?

On top of this, consumer expectations with data and technology are not fixed. Their comfort levels with how information is used at least in the advertising sector change over time. In fact, some marketers can’t keep pace with consumer demands to be identified, recognized and rewarded across channels. Generations, too, have differences in attitudes and behaviors.

What’s creepy today may in fact be tomorrow’s consumer-demanded convenience.

Case in point: It used to be people complained about remarketing the ad following them around on the Net as they browsed. (All the same, remarketing works that’s why it was so pervasive.) Today, in role reversal, consumers sound off when the product they purchased is the same product they still see in the display ad. The consumer has little patience when brand data is locked in data silos: the transaction database doesn’t inform the programmatic media buy, in this scenario.

The marketing and advertising business have been trying to solve for the privacy paradox since the Direct Marketing Association assembled its first code of ethics in the 1960s and introduced the Mail Preference Service in 1971. (Today, the Mail Preference Service is now known as dmaChoice, and DMA is now part of the Data Marketing & Analytics division of the Association of National Advertisers.) During the 1970s, consumers could use MPS to both add their names to marketing lists, and to remove their names from marketing lists for direct mail. At that time, far more consumers sought to add their names. Later, MPS strictly devoted itself to offering consumers an industry-wide opt-out for national direct mail, with add-ons for sweepstakes and halting mail to the deceased.

During the ’70s, DMA also required its member mailers (and later telemarketers and emailers) to maintain their own in-house suppression lists. These ethics behaviors were codified, to some extent, when the U.S. government enabled the Do-Not-Call registry and enacted the CAN-SPAM Act to complement these efforts.

Fair Information Practice Principles A Framework That Still Works Wonders

So here we are in the digital age, where digital display and mobile advertising are among addressable media’s growing family. Again, the marketing community rose to the challenge enacting the Digital Advertising Alliance YourAdChoices program (disclaimer, a client) and offering consumers an opt-out program for data collection used for interest-based advertising for Web browsing (desktop and mobile) and mobile applications.

Over and over again, the pattern is the same: Give consumers notice, give consumers control, prevent unauthorized uses of marketing data, protect sensitive areas recognize advertising’s undeniable social and economic power, enable brands to connect to consumers through relevance and trust and act to prevent real harms, rather than micromanage minor annoyances. Allow marketing innovations that create diversity in content, competition and democratization of information. Let the private sector invest in data where no harms exist.

‘I own my data!’

Data ownership is a dicey concept. Isn’t there sweat equity when a business builds a physical or virtual storefront and you choose to interact with it? Is there not some expectation of data being contributed in fair exchange for the digital content we freely consume and the apps we download and enjoy? And once we elect to become a customer, isn’t it better for the brand to know you better, to serve you better? Shouldn’t loyalty over time be rewarded? That’s an intelligent data exchange, and the economy grows with it.

The demand for access to everything free, without ads, and without data exchange, without payment to creators is a demand for intellectual property theft. Sooner than later, the availability and diversity of that content would be gone. And so would democracy. If you put everything behind an ad-free paywall, then only the elites would have access.

‘But I pay for my Internet service. I pay for my phone service!’

Sure you do and that pays for the cell towers, and tech and Web infrastructure, union labor with some profit for the provider. But unless you’re also paying for subscriptions and content it’s advertising that is footing the bill for the music you listen to, the news you read, the apps you use, and so on. All the better when ads are relevant.

At the end of the day, the consumer is always right and privacy is personally defined.

I’m all for limits on what governments can do with data when it comes to surveillance, and how it goes about maintaining our safety and security (a paradox of its own).

On the private sector side, policymakers might best act to give a privacy floor (do no harm) and where economic benefits accrue (to serve consumers without harms) allow consumers freely accessible tools to set their own privacy walls, using browser settings, industry opt-outs, brand preference centers and other widely available no-cost filters. It’s a wise society that can encourage responsible data flows, while blocking altogether irresponsible data flows. Get it right, and we all participate in a thriving 21st Century Information Economy. Get it wrong, and Europe and China will set the global rules. With some luck and deliberation, we’ll get this right.

No, B2B Media Doesn’t Have an Ethics Problem

It broke my heart when I read the recent blog post “B2B Media, The Ethics Virus & The Pursuit of Consumer-Grade Experiences,” which argued the majority of B2B/trade publishers have a problem of selling out editorial integrity to advertisers. In the piece, Publishing Executive editor-in-chief Denis Wilson wrote, “If you think your organization is immune (from editorial integrity issues), I’d wager you’re a minority or just wrong.”

It broke my heart when I read the recent blog post “B2B Media, The Ethics Virus & The Pursuit of Consumer-Grade Experiences,” which argued the majority of B2B/trade publishers have a problem of selling out editorial integrity to advertisers. In the piece, Publishing Executive editor-in-chief Denis Wilson wrote, “If you think your organization is immune (from editorial integrity issues), I’d wager you’re a minority or just wrong.” Also, that “B2B media has an especially nefarious legacy of playing fast and loose with the journalistic craft.”

I may have taken the post personally, having been a B2B publisher on and off for 40 years. I never sold a word and, must admit, I have no memory of thinking my competition did either. I do not suggest all B2B publishers are beyond reproach when it comes to bending to advertiser pressure. I do say the vast majority do not do so, nor do they have a culture of selling out.

When I came up in the business, there were storied trade publishers like McGraw Hill, Chilton, Gralla, Penton, CMP and many others. There were fat magazines with solid content that industries relied upon, such as Variety, Automotive Week, Billboard, American Banker and Aviation Week. I used to read Crain publications like the old Ad Age with as much enjoyment as consumer books. Women’s Wear Daily, famously known as WWD, had such quality journalism it gained a significant consumer readership.

In the post, Wilson talks about how B2B publishers today are finally learning “quality original content drives audience engagement and monetization.” Those publishers mentioned support my view the industry was built on quality content.

The ASBPE Focus on Ethics

Ethics was indeed discussed at the ASBPE conference. As Wilson points out, that is to the credit of the journalists in attendance. I heard everything Wilson did, but recognized that those few stories of difficult advertiser pressure were presented not as the norm. The example of one publisher giving into ad pressure was worthy of discussion, because that publication had never crossed a similar line before.

We heard about when the rigid wall between church and state required an editor to stop dating an advertising sales assistant or be fired. Another example described when a feature story was written about an industry problem for which a big client happened to advertise a solution. The advertiser relationship had not driven the story. The fact the publisher had to pull their hair out over whether to run the ad opposite the story opener speaks to their integrity. They were worried that although ad and story had no causal relationship, it would simply look like they did. In my opinion they made the correct decision to run the ad opposite the opener, that it was helpful to readers and no lines were crossed.

Yet Wilson and I reached different conclusions as to why ethics was discussed so prominently. To me, it was a reflection of a profession that thinks that is how important editorial ethics are, not to cure endemic problems.

Think back to all the articles Publishing Executive and other media publications ran when native advertising first became a thing. Despite most of us having published advertorials in the past, there was overwhelming pushback that native adverting crossed a line. It was not just theoretical venting. Truly, a majority of B2B publishers during those days told me their staffs would not let them entertain the notion of native. The knee-jerk resistance speaks to a culture not in the habit of doing things for advertisers.

Editorial Contributions

The article correctly acknowledged the importance of editorial contributions from industry experts who happen to work for advertisers or potential advertisers. I’ve been an editor and publisher my entire career, but today as I write for Publishing Executive I am a vendor. My instincts have me steer clear of writing about what I sell and Wilson and I discuss anything I fear may be too close to the line. That has worked out well.

In his post, Wilson attributes industry contributors to low budgets. No doubt that is a huge driver; but there is more to it. I was associate publisher of a trade book called Modern Horsebreeding in the ’80s. Guess who knew much more than all of our writers? The veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies. We did occasionally run articles by their experts — there were no such thing as blogs — though never once tied them to advertising.

When I published a magazine and then website about RFID technology, we were thrilled to get some deeply knowledgeable pieces from industry experts. Sadly, most were not advertisers. But this was terrific content and simply had nothing to do with advertising. If a prospective advertiser really liked that we ran their engineer’s helpful information, great. We’ll take all the good vibes we can get with prospective advertisers. Conversely, when an advertiser complained that we didn’t run their content, we would invite them to suggest a topic. We provided written guidelines they must adhere to, advertiser or non-advertiser. We edited each piece and were glad to consult as they worked on it. I believe approaches like these and those of PubExec are the norm.

The Opposite Reality

From what I have seen, advertiser pressure is something ad salesmen feel more than it being a routine reality. I personally sold ads for decades and ran ad sales teams. Ad salespeople are always hopeful the magazine runs articles plugging clients; it’s in the blood. They sometimes whine to editors about running more copy on their clients. In my experience, editors mostly ignore them with thinly veiled pity.

One speaker at ASBPE said advertisers were purposely overlooked and not written about to avoid the appearance of corruption. As Wilson wrote, “the sticky politics of accepting vendor contributions wasn’t worth the trouble.” In my experience, this is far and away the bigger secret we all carry: advertisers tend to get screwed. We heard how one company mandated that editors not use advertisers as sources for stories. I have personally seen multiple situations where editors avoid calling executives at advertiser companies for quotes out of fear it would look like the publication was kissing advertiser butt.

Big advertisers are often the larger companies in any given industry. These same companies have the biggest budgets for research. These companies are often actually involved in many newsworthy issues and situations because of their commercial reach. It would be self-defeating to avoid tapping their knowledge; yet because of the fear of appearing unethical, I have seen this time and time again.

Advertisers, too, might surprise you. I will never forget at my RFID publication a news investigation that we ran on the cover slammed perhaps the largest company in the industry at that time. They were not advertisers and I thought, well, we’ll never see a dime from them. But it was an important, well-reported story. To the lasting credit of an SVP of Intermec, he told his ad department to place some cover ads in our new magazine. He felt the industry had to support quality journalism.

I repeat: Of course I have heard stories of pay-to-play. The few I’ve heard are memorable because they are rare, not pervasive. One former VP of editorial told me long ago he was made to run feature interviews with some advertisers. Again, that stood out in his mind because it was the opposite of everything else in his career.

I am not saying B2B publishers are ethical saints. Wilson made some excellent suggestions in his post on what editors should watch out for. However, I do believe the B2B publishing industry overall is not rife with virulent ethical lapses.

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – Ode to Solitude

Alexander Pope is making a 21st Century comeback. I’d love to be in Google’s conference room as the team there decides just how to adhere to a European court’s decision that European citizens have a right to be forgotten (on Google). Or what about email? A UK court just took a British retailer to task—John Lewis—for having a pre-checked form box for new customers that permits an email communication to the paying customer, along with an easy-to-use opt-out

Alexander Pope is making a 21st Century comeback.

I’d love to be in Google’s conference room as the team there decides just how to adhere to a European court’s decision that European citizens have a right to be forgotten (on Google).

Or what about email? A UK court just took a British retailer to task—John Lewis—for having a pre-checked form box for new customers that permits an email communication to the paying customer, along with an easy-to-use opt-out. The court found that a customer having to uncheck a box is just too taxing, and more than that, a privacy violation.

Here’s an interesting Ken Magill point of view.

I confess that I, too, am a bit of a reactionary to all of this. If commerce is so evil, if advertising is such a privacy violation, maybe we should just pack it up and go back to serving consumers and making money—and paying taxes, and generating jobs—here at home.

Can you imagine what types of costs Google will incur in its attempt to comply—never mind the impact on Google’s utility in Europe? Certainly John Lewis is taking the matter seriously, as it should. As reported in The Register (UK):

A John Lewis spokeswoman said: “Mr Mansfield voluntarily gave us his email address, set up an account online and chose not to opt out of marketing communications when that option was available to him. This case was a very specific set of circumstances and in this instance whilst we do not agree with the decision, we will abide by it. We apologise to Mr Mansfield that he was inconvenienced by our emails.”

Let’s be sure none of this zaniness creeps into our policy and case law here (ethics and best practices are another story), for the sake of our economy.

Sometimes I look to Europe and I scratch my head—yet there are some in America who want to bring these inflexible regimes here. While I respect different cultures for privacy around the world, let’s not sacrifice trade and commerce on the altar of some notion of gaining privacy, when in truth, marketing innovation and privacy can, and do, move along in concert. I guess some parts of the world figure that advertisers are all big brands who spend money only on image campaigns, and then sit back and wait for customers to come to them. In short, if you don’t have the Euros, you don’t get to compete.

Seriously, if an individual wants to be Rip Van Winkle, go to sleep for 20 years and don’t bother participating in the marketplace. Don’t drive. Don’t vote. Don’t shop. Don’t look at your mail. Don’t subscribe to any newspapers or magazines, or watch TV. Don’t browse the Internet. Don’t donate to causes—or to campaigns. And please, don’t tell me you’re a privacy advocate, or even participate in opt-out programs.

Because I’m just going to flag your name and store it in a database somewhere so I can reference you (apparently inappropriately) along with other “privacy-sensitive” folks, or to omit future communication. I certainly don’t want to bother you with any information—such as a product or service to help you protect your privacy, or bolster your security.

The “business” of privacy is booming, even as the “ethics” of privacy in marketing have been around in industry codes for decades. Browsers offer private surfing, and there are apps that allow you to cover your tracks. But how could someone know to learn about these services if we’re all forced to forget such a person by default?

All marketers want to do is create and serve a customer—and they go to great lengths to ensure an opt-out is honored. Where’s the harm? Answer: In commerce, there are only winners. While we can choose to lower our profile through myriad ways, to mandate such profiles as a legal default is to deny the very intelligence—and our consumer economy—that data has served to create.

And here is Alexander Pope on the matter:

Ode on Solitude
Happy the man, whose wish and care
A few paternal acres bound,
Content to breathe his native air,
In his own ground.

Whose heards with milk, whose fields with bread,
Whose flocks supply him with attire,
Whose trees in summer yield him shade,
In winter fire.

Blest! who can unconcern’dly find
Hours, days, and years slide soft away,
In health of body, peace of mind,
Quiet by day,

Sound sleep by night; study and ease
Together mix’d; sweet recreation,
And innocence, which most does please,
With meditation.

Thus let me live, unseen, unknown;
Thus unlamented let me dye;
Steal from the world, and not a stone
Tell where I lye.

—Alexander Pope (1688-1744)