While UK and EU bodies say they are looking at introducing it
here, they should hurry if they want to avoid more stringent
Brussels-imposed regulation. The scheme looks simple and effective.
Advertisers and media owners should jump on it, fast.
The launch of the US scheme was accompanied by new
research
on consumer attitudes to online behavioural advertising
(27-page PDF).
More than 2,600 US adults were told that information about their
visits to websites may be used by advertisers to decide which
online advertisements they see. Almost half of respondents (46%)
expressed discomfort with that practice. (Curiously, this was far
fewer than in the
last study (27-page PDF) on the subject, which suggested
that 84% of US adults object to behavioural advertising when asked
slightly different questions).
When told that websites would explain how their information
would be used and give them a choice not to receive customised ads,
the number of respondents expressing discomfort fell to 30%,
according to the new study.
There is nothing inherently sneaky or bad about behavioural
advertising except, perhaps, that users haven't been told about it
until now. That secrecy is corrosive. Addressing the use of
behavioural advertising in a privacy policy is not enough, yet that
has been the industry's approach until now. Few people read these
policies, but does anyone at all read the privacy policy of a site
when they don't even realise that they're sharing information?
That's why I've argued before that behavioural ads should be
labelled.
The new study concluded that the right solution was an icon and
a short phrase placed next to the ad, like so:
When the icon and phrase are clicked, consumers get information
about the ad and the opportunity to opt out of behavioural
advertising in future. It's a pragmatic, fair and usable way to
make behavioural advertising transparent.
One of the US trade bodies behind the move is the Interactive
Advertising Bureau, which represents site owners and advertising
agencies. Its UK head of regulatory affairs Nick Stringer and
European IAB vice president Kimon Zorbas have told us that they
will be working with their members to extend the scheme to the UK
and Europe.
It is vital for the future of behavioural advertising that they
work quickly. If they don't, regulators will intervene and may
over-react. That would be harmful to the publishing and advertising
industries and potentially harmful to consumers because a regime
that upsets the advertising ecosystem could force more sites to
charge for their content.
Not all invasions of privacy are equal yet there is reason to
fear a disproportionate response from Brussels, following recent
meddling with
cookie laws. Compared to controversies like the UK's
retention of DNA
profiles or, this week, the introduction of
full-body
scanners at Heathrow Airport, the potential harm caused
by behavioural advertising is mild. A recent incident illustrates
this.
A woman had used the Marks and Spencer (M&S) website to look
for Champagne. She was shocked to see weeks later that ads for
Champagne were appearing on a website for pre-teen girls being used
by her five-year-old daughter.
The ad was published through a retargeting system, shown to that
computer because it had previously been used to look for those
products.
The woman contacted
Alcohol Concern, which alerted M&S. The company
acted quickly to remove all alcohol ads from its retargeting
campaign.
This is an example of an unwanted consequence of using
behavioural tracking to decide which ads should be sent to which
computers. But it is also an example of a company acting quickly,
transparently and responsibly to solve a problem that did
appear.
Advertising a product for adults on sites aimed at children is
not an inevitable consequence of behavioural advertising. This
incident was merely a mistake and the harm caused by such isolated
incidents will be negligible. The greatest potential harm that I
can see in behavioural advertising is in discriminatory pricing.
But that could breach
existing laws, which is the subject of an investigation
by the Office of Fair Trading, so it may be that new rules are not
necessary.
Companies should learn from M&S and realise that problems
dealt with in a mature and open manner rarely escalate. They should
adopt that same responsible attitude pre-emptively to their
behavioural ads and urge the IAB in the UK and Europe to move
quickly on a labelling system.
By Struan
Robertson, editor of OUT-LAW.COM. The views expressed
are Struan's and do not necessarily represent those of Pinsent
Masons. You can follow Struan at Twitter.com/struan99.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
