The Behavioral Targeting debate continues. At the heart of the debate is the simple cookie. This is not new technology. However, this simple tracking, analytics technique has now elevated to sophisticated behavioral tracking networks. In the ultimate end game here, many would like to see the cookie crumble … others would just like you to exercise choice and clear your browser so they can clear their conscience.

Central to the debate is the balance between privacy & engagement – and the assumption that they are polar opposites. They’re not. We can have privacy AND engagement. I’ll blog more on this in the coming months.

Peter Whoriskey, Staff Writer from The Washington Post captures the ongoing debate sentiment in "FTC Wants to Know What Big Brother Knows About You."

A business colleague sent me a link this week to an article in Baseline Magazine entitled “Multiple Online Personas: The Choice of a New Generation” by Chris Gonsalves. Good article – especially the introductory paragraph outlining the same individual with three separate personas.

Didn’t take the buzz machine over at Gartner long to coin a new term – Generation V. As reported by Gonsalves, “the new Generation V (the “V” is for “virtual” according to Gartner) is not defined by age, gender or geography. Instead, it is based on achievement, accomplishments and a growing preference for digital media when it comes to learning and sharing.”

The FTC Behavioral Advertising submission process has essentially divided into two camps (not a surprise outcome) … industry self-regulation or the consumer advocacy position of a (recurring) call for a ‘Do-Not-Track’ Register. Refer Reuters article by Diane Bartz entitled Consumer groups urge "do not track" registry.

The economic stakes are high for advertising networks and behavioral targeting …Multi-billion dollar revenue streams. They should be focused on the case for self-regulation given the stakes.

The case for privacy and choice for the consumer is equally strong. Tracking online activities and ‘behaviors’ – especially the extent to which this arises as well as correlation of ‘offline’ data sources – at best, can be a little creepy. Similar to say, eavesdropping all of my phone conversations … or tracking everything that I watch on TV via say, a set top box / DVR …

This is not a new debate – the positions have not changed from either side, nor are they likely to … It is good to see that a middle ground of ‘sensitive’ is emerging.

Following on from yesterday's post, here is the National Adverstising Initiative draft Principles RoadMap. Their efforts have come a long way in their stated objective ... "Helping you protect your privacy online." Couldn't be simpler.

What is "Sensitive"? ... Here is the proposed list:

Certain medical/health conditions:

• HIV/ AIDS status
  Sexually-related conditions (e.g., sexually transmitted diseases, erectile dysfunction)
• Psychiatric conditions
• Cancer status
• Abortion-related

Certain personal life information:

• Sexual behavior/orientation/identity (i.e., Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender)
• Criminal victim status (e.g., rape victim status

The challenge that I will reiterate is that someone needs to know this information to PROHIBIT the advertising ...

The Behavioral Targeting conversation continues … Last Friday was the deadline for public comment on the FTC’s proposed self-regulation guidelines issued in December 2007 … refer previous post on Greater Transparency and Consumer Control.

Saul Hansell hit many of the issues on the head in the NY Times article on April 10, 2008 entitled “Ad Industry Bans Targeting People With Cancer; Ads to Widows and Orphans Allowed” …

Note to self ... did we ever have a Transparency 1.0?

If you're a publisher ... sure. Terms of Service. Privacy Policies. PGP. Third party attestation authorities. Trust deeds. Trust certificates. If you're a consumer, you were educated to delete cookies in your browser - (know how to DoubleClick cookie opt-out?) ... and educated to Trust certain web sites.

Refer 'grab' above from Visual Thesaurus (btw, great product!) ... Transparency ... free from deceit ... easily perceived or understood.

The Internet is a powerful medium - for marketers and participants alike. For most participants, however, digital marketing is anything but easily perceived or understood.

The FTC is proposing ..."greater transparency and consumer control" ... These are the most important elements in any proposed self-regulation framework. It is NOT just about behavioral advertising. Greater transparency and consumer control should be applied to a wider construct than just behavioral advertising. Data is not being collected just to provide ads targeted to the consumer.

For example, data is also collected for interchange between social networking sites (which may later be used for behavioral advertising). Data is also collected to be sold (either raw or anonymized) - are you OK with someone else making money from selling your data without paying you even a penny?

Digital marketing is not bad. Lack of transparency is …

I’m an advocate for greater transparency in digital marketing. Transparency isn’t buried in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Transparency is in actually telling people what you are doing – in plain English. Whether on the web, your cell phone or your HD DVR, providers want more and more granular data about … YOU and WHAT YOU DO. We’re being instrumented and correlated at a rate that most folks just don’t understand. We’re going to experience a whole new wave of issues once we enter the realm of “deep-packet inspection” … keep checking the (revised) fine print from your service provider.

I’ll blog more about this over the next few months.