9 Comments

Summary:

Ever since Netscape started storing cookies in its browsers, there has been a Jekyll-and-Hyde nature to the web. The Jekyll web promised a more personalized experience, with sites serving ads for products and services that you would actually be interested in — ads that are more […]

jhEver since Netscape started storing cookies in its browsers, there has been a Jekyll-and-Hyde nature to the web. The Jekyll web promised a more personalized experience, with sites serving ads for products and services that you would actually be interested in — ads that are more like useful information and less like glaring interruptions. The Hyde web wanted sites to stalk you, recording little bits of data about your online life until they knew more than you’d be comfortable sharing even with some friends.

Internet media companies have long grappled with that contradiction inherent in targeted ads, and have had, at best, mixed success at resolving it. But it’s looking like they’ll need to solve it soon — or regulators will do it for them. This week, two House subcommittees queried executives from Google, Yahoo and Facebook on their efforts to protect the personal data collected from consumers. With talk of digital shadowing and polls showing privacy concerns, the tone was clearly in favor of tightening existing practices.

For now, a bill regulating online privacy seems unlikely. Threats of one are more a way to prod companies into their own solution. The Federal Trade Commission has been favoring an approach in which online advertisers regulate themselves. But as critics like the World Privacy Forum have pointed out, self-regulation has only progressed under regulatory pressure. So harsh rhetoric and threats of new laws will continue.

Given Congress’ past comments on the topic, its solution would be oversimplified and procrustean. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, proposed a system that allows consumers to be tracked by a site unless they opt out, while third parties won’t be able to track them unless they opt in. Many users may be comfortable with that, but for advertisers it greatly hampers the ability to target customers with ads they might respond to — in other words, Jekyll wins. And Hyde loses.

The problem gets trickier when you realize that the issues behind behavioral targeting and online privacy are complex, but the solution needs to be as simple and intuitive as Google’s home page. Some people may be delighted to customize when and how their online activities can be tracked, but not many. The majority of the online crowd will find it a chore. Deciding what personal data to share will make many feel safer online, but it requires a lot of extra work. Many will decide that the fastest, easiest solution is to not share any data at all.

So while online media companies must be relieved that the task of solving the privacy problem is, for now, up to them, they can’t be happy about how daunting that task is. It means responding to competing pressures from consumers, regulators and advertisers — none of which it would be smart to ignore. Privacy protection policies will need to:

  • be simple enough for consumers to feel comfortable with,
  • have enough substance to placate regulators and silence criticism from privacy advocates, and
  • keep ads targeted enough so that big advertisers believe that online ads have a big advantage over TV, print and other media.

The answer may lie in allowing consumers to have control over privacy settings while offering incentives for them to share personal data they’re comfortable with sharing. But whatever the solution is, it will need to come soon. After stabilizing in March, April and May, online ad spending appears to be softening in June.

What can Internet media companies do right now? Leading by example is a small first step. It’s always been more than ironic that companies like Google, which zealously guards its metrics and financial data, and Facebook, which rarely reveals details of its financial performance, are so keen on gathering personal data from their customers. It’s a lesson that everyone learned in kindergarten: If you want others to share, learn to share first. Well, everyone except Mr. Hyde.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Gadget Sleuth Sunday, June 21, 2009

    The one lesson is: there’s no such thing as true “privacy” on the web. If they want to get at your data or surfing habits, they can. Very easily.

  2. Vad NU! » Blog Archive » Make data personal Sunday, June 21, 2009

    [...] Th discussion on privacy online is ongoing. Do we want a more personalized experience, or do we put an end to providing companies with bits and pieces of data about our online habits? Do Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde win the race? [...]

  3. Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and Privacy on the Web [Voices] | UpOff.com Monday, June 22, 2009

    [...] Read the rest of this post on the original site Article Share and Enjoy: [...]

  4. » Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde and Privacy on the Web [Voices] True HelloWorld Story Monday, June 22, 2009

    [...] Read the rest of this post on the original site [...]

  5. virtual online worlds for kids Monday, June 22, 2009

    Great analogy! Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde indeed. As usual though we know the exixtence of Hyde we just can’t stop being impressed with Jekyll.

  6. Feels like the proposal for site opt-out, third party opt-in shifts the power of accessing consumner data towards publishers and away from ad networks and ad servers…

  7. Rocketvox. One Place. » Security of Digital Gold with Unified Messaging Thursday, June 25, 2009

    [...] the cloud, so does the data that constitutes your digital life. Recent articles in TechCrunch and GigaOM question the privacy of some of the most ubiquitous online tools. The truth is that the benefits of [...]

  8. Katie Frothingham Tuesday, July 20, 2010

    Not all targeting and retargeting companies should be blamed or equated with Facebook. Traditionally, behavioral targeting utilizes data taken from anonymous pixels on IP addresses. This data does not describe whether the person is male or female, their address, e-mail, or any personal information at all. Technically, behavioral targeting could be a positive thing. Think about it. Companies don’t waste money sending advertisements to people who aren’t interested in their products, and consumers get advertisements that might bring them to a site with information they appreciate on it.

    Take for example Jeremy. Jeremy goes to a website and compares prices on two flat screen TVs. He leaves the site without taking an action to buy, and continues surfing the web. Perhaps an hour later, having forgotten about his previous endeavors, he sees an ad with a great deal for a 50 inch plasma. Jeremy gets the deal he was looking for and a retailer or advertiser makes a sale. Ouila! Personalized targeting isn’t the bad guy.

    In addition to this, people who own websites that sell durable goods (i.e. small, medium OR large businesses) can partner with retargeting companies, make a data deal, and profit from the serving of ads. In a bad economy, targeting might be an all around help.

    check out http://www.owneriq.com to learn more about non-traditional targeting.

  9. john hammerstein Tuesday, July 20, 2010

    Not all retargeting and targeting is bad. Think of it this way–if the pixel is anonymous (meaning no data is taken other than the IP address of the user) the only thing that will happen is that consumers will be sent advertisements that are relevant to what they are interested in, and advertisers or retailers won’t waste money on ads.

Comments have been disabled for this post