With the rise of behavorial marketing online -- where marketers serve ads based on where you've gone online -- there's also a rising concern about how much privacy we are giving up. Do we realize that marketers are tracking the sites we visit online and that we would need to erase our computer cookies in order to keep that info private? The Federal Trade Commission met to discuss privacy concerns at a public hearing earlier this month, and consumer groups said the FTC should set up a "Do Not Track" database for people to opt out of online tracking (similar to the "Do Not Call" database for telemarketers). But if enough people opt out of tracking, they might also be taking away online publishers' most effective way of making money. What do you think? Do you care about the way marketers do behavioral or targeted advertising online, and what are you doing about it proactively, if anything? Share your thoughts in the comments and I'll run the best ones in a future Your Take Roundup.
Should the FTC set up a 'Do Not Track' database for online marketing?
by Mark Glaser, November 26, 2007
Post a Comment
Multimedia
Best of MediaShift
By This Author
-
@FakeAPStylebook Editors Explain Their Overnight Success on Twitter
For anyone who has suffered through reading the entire AP Stylebook for a journalism class, there's a cathartic release when reading the dry wit of the @FakeAPStylebook feed on Twitter. It combines parody of the journalism usage bible with funny repartee and the absurd. That mix has brought amazing success to the people behind the feed: more than 40,000 followers...
-
Harold Evans Sees Bright Future for Print-on-Demand Newspapers
Evans is the editor-at-large for The Week magazine. He has written numerous books, but his most recent is called "My Paper Chase," a fascinating memoir covering his early years as a cub reporter, copy editor and eventually editor and publisher over decades of distinguished work. He connects what happened in those early years to the changes wrought by technology and the Internet, and what he sees as he watches his wife, Tina Brown, co-found and manage The Daily Beast.
-
4 Minute Roundup: Twitter's Real-Time Search Deals; Bloomberg Rising
Here's the latest 4MR audio report from MediaShift. In this week's edition, I look at the deals Microsoft made recently with Twitter and Facebook to incorporate tweets and status updates into its Bing search engine. Google quickly announced a deal with Twitter too, but why should we care? Also, Bloomberg bought out BusinessWeek magazine, but the jewel might well be...
Stay Informed
-
E-mail List 
News Feed »
Follow us on Twitter »
Who We Are
MediaShift tracks how new media -- from weblogs to podcasts to citizen journalism -- are changing society and culture.
Reader Poll
2 comments so far, Add Yours
Joe Murphy said:
November 26, 2007 8:58 PM
Something like this exists already: It's called your hosts file, and there are some really easy-to-use tools out there that can help you take advantage of it... of course, the phrase "hosts file" is enough to make the non-techy flee flee flee for the hills, so maybe the FTC could use the idea and make it palatable with a name like "Fuzzy-Block" or "TrackrKillr" ...
James said:
November 30, 2007 7:07 AM
In fact, there's already an industry Do Not Track list available for that will prevent tracking by most major (and legitimate) ad networks. The Network Advertising Initiative (http://www.networkadvertising.org/) allows you to opt-out of tracking and the major ad networks support it.
I can see a valid argument for pushing for greater notice of the NAI opt-out (it tends to show up only in publisher privacy policies - several networks only work with publishers once the opt-out notice is in their policy).
That said, regardless of what's out there already, it's a complicated problem. As you suggest here, if too many people opt-out publishers and networks will suffer. However, that's only one side - clearly you can argue advertisers suffer. Advertisers based on direct marketing/performance type deals lose out on more effective targeting and have to spend considerably more to reach the same sales.
But the third part is that users suffer too. As long proper steps are taken to keep users private (make the data non-identifiable) and the data isn't abused in any other ways, users benefit from targeted advertising. Rather than a random clutter of useless ads, the user can actually see ads of value to them. The message isn't irrelevant and a waste of the user's screen real estate and time, but rather something that may actually drive value for them, the publisher/network, and the advertiser.
Subscribe to comments for this entry.