"Do Not Track List" is the First Shot in the Behavioral Targeting Wars

Advertising Age reports that several big privacy groups, including the EFF, tomorrow will rally to get the "Do Not Track" list off the ground. As proposed, it's similar to the Do Not Call list. The bigger story, however, is that this is probably the opening salvo in what is a brewing war over behavioral targeting.

The targeting of web ads based on the deep data mining of online behaviors is the fascination du jour of many online marketers these days - particularly as they focus on ROI. While it's not new, what is different now is that a) people are sharing more information about themselves online so there's more information to use and b) marketers are increasing their spend on digital marketing as TV wanes in effectiveness.

Behavioral targeting is perhaps most top of mind within companies that have been able to successfully integrate the more cerebral CRM discipline into creative, brand marketing side of the house. That's one reason why marketing inside soc nets is so attractive - data.

Right now, the marketers can really dabble a lot and perhaps even blur the line with what's ethical. I am not saying they are nor am I condoning it. However, since this level of behavioral targeting is relatively new, the unwritten ethics rules - in theory - could be bent since a lot of consumers aren't paying a lot of attention - yet. Plus, of course, they benefit from more relevant ads.

That's all about to change. It's clear the FTC is concerned about user privacy. That's why they're hosting hearings next week.

Regardless of where the Feds decide to weigh in, the noise around mining behavioral data and patterns and the potential privacy implications is only going to get louder in the coming months. All of this is going to make consumers even more aware of just how much is being tracked. Some will begin to ask serious questions. It will be particularly interesting to see how Gen Yers react since at times they seem to not care much about their privacy. Other times, they do.

All of this will spur lots of debate in the coming months and will impact the so-called social graph and other innovations in Web 2.0. Get yer popcorn. It's going to be fun to watch.

Comments

[Brandon Locke]

Here's a post on AOL move toward educating the consumer

http://senithomas.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/the-privacy-battle-aol-casts-the-first-stone/

Privacy will be what makes or breaks the future of online targeting.

[Gammydodger]

I've long been concerned with my Online Privacy - but over the last few years I have seen more and more of my personal private information being brokered, sold or traded and all I get back is more spam that is no more relevant than before.

So I have decided to make myself transparent online and give away all of the information that marketers are looking for. In this way, I hope to de-value all of the out of date, hypothetical, behavioral, psycho-demographic profiles of me that are floating around out there and replace them with something more accurate that may actually provide me with some benefit...check it out at www.realtea.net/too_much_info

[Mike Abundo]

I don't mind being targeted. If I'm going to see ads anyway, I want them to be relevant.

[Amanda Mooney]

Wow-

@Gammydodger "So I have decided to make myself transparent online and give away all of the information that marketers are looking for."

@Mike Abundo "I don't mind being targeted. If I'm going to see ads anyway, I want them to be relevant."

These two comments represent introduce an interesting side of the discussion that Steve has started here. Do we, as consumers, feel ok giving up some of our privacy in order to cut through the spam- the marketing that is completely irrelevant to us?

I agree with Steve; there's definitely going to be a major debate about the ethics of this practice but perhaps this could be solved by having an opt-in service for those who'd like to see more relevant marketing in their space online and and an opt-out "do not track" service for those concerned with privacy issues.