By Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka Progress & Freedom Foundation Progress Snapshot No. 6.5, Feb 2010 [.pdf]
Advertising is increasingly under attack in Washington. In fact, we’re busy finishing up a paper with the working title: “The New Assault on Advertising: What it Means for the Future of Media & Culture.” Among other things, the paper inventories the many ways in which policymakers in Washington and elsewhere are stepping up regulation of commercial advertising and marketing efforts-and highlights the common themes that unite them. Unfortunately, the report is already over 50 pages long and we keep finding new threats to discuss!
This regulatory tsunami could not come at a worse time, of course, since an attack on advertising is tantamount to an attack on media itself, and media is at a critical point of technological change. As we have pointed outrepeatedly, the vast majority of media and content in this country is supported by commercial advertising in one way or another-particularly in the era of “free” content and services.[1]
An Attack on Advertising Will Hurt Consumers
But there’s a more important reason to fear Washington’s new war on advertising: It will hurt consumer welfare. That’s because advertising provides important information and signals to consumers about goods and services that are competing for their attention and business—and that scarcest of all things in the modern world, consumers’ attention. Continue reading →
they will collaborate to help companies create and use new forms of digital signs. By exploiting Intel chips and Microsoft software, the companies hope to bring more interactivity to such devices and help retailers customized marketing offers to consumers.
Signs equipped with cameras and specialized software could recognize the age, gender and height of people in front of them, and tell what products and images received the most attention, the companies said. By gathering information about which messages are more effective, they add, traditional retailers could develop marketing approaches that better counter Web-based competitors. “Every year retailers lose more ground to online [sellers], and they have to do something about that,” said Joe Jensen, general manager of Intel’s embedded computing division.
Down below, I have jotted down a couple of thoughts about the rise of “digital signage” and more targeted forms of retail marketing, only a few of which I was able to get across in this short TV spot. I think it’s an exciting new development for both retailers and consumers for the reasons I explain down below:
One of the themes you come across again and again in public policy debates about privacy, advertising, marketing, or even free speech battles, is the notion that the public at large is made up of mindless sheep being duped at every turn. And, as Berin Szoka and I noted in our paper “What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?” if you buy into the argument that consumers are basically that stupid then it logically follows that people cannot be trusted or left to their own devices. Thus, government must intervene and establish a baseline “community standard” on behalf of the entire citizenry to tell them what’s best for them.
But there are good reasons to question the premise that consumers are blind to efforts to persuade or influence them — regardless of what type of media content or communications efforts we are talking about. I was recently reading Communication Power by Manuel Castells and liked what he had to say about how so many media critics make this false assumption. Castells rightly notes:
Interestingly enough, critical theorists of communication often espouse [a] one-sided view of the communications process. By assuming the notion of a helpless audience manipulated by corporate media, they place the source of social alienation in the realm of consumerist mass communication. And yet, a well-established stream of research, particularly in the psychology of communications, shows the capacity of people to modify the signified of the messages they receive by interpreting them according to their own cultural frames, and by mixing the messages from one particular source with their variegated range of communicative practices. (p. 127)
That’s exactly right, and it is even more true in an age of ubiquitous, interactive communications technologies. “The people formerly known as the audience” have the unprecedented ability to talk back, to compare notes, to collectively criticize and hold accountable those who previously held all the cards in the mass media age of the past. Most consumers are perfectly capable of judging the merits of advertising, commercial messages, or other content on their own; they cast a skeptical eye toward most claims but process those claims alongside other counter-claims, independent judgments, informational inputs, and “cultural frames,” as Castells rightly argues. We need to give the public some credit.
Just read this AP article that reported on a Tuesday hearing of the Ohio Supreme Court about an Ohio “harmful to minors” law. According to the article, the statute makes it illegal to distribute harmful material to minors through “direct communications by people who know or have reason to believe the recipient is a minor.”
The case is in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has asked the Ohio Supreme Court to interpret “mass distribution” and “personally directed devices.” Per the law:
2) A person remotely transmitting information by means of a method of mass distribution does not directly sell, [etc.] … if either of the following applies:
(a) The person has inadequate information to know or have reason to believe that a particular recipient of the information or offer is a juvenile.
(b) The method of mass distribution does not provide the person the ability to prevent a particular recipient from receiving the information.
In the hearing (see the video) Justice Robert Cupp coins this beauty of a statement: “It’s not really the statute that’s confusing here, it’s the technologies.” Judge say what?
Isn’t the whole point of a statute to be applied to factual situations? Anything can make sense in the abstract (even law!). But applied to everyday life, the simplistic becomes complex — and can have unintended consequences. Continue reading →
A recent telephone poll conducted by professors at Berkeley and the University of Pennsylvania concluded, “Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interest.” The study’s authors claim that their poll is the “the first nationally representative telephone (wireline and cell phone) survey to explore Americans’ opinions about behavioral targeting by marketers.” They also assert that the poll indicates that “if Americans could vote on behavioral targeting today, they would shut it down.” Advocates of regulating online data collection have trumpeted this poll as evidence consumers demand legislation to protect their privacy. “This research gives the F.T.C. and Congress a political green light to go ahead and enact effective, but reasonable, rules and policies,” declared Jeff Chester, a leading critic of online advertising.
But what is most surprising about this poll is not that 66% of users said they do not want tailored online ads, but that 34% of users said they did! The key, initial question of “whether or not you want the websites you visit to show you ads that are tailored to your interests,” presents no trade-off. The fact that anyusers said “yes” indicates that many users paused to do the rough mental math about the unarticulated trade-off between the benefits of receiving tailored ads and the costs of that tailoring.
The methodology of opinion polls necessarily affects respondents’ mental calculations, rendering polls not just easily manipulated, but inherently unreliable as indicators of real preferences. Every poll reflects the bias of its authors to some degree by the way questions are worded, the order in which they are asked, the sample surveyed, etc. The easiest way to bias the results of a poll is to omit any mention of the trade-offs at issue. This poll simply buried the issue of trade-offs in a heavily loaded follow-up question: After telling respondents that marketers “often use technologies to follow the websites you visit and the content you look at in order to better customize ads,” the interviewer asked whether the respondent would allow advertisers to “follow [them] online in an anonymous way in exchange for free content.” Only 10% of users said they would allow this voluntary exchange.
What does this tell us about whether, and how, government should further regulate online advertising? Precious little: Not only does this poll overstate the costs of targeted advertising, understate its benefits, and ignore the tools available to users to address their privacy concerns but, like any opinion poll, this one tells us more about the psychology of decision-making under the artificial uncertainty of polls than about the choices users would actually make in the real world. Continue reading →
Sometimes the most revealing conversations about policy issues happen with our loved ones at the breakfast table. Although loyal TLF readers may remember my partner Michael as my “Posterboy for Advertising’s Pro-Consumer Quid Pro Quo,” he doesn’t usually get into the policy issues I cover. But this morning, we fell into a conversation about the bitterly contentious issue of marketing to kids:
Michael: Growing up in South Korea, on a military base, we didn’t have any commercials on television. We had three channels and all they showed was public service announcements.
We moved back to the U.S. when I was nine, and suddenly, during all my favorite cartoons, there were ads for toys. It was exciting—and more than a little bit overwhelming! It wasn’t just that I wanted these toys; it was that felt this incredible sense of urgency: I thought we had to go get the toys right now or they’d be gone!
What did Rousseau call his innocent man, the Noble Savage? That’s what we were: The noble savage, coming into this world of sophisticated toy advertisements.
But it didn’t take long for me to get over this initial bewilderment. My parents explained to me that we didn’t really have to go to the store right away. (They also explained to me that I couldn’t haggle with the staff at Toys ‘R Us the same way I’d haggled with street vendors back in Korea—something that utterly mystified the staff.) After one trip to Toys Toys ‘R Us, I got the toys I wanted most and, over the next few months, realized that they weren’t anywhere near as exciting as I had imagined.
After that, I enjoyed the toy ads on TV, but I lost interest in many of the toys I already had, preferring to create my own toys or play outside.
I explained that advertising of toys to kids has long been the cause celebre of anti-advertising crusaders:
Michael: But kids are acquisitive, too! How are they supposed to know about the latest toys if you can’t advertise to them? And what’s the big deal, anyway? I got used to toy ads and I think most kids would, too. The thing that’s different is incentive programs at stores.
Microsoft missed its opportunities to get into paid search not because it was “dumb,” “uninnovative” or a “bad” company, but for the same sorts of reasons that big, highly successful and even particularly innovative companies fail. The reasons companies generally succeed in mastering “adaptive” innovation of the technologies behind their established business models are the very reasons why such great companies struggle to encourage or channel the “disruptive” innovation that renders their core technologies and business models obsolete. This dynamic was described brilliantly in Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s classic 1997 book The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail…
Let’s hope that Microsoft—as well as Yahoo!—have carefully studied the vast literature produced by business schools in the wake of Christensen’s book about how big companies can avoid the Innovator’s Dilemma by promoting—and capitalizing on—radical innovation from within. Indeed, this seems to be precisely what has guided Google’s own strategy as it has grown from “disruptive innovator” to become the very sort of behemoth that cannot easily escape the Dilemma, even if corporate managers are fully aware of the problem on a theoretical level. If Google can do it, Microsoft should be able to, too. But let’s also not discount the possibility that, no matter how hard Google’s management might try to retain the innovative culture of a start-up, the giant can’t do that well enough to prevent its own apparent market dominance from being disrupted by new upstart innovators in search and advertising technologies.
My prediction seems to be coming true: Microsoft, with less to lose and without a huge installed user base to worry about annoying by violating Google’s “Prime Directive” of elegant simplicity, may have an easier time introducing “disruptive” innovations to search than Google. Of course, it’s unlikely that any one feature will prove the “killer app” that suddenly causes Bing’s market share to explode—and Google’s to plummet—but a steady stream of such nifty features could convince many users to switch to Bing.
At 29, I’m old enough to remember when Microsoft seemed as cool as Google does today. Hell, I remember being thrilled as a sophomore in high school by Bill Gates’ 1995 book The Road Aheadand the accompanying CD-ROM (which included, as I recall, a tour of Gates’s ultra-futuristic home). If Microsoft can “get its mojo back,” the company could truly become a web services provider to rival Google. We’d all benefit from having more choices in search engines, advertising platforms and related tools. And, driving each other to “build a better mousetrap,” the two companies could lead us down the “Road Ahead” from Search 2.0 to Search 3.0 and beyond. So here’s to hoping that Redmond can solve the “Innovator’s Dilemma” with tools like Google’s “20 percent” time that free engineers to innovate!
We’ve written a lot lately about Microsoft’s efforts to reinvent itself, first rebranding its Live search engine as the Bing, and then partnering with Yahoo! to make Bing the search engine on Yahoo!’s still-impressive empire of content and services. But if Microsoft is going to beat Google in Search 3.0 and master shifts in the driving paradigms of the Internet from search and browsers to ubiquitous integration of social networking and other paradigms as yet unforeseen, Microsoft will need more than just brilliant engineering: They’ll need clever marketing.
So it seems that the software titan is turning to user-generated advertising, such as this gem:
WARNING: Battlestar Galactica spoiler: Google may well be in danger of losing its monopoly on cool to Microsoft if Bingcan get at least four of the Final Five Cylons to volunteer as back-up singers in a promo video contest.
Google clearly considers Microsoft a threat, having recently launched an ad campaign of its own for its Apps services, which compete directly with Microsoft Office.
The new Maine law I blogged about on Sunday is much worse than I thought based on my initial reading. If allowed to stand, it would constitute a sweeping age verification mandate introduced through the back door of “child protection.”
The law, which goes into effect in September, would extend the approach of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 by requiring “verifiable parental consent” before the collection of kids “personal information” about kids, not just those under 13, but also adolescents age 13-17. Unlike other state-level proposals in New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia and North Carolina, Maine’s “COPPA 2.0” law would also cover health information, but would only govern the collection and use of data for marketing purposes (while the FTC has interpreted COPPA to cover to essentially any capability for communicating personal information among users).
But the Maine law would go much further than these proposals or COPPA itself by banning transfer or use of such data in anything other than de-identified, aggregate form. Still I took some comfort in the fact that the Maine law, unlike COPPA or these other proposals, lacked the second of COPPA’s two prongs: (i) collection from kids and (ii) collection on sites that are directed at kids. It’s because of the second prong that COPPA applies not only when a site operator knows that it’s collecting information from kids (or merely allowing them to share information with other users), but also when the operator’s site is (like, say, Club Penguin) targeted to kids in terms of its subject matter, branding, interface, etc. Because I initially concluded that the Maine law would apply only to knowing collection, I supposed that it would be less likely to require age verification of all users, as other COPPA 2.0 proposals would—something that would be unlikely to survive a First Amendment challenge based on the harm to online anonymity.
But I was quite wrong. During the PFF Capitol Hill briefing Adam and I held on Monday, Jim Halpert, one of our panelists, noted that the bill imposed “strict liability.” Continue reading →
Maine has just enacted a law severely restricting marketing to kids: the Act To Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors, summarized by Covington & Burling. Adam and I released a major paper in June about such laws: COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech. Maine is following the lead of several other states that have tried to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998 to cover nost just kids under 13 but adolescents as well and potentially all social networking sites. We discussed at length the problems such laws create, particularly the possibility that large numbers of adults would, for the first time, be subject to age verification mandates before accessing (or participating in) the growing range of sites with social networking capabilities. This, in turn, would significantly “chill” free speech online by undermining anonymity.
Like COPPA 2.0 proposals in New Jersey (simply extending COPPA to cover adolescents) and Illinois (applying COPPA to most social networking sites), the Maine law tries to build on COPPA’s ”verifiable parental consent” requirement for the 13-17 audience as well as those under 13.
On the one hand, the Maine law goes much further than these other COPPA 2.0 proposals. While the original bill was limited to the Internet and wireless communications, the final bill’s scope applies to all communications. The bill also covers “health-related” information (HRI) as well as ”personal information” (PI). On the other hand, the Maine law is thus somewhat narrower than other COPPA 2.0 proposals and COPPA itself in that it applies only to “marketing or advertising products, goods or services.” While COPPA is commonly misunderstood to cover only marketing, it actually covers essentially any “collection” (broadly defined) of personal information from kids for any purpose—including merely giving kids access to communications functionality that might let them share personal information with other users (even if the site itself is not “collecting” that information in the commonly understood sense).
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Advertising is increasingly under attack in Washington. In fact, we’re busy finishing up a paper with the working title: “The New Assault on Advertising: What it Means for the Future of Media & Culture.” Among other things, the paper inventories the many ways in which policymakers in Washington and elsewhere are stepping up regulation of commercial advertising and marketing efforts-and highlights the common themes that unite them. Unfortunately, the report is already over 50 pages long and we keep finding new threats to discuss!
Comments 
Posted in: Advertising & Marketing 
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
