A09275 Third-Party Internet Advertising Consumers' Bill of Rights Act of 2008

Well, that is a seemingly dry title for a post on a blog that features lip syncs on Fridays. But this bill, currently before the Assembly of the State of New York, has some wide reaching implications for our industry. Though I have to say, upon reading the bill, it's a little less scary (to my nonlawyer eyes) than industry mavens would seem to believe.

Currently with 57 sponsors, this bill would seem to make law what the NAI is trying to do on a voluntary basis. The bill was inspired by the acquisition of DCLK by Google, and the justification submitted with the bill reads as follows:

Recent acquisitions of third party advertising companies by large Inter-net companies have raised serious and important privacy issues with respect to who is monitoring an individual`s online behavior for marketing and other purposes. While many companies have implemented rules and polices to protect consumers, other have not. It is the responsibility of the State to adequately protect and inform its citizenry of who is tracking their legal online activities and subsequently selling that information.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who appears to be the force behind the bill, is, it should be noted, not without understanding of digital. He has written numerous internet related bills, and his concerns in this case appear to be related to the fact that while many of the ad networks out there are voluntary participants in NAI, some are not.

It won't surprise you that I hope the bill is not enacted. Though, it should be noted that state law regarding the Internet generally is toothless because the Internet is by its very nature Interstate, which makes it the purview of the Federal Government. But the bill is significant, and the number of sponsors should alert all of us to the fast that consumers are not comfy with the current state of affairs (or perceived state of affairs) as regards BT.

I think part of the challenge is that US communications law was almost entirely written before the Internet was even a gleam in Al Gore's eye, so rules and best practices regarding the space go forward in fits and starts. The FTC made a concerted effort to address the internet in the period 1998-2001, and held a major set of discussion on BT specifically not all that long ago, deciding at that time that opt-out was an acceptable way for us to go forward in the US. Their recommended privacy guidelines live here.

This post on Ars Technica outlines a lot of research on how consumers feel about BT, or what they believe BT to be. And based upon my reading, there really is a great deal of consumer discomfiture on the topic. Which brings us to what I think would be 5 ways we can begin to address consumer concerns going forward:

1. Be transparent. Every time someone tries to do something BT related without full disclosure or CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS disclosure, the conspiracy theories start flying.

2. Be real about benefits to consumers. I accept that there are some benefits to consumers re targeted advertising. But being real, in my opinion, requires that we state the whole truth -- that that the real reason our industry needs the higher CPMs made possible via BT is to pay for the web. I read 35 newspapers a day (or at least the page one headlines) and I don't pay a nickel for any of them via subscription. I pay $25 for DSL a month. About the price for a subscription to ONE of those 35 papers. Something connected to me has to pay for that usage.

3. Give people a reasonable way to opt out. I think that if people know there is a way to opt out, that will satisfy them -- that they won't all go rushing to opt out. This isn't like getting telemarketing calls -- this won't be like the DNC registry. Making the opt out system voluntary as well as easy to find online wil head off a lot of legislative efforts.

4. Stop with the 35 page T&Cs. Check out the eBaum's World privacy policy. This is how it should be done.

5. Not be Chicken Littles every time anyone in government brings up the topic, but rather engage them and ensure we're on the same page. Hey, I am opposed to legislation, but the way to avoid it is for us to act responsibly, not to villify people with concerns.

Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.