The FTC recently testified before Congress that there should be a function in browsers to allow a “Do Not Track” option. I am a bit cynical about how effective this might be considering I get robo-calls offering to lower my interest despite the “Do Not Call” list and I still get spam despite CAN-SPAM and other legislation. But as always, details matter. Is this going to work or cripple the free ad-supported Internet we have grown to love and loathe? I offer for your consideration a links:
The Wall Street Journal has added a investigative series to their blog titled What They Know. Sounds sufficiently scary.
I think this is noteworthy for two reasons. First, its a sign that the intersection of privacy and marketing is no longer an issue just for law geeks. Second, the blog seems to have done a fairly good job of visualizing how data is used by third parties.
It will probably surprise many to see that something as seemingly innocuous as online dictionaries can be used to collect so much information about people.
I hate how TV commercials are about twice as loud as the regular programming. Nevertheless, I can’t see how this proposed legislation would be implemented effectively. From what I gather from this story at Yahoo! News, the FCC isn’t especially keen on the idea either.
HT to Slashdot.org
Starting on December 1, 2009 the Federal Trade Commission’s new guidelines for testimonials by bloggers, Tweeters, Facebook-ers and others will take effect. These guidelines are set to help determine whether or not paid testimonials or endorsements are covered by the FTC Act. Bloggers who are paid by a company in exchange for a positive review of its products are making endorsements and may have to disclose any financial ties to that company.
Google, Yahoo! and others offer advertising services that can pluck words from a web page to create customized advertisements. Contextual Advertising as its called, is a really cool feature but there are some potential problems that companies considering online advertising campaigns should consider.
1. They can make you look bad.
See this Business Insider story about the worst Google Ads ever. The ad in question appeared with a news story about terrorists and offered a Terrorist Certification program. Probably not what the advertiser had in mind. I hope. This isn’t necessarily a legal problem, but it can be embarrassing and costly to correct. If you are using an algorithm to create your ads, you need to be aware of what that algorithm could create as output.
2. It could violate privacy laws
AOL was recently sued for its contextual advertising program because it was allegedly gathering private information in order to better target the ads. Many times the information gathered by these services are not tied back to any one particular user, but it is something to be aware of. Wired magazine recently ran an article about how easy it becomes to identify someone just by collecting a few facts. Zip code, employer, car model. . . none of these would identify you by themselves, but put a few of them together and very quickly you can have an individual identified.
3. It could be trademark infringement
Keyword based advertising is big business for search engines like Yahoo! and Google. Its also been a hot topic in trademark law. If you select a trademark to trigger your advertising, you could be infringing. Its even more certain that you would be infringing if you have that trademark appear in the text of your ad. Just about any word could be a trademark so context is important.
4. It could be false advertising
False advertising laws vary from state to state but can include anything that creates a misunderstanding with a consumer. If your ads are designed to grab words from web pages be sure you offer goods or services that you are now claiming to offer.
Contextual Advertising is a powerful tool and I think we will see much more of it rather than less. But like any powerful tool it should be handled carefully.