There are arguably four distinct types of Behavioral Targeting techniques currently being used:

1. On-Site Targeting: The users are segmented based on content views or actions on one site and then are targeted on the site itself…this has been happening for years now – some are doing it more effectively than others, but the idea here is that as users consume specific content, the advertising these users see is impacted accordingly. While it may be an issue of awareness, consumers – in general – don’t seem terribly concerned with this type of behavioral targeting technique.

2. Network Targeting: The users are segmented based on content views or actions on one site and then are targeted where ever they go on sites participating in the behavioral ad network. This technique starts to get generate some concerns as the concept is further understood. The idea of network targeting is to connect disparate web properties with one another for marketing purposes, allowing increasingly more relevant advertising to surface based on the content and sites a consumer frequents.

3. The third behavioral targeting technique is a game-changer that has effectively made the issue of online privacy a national – and international – topic for debate. Internet Service Providers (ISPs)– the guys that connect you to the Internet itself, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, etc. – are getting into the behavioral targeting space and because the ISPs own the ‘source code’ if you will about what sites these users are visiting, the specific content they’re consuming and the actions they’re taking – or not taking – there is a growing concern about how this data is being collected, analyzed and used for marketing purposes for customers and privacy advocates.

4. Though dramatically different from the ‘spy-ware-like’ behavioral targeting techniques cited above, the popularity of, and the reliance upon social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and others has ushered in a new type of marketing tactic – ‘Social Targeting.’ I see social targeting as the confluence of community, brand affinity and usefulness. Without rehashing Facebook’s Beacon disaster of last year, we can all agree that social influence plays a critical role in our daily lives – just think about how often your friend’s recommendation, a colleague’s comment or an acquaintance‘s perspective alters or influences your behavior… When you examine the financial requirements of sites like Facebook and MySpace – and the kind of information consumers are broadcasting about themselves, the idea of monetizing this data through relevant marketing programs begins to make more sense.

Opt-Out or Opt-In? The letter Charter Communications recently sent out notifying users of their new behavioral targeting policy provides the ability for customers to opt-out of the program if they do not wish to be monitored. While it’s clear that Charter is hoping the majority of their customers will remain in the program, it’s unfortunate that Charter chose to make this program opt-out, as opposed to opt-in. Although Charter’s letter communicates its intention to collect user-behavior data and apply these profiles for marketing purposes, automatically enrolling all of their customers into the program, and forcing them to opt-out only continues to reinforce the perception – and potential reality – of unethical business practices. My advice to the ISPs and advertisers is be incredibly transparent – if these kinds of targeting programs really can make my online experience better, explain that to the consumer upfront and you might be surprised by the response.

A Better Experience.One of the consistent claims of behavioral targeting is the promise of a better online experience. But what does this mean? Anyone who’s surfed the web for even a few minutes quickly realizes that – in large part – advertising is driving the internet economy. The current experience is one fraught with marketing and advertising irrelevance, clutter, noise and distractions. An experience (the marketing and advertising experience that is) ‘controlled’ or influenced by behavioral targeting is likely to be more relevant and interesting to the customer, thus the promise of a better experience. There are customers who will find this more relevant experience to be a better one – but again, be clear about what you’re doing, and even more importantly, why you’re doing it.

Brand Loyalty.Brand advertisers need to pay special attention to this issue as the potential for brands and organizations to unknowingly participate in behavioral targeting programs that could result in a major backlash is potentially high. This is a particularly important issue for the world’s largest brands who spend substantial media dollars in an effort to build brand awareness and attract new customers. Brands must be very careful not to associate their media placing strategies by participating in behavioral targeting practices that might harm the brand’s value and equity. As marketers, we are always looking for that unique and differentiating insight that can be exploited and optimzed to reach the intended targets, but doing so in a manner that the majority of consumers feels is potentially unethical or perhaps even more to the point, invasive and sinister, is a sure-fire way to alienate your customers and reduce the value of your brand.

]]> http://www.blumblog.com/behavioral-targeting/the-big-privacy-issue-part-2/feed/ 0 http://www.blumblog.com/behavioral-targeting/beahvioral-targeting-or-social-targeting/ http://www.blumblog.com/behavioral-targeting/beahvioral-targeting-or-social-targeting/#comments Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:47:25 +0000 David Blum http://www.blumblog.com/behavioral-targeting/beahvioral-targeting-or-social-targeting/ Before I launch into my next rant, thanks to each of you who either responded to my first post or who sent me a private note supporting my new adventure… The issue of behavioral targeting and consumer privacy is heating up in a big way… Given that I was recently appointed to the Government Relations Committee for the AAAAs to advise on the subject, I thought I’d open it for discussion via my blog. Last week, Harris Interactive released a survey citing that the “a majority of U.S. adults are skeptical about the practice of websites using information about a person’s online activity to customize website content.” 59% of those polled are either ‘not at all comfortable’ or ‘not very comfortable’ with companies using personal information or a user’s web surfing activities to serve targeted marketing and advertising messages. The survey was also quick to point out that with greater privacy protection and security policies in place, consumers “become somewhat more comfortable” with their personal information being applied for marketing purposes. The Harris Interactive Study references the web’s largest players – MSN, Yahoo! and Google – as examples of the kinds of sites that are currently leading the behavioral targeting movement.

While these findings – at first glance – might suggest that consumers are growing wary about how marketers are using personal information to target customers, it’s important to distinguish between the different kinds of ‘behavioral targeting’ strategies that are currently being applied by marketers: While the anonymous behavioral tracking strategies and tactics applied by MSN, Google and Yahoo! have established the initial benchmark for collecting online behaviors, the real issue behind consumer’s fears and discomfort with these practices is the lack of transparency and the inability for user’s to opt out of such monitoring. This is an issue to watch carefully as legislators and lawmakers wrestle with how to regulate – or not regulate – marketers in this new digital landscape. A few weeks ago Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, the sponsor of a New York bill to limit how companies collect data on computer users, put forth legislation that would fundamentally change the current paradigm. While the issue of anonymous behavioral tracking is a very real concern for both consumers and marketers alike – an issue that is very much in its infancy – I’m fearful that other types of behavioral-targeting methods are being unjustifiably included. I’m speaking specifically of user-recommendations (think Amazon.com) and social-networking referrals (think Facebook, but not the first iteration of Beacon). To be clear, what I’m referring to here is not typically considered ‘behavioral-targeting’ but if you consider Amazon’s recommendation engine – factoring in your historical purchases with those of consumer’s who have purchased the same or similar products to offer you relevant suggestions – the model is similar to those of the large portals, but the difference is that it’s only happening within a closed-system… The social-networking commerce model is also in its infancy and Facebook’s disastrous launch of Beacon underscores how little marketers understand how to exploit this growing phenomenon. Beacon’s failure to clearly notify users of the service – and what it does – coupled with its hidden opt-out controls, effectively replicated the model of the big portals which of course erupted into a public relations nightmare and alienated an untold number of loyal Facebook members. Facebook’s failed Beacon strategy aside, the more interesting dynamic is the fundamental shift in user behavior that social networking has produced: social networking sites have helped to shape the Me-Economy and with it, a new generation (and some from older generations too) have flocked to these online destinations to publish, promote and otherwise bring attention to themselves. The fundamental shift that has occurred is that consumers are now defining and segmenting themselves into specific groups and categories – now overlaid with hyper-detailed pieces of personal information – that allows marketers to reach these consumers with targeted, relevant marketing content. My contention – essentially – is that participation in social networks and/or the use of other free, web-based services are intentionally constructed to enable behavioral or targeted marketing. There are of course trade-offs, and if consumers expect to access free online services, they should expect these services to come with a cost – however, the costs shouldn’t be an unwanted or uncontrollable intrusion of the user’s privacy. The issue of behavioral tracking and the role of marketers in the digital age is complex, ever-changing and, at times, highly emotional. This post is not attempt to wrangle the issue to its knees, but rather, to expand the context around the topic of behavioral targeting in general, and the growing concerns about online privacy specifically. Let me know what you think.