Behavioral Targeting and the FTC

By Jason Carmel | 0 Comments | Posted in in Optimization | Permalink

The Federal Trade Commission has a call out for comments on their proposed Principles for Behavioral Advertising. There are a few comments posted already- one by Google (well, duh), a few by concerned citizens, and the obligatory post or two by concerned citizens who can't conjugate verbs. Ah, democracy.

I just submitted comments on behalf of ZAAZ and am trying to unpack the experience.

When I read the proposed principles, I had a fleeting understanding of what it must be like to work in our User Experience Group here at ZAAZ. Our crack UX experts (UXperts?) often field requests from well-meaning potential clients to "help us be more web 2.0" or to "build a community online for users." Instead of jumping in and architecting something, the ZAAZ team always takes a step back, and reframes the issues to make sure that the proposed idea really solves a problem that the customers have.

I get the feeling that the FTC could greatly benefit from this approach. To its credit, the organization has been paying attention to the emergence of behavioral targeting applications and the blowback by folks who are creeped out about their every Internet move being tracked in order to present (sometimes eerily) relevant ads. Maybe it's time now to take a step back and understand what problem we are trying to solve and whether there are already mechanisms in place to solve them.

My overall thoughts:

Spend More Time With Definitions - At the end of the day, I'm not sure there is a clear enough distinction in the Principles between ad-side behavioral targeting and site-side behavioral targeting. It feels like the FTC is talking exclusively about the former, but they need to make that patently clear before they get all up in our grill (as it were). Should I see my name and address on an ad for mortgages on a site I've never visited before? Probably not. Should a site with which I have an existing relationship, with whose Terms and Conditions I've already agreed, be able to offer me a discount on a product they just released that relates directly to one I've already purchased from them? Almost definitely.  Both are behavioral targeting. That needs to be sorted out before anything.

Let the Market Decide What is Acceptable - It does not take a great deal of effort to troll the annals of Internet history in search of a business that tried to get a little too forward with its customers' privacy and got a black eye as a result. The Facebook Beacon fiasco is one example that jumps to mind where a company was neither very open nor very clear with how it planned to treat its customers. The resulting poop-storm from the media, industry pundits, advocacy groups and customers regarding a "feature" that could have probably used a few more minutes in the oven engendered an almost immediate about-face from the company, and taught anyone who witnessed it an object lesson in how customers own the relationship. I think the FTC should view this an ideal model. I don't mean to get all "invisible hand" on you, but the best way to keep a company in line with regards to privacy is if they know that they could lose a bunch of customers by misbehaving.

Use Existing Laws Where Possible - I'm all for law. Seriously. "Yaaaaaay Law," as far as I'm concerned. There are gobs of existing laws that pertain to privacy with regard to specific types of information that can and can't be shared (financial, medical, child-related, etc). We should probably us those as stepping stones before enacting new (and, dare I even suggest, potentially conflicting) rules. Otherwise, things will get messy fast. Plus, basic contract law instructs us that a company that changes its privacy policy without informing customers has basically breached its contract and should be liable for any damages that occur as a result.

No Double Standards for Online vs. Offline - Let's be realistic here. You're grocery store tracks more data about you than any practitioner of online Behavioral Targeting could ever dream. Same with your phone company. And your airline of choice. And your credit card. If the practice of targeting ads should be regulated, it doesn't make sense that we are only considering online participants.

If the FTC rephrased the request for comments using some of the above recommendations, I'm confident that both businesses and consumers would end up in a happier place. For my money, I think the FTC could do the most good right now by helping consumers understand the opt-out options that already exist for Behavioral Targeting, such as the one made available by the NAI.

Please feel free to review the full text that ZAAZ submitted, conveniently made available on the FTC website (note: be forewarned: the document is nine full pages of formality, with footnotes and everything. Read it with someone you love.). And by all means, don't be shy about giving the good people at the FTC your own opinions. Tell them that Behavioral Targeting is our only hope for civilization as we know it. Tell them you think Behavioral Targeting is a sign of the impending apocalypse and should be punished by extreme pain. Or tell them that you agree wholeheartedly with the witty, urbane, and devilishly handsome distinguished gentleman from ZAAZ.

You have until the end of the week.