Changing the rules
The behavioral targeting space is separated into two loosely defined groups; those who favor the practice (advertisers or publishers, for example), and those who do not (privacy advocates, and somewhat alarmingly, regulators). The battle is being waged on-line in blogs, postings, news articles, and congressional hearings, and from where we sit, the pro-BT group is getting whupped.
The problem is complex, there are a lot of players with competing agendas (all self-serving), and the primary target for all this (the consuming public) seems to be blissfully unaware of the debate on any meaningful level. There have been lots of surveys taken by the anti-BT side that indicate consumers hate being targeted; “we surveyed 800 people, and 40% said they were less than comfortable being targeted”—so let’s see, that’s 320 people out of a market of 300 million plus, but that’s enough to draw a conclusion that gets taken to regulators. The annoying part is this is not a pro-consumer approach. It is, in fact, just the opposite.
What happens when BT is completely reigned in, and no one can run an advertisement without a double opt-in after a consumer has slowly and carefully read a privacy policy? For starters, almost no one gets targeted. This doesn’t mean they won’t receive advertising, in fact, what is likely to happen is the level of untargeted advertising will skyrocket (since targeting is restricted). This means massive amount of spam, because the bottom line for consumers is they are going to receive ads whether they like it or not, the question is, do you receive ads that are meaningful and timely, or are you carpet-bombed with everyone else in your zip code?
How can the pro-BT side claim the moral high ground in this debate? Claiming “transparency” won’t do it; stating your policy in dense legalese is nonsense, no one in their right mind reads disclaimers, and even if they do, most people won’t understand them. Telling people how they’re tracked (e.g. java script, cookies, etc.) is the technical flip side to legal babble, and equally pointless. Any marketer knows you don’t lead your pitch with features, you lead with benefits; the conversation isn’t about the vendor, it’s about the customer and why this technology is good for them. The whole debate assumes consumers hate being targeted (they don’t, people like a relevant experience), and that absolute privacy is paramount (it isn’t, otherwise sites like Facebook would not exist). The argument needs to be redefined, this isn’t about policies and technology, it’s about how BT benefits the consumer. Well-crafted targeting leads to serendipity and a compelling experience; this is the model the pro-BT space needs to focus on, with the consumer leading the charge.