Transparency in Tweets

WHO'S BEHIND THAT TWEET?

Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) is formalizing guidelines for advertising use of Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, and other social media. "Endorsement or testimonials must disclose any material connection between the endorser, reviewer or influencer and the entity that makes a product or service available," explains an ASC exec.

Canada wants to ensure that social media users can tell the difference between non-sponsored and sponsored tweets (or other posts that have been paid for).

The US Federal Trade Commission has already solidified guidelines for disclosure, but Canada's rules don't go into effect until early in 2017.

Meanwhile, the US FTC is pushing celebrity endorsers to be more transparent about being paid to promote products. It recently complained about Warner Bros using influencer-campaigns (paying social media celebrities to say something positive about a game, for example) that lacked "clear and conspicuous" disclosures.

Given the viral nature of celebrity opinions, this is an area where more transparency is needed to ensure that consumers get the full picture of who's behind that tweet or YouTube video or any other message promoting a product. As a result, marketers must stay updated on the regulatory environment to be in full compliance (and keep their endorsers updated on compliance standards, too).

Do Not Track Kids - An Idea That's Overdue

A proposed law being formulated right now would block Web sites from tracking the online behavior of kids. Although the legislation is still being drafted--and its future possibilities are unclear--I think this is a good start toward protecting the privacy of children and their families.

Only yesterday, the FTC endorsed the idea of a "Do not track" online system, akin to the "Do not call" phone registry. In his public statement, the head of the FTC observed:

The FTC [recently] charged that EchoMetrix sold so-called “Sentry” software to enable parents to monitor their children online, but it failed to adequately disclose that it also sold information about the kids’ online activities to third-party marketers. The only – only – potential hint to parents was a vague statement buried 30 paragraphs down in the Sentry end user license agreement.

Hardly a transparent practice, is it? That's one reason the FTC wants to see a "Do not track" system, and I agree.

Also, I notice that the Wall Street Journal's story on the proposed anti-tracking legislation has 8 trackers on it (I know because I've installed Ghostery to count and block as many as possible). The New York Times's story on the FTC statement had only 3 trackers.

If adults want to consent to be tracked online, they can make an informed decision to opt in or out. Kids, however, aren't in the same category. Sorry, my opinion is that marketers should not be tracking what kids do online; businesses that value their reputation for customer-centric policies will welcome guidelines for preventing such tracking.

Is Industry Self-Reg of Online Ad Targeting Enough?

Yesterday the FTC announced it's sticking with industry self-regulation of behavioral targeting for online advertising. Translation: Companies like Google can continue to track consumers' Internet activities and collect data so they can serve up targeted advertising based on the sites and pages consumers visit.

Yes, the FTC wants marketers to obtain "affirmative express consent" in some situations--meaning they have to get consumers to specifically say "yes" to certain uses of their data. It also wants companies to have easy opt-out options for consumers to say "no."

Four industry groups (American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Association of National Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and the Interactive Advertising Bureau) are working on industry guidelines. Of course, self-regulation is voluntary, with no consequences for non-compliance (other than public exposure).

Here are several articles about the FTC's announcement: NetworkWorld, Ars Technica, ClickZ.

Trouble is, consumers don't really understand what web site privacy policies are saying: Exactly what's being collected? How will the data be used? How easy is it to opt out? And people are understandably nervous about use and misuse of personal data. If given the opportunity to do a blanket opt-out of all behavioral tracking, I suspect most consumers would do it in a heartbeat. It's up to the companies to make a strong case for the benefits of behavioral targeting.

Big Gulp: Food Marketers Spend Big To Target Kids

clipped from latimesblogs.latimes.com Kids get a taste of food-related advertising online A new report out today revealed some unsurprising information: Marketers spend a lot of money trying to get kids hooked on foods such as Shrek cereal and Pirates of the Caribbean waffles. What's a little more surprising is that they don't spend much money marketing food to kids where so many of them hang out -- on the Internet. In 2006, the time period that the online-spending portion of the report covered, food companies only allocated 5% of their youth marketing dollars online. (Of course, the online advertising market is growing by double digits every year, much faster than overall ad spending, so the percentage has probably increased since 2006.)

A new FTC report says that overall, $1.6 billion was spent in 2006 to promote food and beverage items like soft drinks, fast food, and cereal to kids. This is the first study of its kind--worth at least a quick look.

Online promotions are a small part of marketers' budgets. It doesn't cost that much to put up a kid-friendly site with product- or brand-related games, prizes, competitions and more.

I just hope parents are looking over their kids' shoulders and reinforcing ideas about good nutrition and healthy habits.