Jason Kint | Vox

Facebook, Google and now Verizon are accelerating their tracking efforts despite consumers’ privacy concerns

2016-11-21T16:22:10-05:00

Lowell McAdam, chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications, talks on his cellphone as he attends the annual Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. | Drew Angerer / Getty

Verizon has topped itself by playing Russian roulette with consumer trust in an attempt to compete with the advertising businesses of Google and Facebook. In an email announcement last Sunday night to select subscribers, Verizon signaled how it intends to compete with those two powerhouses, outlining its plan to combine offline information, such as postal address, email address and device type, with AOL browser cookies, Apple and Google advertising IDs, and their own unique identifier header. Coupled with all of their customers’ browsing history and app usage, this mass of customer data will make for a rich competitive product to Facebook and Google.

Facebook, Google and now Verizon are in fast pursuit of the holy grail for digital advertising — syncing up a consumers’ personally identifiable information with all browsing history and app usage.

There’s just one problem: This practice requires explicit opt-in consent from consumers under the new FCC privacy rules. Although the rules are not yet required to be adopted (and notably on the chopping block in a Trump presidency), it’s hard to argue that Verizon’s plan doesn’t violate the spirit of the rulemaking.

Verizon’s unilateral move to compete with Google and Facebook is likely due to the fact that the well-documented “duopoly” collectively takes more than 100 percent of the incremental growth in digital advertising — their gravy train is tied to the data which fuels their direct-marketing businesses. Why? Because Google and Facebook have a unique ability to link up personally identified users with browsing history, app usage and location across the device graph.

It’s been nearly two years since I wrote for Recode about Verizon and Turn’s massive zombie cookie stumble which ultimately led to an FCC investigation and settlement. It was a prime example of the breakdown in consumer trust, which we had been highlighting for years, and presciently previewed the ad blocking crisis to come. It also inspired DCN to express its concern to the FCC when the agency deliberated how to enforce privacy rules for broadband. After all, ISPs have a unique ability to see nearly all of your internet traffic, not unlike Google and Facebook.

Whether it’s a third party like Facebook or Google tracking across the web, or an ISP leveraging its distribution arm, this is outside of consumer expectations.

Enter ad blocking. The primary consumer grievances inspiring installation of ad blockers are now widely understood: Ads infringe on user privacy, obscure content, expose users’ devices to security hazards, and hoover up bandwidth and slow page loads. As the IAB’s LEAN standards bear fruit, we expect several of these concerns to be pacified. However, the industry is willfully ignoring the canary in the coal mine — consumer privacy. While the “A” in LEAN refers to the industry’s self-regulatory AdChoices program, consumers need even more protection and better privacy tools.

Meanwhile, Facebook, Google and now Verizon are instead accelerating their tracking efforts, despite privacy concerns appearing consistently in the top reasons for using an ad blocker. They are in fast pursuit of the holy grail for digital advertising — syncing up a consumers’ personally-identifiable information with all browsing history and app usage:

Facebook was the first company to do this at scale across devices, due to its persistent login for the service. The social network was only missing an ability to track browsing history and app usage across the web, which it solved in 2014 by proliferating the web with “Like” buttons to passively track consumer web usage under the disguise of being a consumer feature.
Google held fast on its privacy promise for nearly a decade until the pressures to compete with Facebook and link up personal info across devices became too significant. In October, investigative reporter Julia Angwin uncovered that Google had quietly erased its ban on personally identifiable web tracking by linking up its massive DoubleClick tracking arm with its personal info from Gmail.
The most extensive data brokers can collect thousands of points of data on consumers, but their accuracy and capabilities are limited by not being able to link up to personal information. My most recent review of BlueKai’s detailed registry of what they think they know about me was littered with bad information.

Whether it’s a third party like Facebook or Google tracking across the web or an ISP leveraging its distribution arm, this is outside of consumer expectations. Importantly to the digital media industry, it also devalues the context and relationship of consumer trust which drives the businesses of premium publishers. While we were hopeful that the new FCC privacy rules would shift value back to publishers, we now recognize that they’re in limbo without backing from the White House. It’s unfortunate that Verizon has chosen to bury them before the new guy even shows up at the door.

Advantage: Ad blocking.

Jason Kint is the CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade association that exclusively serves the diverse needs of digital content companies that manage direct, trusted relationships with consumers and marketers. A 20-year veteran of the digital media industry, he previously led the evolution of CBS Sports into a multi-platform brand offering premier broadcast, online and mobile sports content as SVP and General Manager of CBS Interactive’s Sports Division. Reach him @jason_kint.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Understanding ‘Do Not Track’: Truth and Consequences

2019-03-06T05:40:34-05:00

Last week, Re/code published a report called “How ‘Do Not Track’ Ended Up Going Nowhere,” which included a number of what I consider to be misleading points from industry voices. Importantly, this column came at a time when consumers are choosing to boycott all advertising by installing ad-blocking software. Research indicates that the increased usage of ad blockers is due to a lack of trust driven by everything from relentless tracking and (more likely) the deteriorating experience and types of ads that often come with it.

Make no mistake, this challenge started with publishers. Although many people in the ad tech world are finally apologizing for their hand in the skyrocketing ad-blocking rates, joining our “Advertising 2.0: A Call to Think,” rather than a call to arms, it’s critical to clear up some misinformation about Do Not Track.

While I understand that not everyone may agree with DNT as a policy, I will attempt to clarify what I feel was misleading in the article:

The Re/code headline indicated that DNT “failed to go anywhere.” In reality, it was recently published as a completed standard by the cross-industry international standards body, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). And it represents one of the first interesting tactics with the potential to reduce ad blocking. This is an important point because DNT is all about giving consumers more choices and transparency about which companies can collect and use data about their browsing history. One reason we’re seeing the rise of ad-blocking software is that consumers don’t feel that they have control over their online experiences.
There is no carve-out exception for big companies. The W3C standard would apply equally to big and small players — anyone operating as a third party on a webpage or app. When a consumer is on a random cooking blog, any other third-party tracker, including those as large as Google and Facebook, would be prohibited from collecting and using that consumer’s data. Just as importantly, the standard would prevent third parties from tailoring ads based on data they already know about you. And for good reason. Most consumers don’t expect companies to be collecting or using data about them behind the scenes for non-transparent reasons. In the published standard, if the consumer didn’t intend to interact with that company, big or small, then the company cannot track.
Why should DNT treat first parties and third parties differently? Today, consumers can choose to visit an array of websites and apps offering news, entertainment and other content experiences. Consumers generally expect websites to collect data about their visits so the website can make improvements, ease usage, personalize or make content recommendations. Websites that violate a consumer’s trust risk losing that consumer altogether, as they can choose not to visit again. But there are few effective mechanisms to exercise this same kind of control over third-party data collection, since third parties aren’t, by their very definition, known to consumers.The Federal Trade Commission, in its 2012 privacy report entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change,” noted that choice is not needed for “practices that are consistent with the transaction or the company’s relationship with the consumer.” The report notes internal operations and first-party marketing as acceptable uses of data. Conversely, the FTC advocated that DNT could be a useful tool for consumers who wanted to opt out of “behavioral tracking” conducted by third parties. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer advocacy group for those unfamiliar (ahem, John Legere), created Privacy Badger, an extension that allows first parties to collect data while blocking third parties.
Do Not Call and Do Not Track are apples and oranges. They get mixed up due to the naming convention, but Do Not Call is a managed registration list. Microsoft originally tried to do something like this for digital privacy. Unfortunately, lists are extremely hard to maintain, given the dynamic Internet. Do Not Track is elegant because it’s a simple, persistent way for a consumer to express a preference simultaneously to all the entities and resources involved in a webpage and, importantly, the local regulation or self-regulation can develop the policy from there.

Speaking of self-regulation, when the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) dropped out of the W3C process, it promised to develop its own DNT standard. It also made the same promise at the White House in 2012. As we’ve written before, it’s time for industry to step up. Tens of millions of consumers have enabled DNT in their browsers. Now, more and more consumers are blocking ads altogether. It’s inexcusable at this point that the industry hasn’t made its self-regulatory principles apply to users with the DNT signal turned on.

There is an escalating technology war between consumers and companies that want to track them across websites, apps and devices.

There is an escalating technology war between consumers and companies that want to track them across websites, apps and devices. And I think we’ve seen plenty of evidence proving that this is an arms race that can’t be won. We’re turning the Internet into a battle zone where clickbait, bottom feeders, bots and, ultimately, no sustainable advertising model may be the norm. We need to give consumers an easy, persistent way to express their choice.

Premium content and experiences cannot thrive in an environment where consumer trust is at an all-time low. Confusion of the facts will only lead to protection of incumbent interests, which are clearly failing. Instead, we need more transparent fact-based collaboration across the industry like this Thursday’s PrivacyCon, hosted by the FTC, which brings together thought leaders across the industry. No business has ever succeeded long term without meeting consumer demands. So, instead of fighting consumers, let’s give them what they want: More transparency and better controls.

Jason Kint is the CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade association that exclusively serves the diverse needs of digital content companies that manage direct, trusted relationships with consumers and marketers. A 20-year veteran of the digital media industry, he previously led the evolution of CBS Sports into a multi-platform brand offering premier broadcast, online and mobile sports content as SVP and general manager of CBS Interactive’s Sports Division. Reach him @jason_kint.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Attack of the Zombie Cookies: Verizon and a Turn for the Worse

2019-03-06T04:49:39-05:00

In a number of columns last year, I called on the digital media industry to increase the level of transparency and choice for consumers in the digital marketplace, because I’m concerned about new ways in which companies are collecting data in a post-cookie world. This included Facebook’s collection and use of data through “Like” buttons across the Web, even when the user doesn’t interact with them.

Yesterday’s ProPublica’s article, “Zombie Cookie: The Tracking Cookie That You Can’t Kill,” tops all prior concerns. The article details how Verizon is bluntly broadcasting a unique ID from consumers’ phones, which Turn, a third-party data collector, then exploits in a variety of ways to make the consumer’s unique ID indestructible — even if they have explicitly requested not to be tracked. On top of that, Verizon’s publishing of that broadcast ID fuels sharing of data across a number of third parties through “cookie-syncing.”

In the article, computer scientist and Stanford lawyer Jonathan Mayer deftly breaks down how it’s done. In essence, Turn identifies consumers using Verizon’s Unique ID Header (UIDH) and then regenerates cookies that the consumer had previously deleted. Once the cookies are regenerated, Turn can continue tracking the consumer, building a profile, serving targeted advertising and sharing the ID with other third parties.

There is no transparency for consumers about this practice. Turn doesn’t even discuss in its privacy policy these “zombie cookies” that spawn back to life. And Verizon only recently even disclosed that they broadcast a UIDH (much less this practice), although the article quotes a spokeswoman saying they are “reviewing the information you shared and will evaluate and take appropriate measures to address.”

Clearly there’s no actual “choice” for consumers in this scenario, particularly because the odds of them being aware of Turn — much less “zombie cookies” — are next to none. Opting out requires a consumer to go to Turn’s website, where an opt-out cookie is dropped on their device. Ironically, when Turn regenerates cookies on a consumer device, reportedly they don’t regenerate the opt-out cookie.

Verizon claims that it and its advertising partners (one of which is Turn) don’t use the UIDH to track consumers who have opted out. But according to the research, Verizon continues to broadcast the UIHD to the world, they just promise not to use it. Not sure that promise carries much weight, given the lack of transparency. And worse, it’s still there for anyone to see and use.

This kind of surreptitious behavior does nothing to build trust between consumers, advertisers and publishers, and this trust is what’s needed for fostering clean and safe environments that, ultimately, fund the content of the future. It’s long past time for all industry players to honor Do Not Track signals, which would give consumers a robust, effective and simple way to opt out of tracking.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

False Advertising: When Lazy Headlines Undermine Great Research

2019-03-06T06:25:30-05:00

Ad fraud is a big problem. I’m not just talking about the cost to marketers who invest budgets to create and deliver ads that may not be viewable or are measured on questionable metrics. There are also fundamental problems in the way we are discussing the ad fraud itself, which shifts the focus away from the important issues, and from finding solutions for the trust problems in the digital advertising marketplace.

On Tuesday, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and ad-fraud-detection company White Ops, Inc. released the results of their two-month analysis of billions of ad impressions on 36 sites. Research like this is both ambitious and important, and I applaud the effort.

What frustrated me (evident in my Tuesday Twitter rant) was that in less than 24 hours, some of the report findings were irresponsibly presented. An Ad Age headline was so misleading that it nearly undermines the ANA’s significant efforts: “ANA Bot Report Reveals Unsettling Truth About Premium Publisher Inventory: Respected Sites Deliver 25% of Bots.”

False. Starting with their ridiculous definition of “respected sites.”

Unfortunately, both the report and the Ad Age article include another false and patently offensive statement: “The reputation of the publisher is no longer a reliable benchmark to predict bot traffic level.” Working with trusted partners always reduces risk. Yes, this absolutely offends the work of people who show up each day and maximize the trust of their brand with both consumers and marketers.

Ad Age states that 25 percent of the fraud occurred on Alexa’s 1,000 most-visited websites. If you take even a quick look down that Alexa list of 1,000 you’ll quickly understand that calling many of those sites “respected” couldn’t be further from the truth; it includes Pornhub.com, ThePiratesBay.se, RedTube.com … well, you get the idea. Notably absent from the “respected sites” list were many of the most important voices on the digital media industry, such as Digiday, Re/code, Adweek and, yes, even Ad Age.

Let’s not confuse clicks with respect. Simply getting a lot of traffic is in no way indicative of respectability. Certainly, there are respected sites among Alexa’s top-trafficked sites, but they aren’t respected solely because they get traffic. The reputations of sites that are actually respected are hard-won and well-deserved because they are exactly the types of organizations that you can rely upon to act in good faith regarding ad-fraud issues and concerns.

There is a lot to learn from the report, for agencies, marketers and publishers. Sites that rely on advertising as the basis of their revenue model do need to drive traffic. And “premium” publishers must maintain the quality of their traffic to justify the value of advertising on their sites. The ANA report found that bots are surprisingly adept at faking engagement, and that buying traffic increases a site’s exposure to fraud as high as 52 percent. Point taken. Publishers must monitor sourced traffic and maintain transparency about traffic sources.

The ANA report also pointed out that limiting the use of sourced traffic can help prevent ad injection, a less-understood, but very important component of the ad-fraud problem. In contrast to the Ad Age article, the ANA report refers to premium publishers as “victims” of ad fraud with regard to ad injection.

The ANA report found significant evidence of ads running on sites that are well known as user-funded or subscription-based — in other words, sites such as Wikipedia that don’t run ads at all. Advertisers and publishers do not choose to inject ads on a site, because ad injection devalues the value of a site’s legitimate advertising and undermines the consumer experience.

Despite what you might have read in some irresponsible headlines, truly respected publishers are far from the principal culprits in the murky world of ad fraud that the ANA explores in its research. While the ANA research accurately states that “well-known publishers and premium publishers were not immune to high bot levels in sourced traffic,” this hardly qualifies as a basis on which to deride the value of working with trustworthy partners to deliver marketing messages.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Say What? Technology-Infused Publishing Is Good Business.

2019-03-06T05:56:32-05:00

Damn. I almost successfully made it through 2014 without publicly using the term “platisher.” Like many in the digital media industry, I rolled my eyes when Jonathan Glick coined the awkward phrase in a February op-ed on Re/Code, seeking to describe the modern digital media business that thrives both as a publisher and a platform for its users. Although much of the logic was sound, even Jonathan admitted it was a ridiculous name.

Fast-forward to Thursday night, and I found myself reading a report on the asset sale at Say Media, which seemed to use a single, unique business failure to call into question the entire category of modern digital content businesses.

The trouble with the term platisher is that it suggests that any combination of technology and content is like a duck with a beaver tail, or maybe a beaver with a duck bill — nonsensical. What is, in fact, nonsense is to liken Say Media to Vox, Business Insider or any modern media company whose business relies on purpose-built technology. Say Media’s decision to divest its content assets and return to its roots is not, as Lucia Moses suggests on Digiday, a cautionary tale for publishers that imbue their publishing process with empowering technologies. Rather, it reflects the discord that arises when fusing together two businesses in a way that cannot faithfully serve either audience.

Vox Media is absolutely a new breed of publisher, built from the ground up as a media organization empowered by its own brand of digital media tools. This includes its Chorus publishing platform, which was developed to serve the specific needs of today’s digital editorial and advertising teams.

As CEO Jim Bankoff has said, the company is comprised of three parts: Its consumer brands, revenue and technology. That last piece is not a product the company is marketing on the side (or that generates the bulk of its revenue, as is the case with Say Media). It is “a way of doing things … to make the best possible stories and make those stories come to life … and find their audiences, wherever those audiences might be.”

Say Media, on the other hand, was an ad network that tried to layer on content — perhaps to diversify or to adopt some of the sheen content carries, or maybe just to strap on a duck bill and pretend it could fly. A comparison to Demand Media might be more apt, given that company’s roots as a DNS company (and time will tell how its “content business” will pan out.)

Frankly, the AOL/Time Warner split might be more illuminating as we consider Say Media’s self-avowed difficulties being both a technology and a content company. When revenue is generated creating technology for third-party usage — and in the case of Say Media for other publishers specifically — you are left with a schizophrenic business model that doesn’t function well in either world.

Organizations like Business Insider and Vox were constructed from the start as content companies. However they wisely built technology to fit hand in glove with their editorial, content delivery and monetization processes. Consider how, when The Atlantic decided to plunge headfirst into digital, it opted not to bolt on technology as an afterthought. As Atlantic Media VP and GM Kimberly Lau describes it, its wildly successful brand Quartz offers “a great example of building something from scratch and giving the team the resources they need.” In an article in which Digiday positions Quartz as a model for modern publishing, editor Jay Lauf says he has learned the “importance of engineers and developers … those guys are integral to everything we do.”

And what they do — and Vox and Business Insider and other so-called “platishers” — is provide valuable content that is created in a culture of technology. Technology is developed to create better experiences and embedded in all aspects of the business. They have no confusion over who they serve or what they serve: Great content, built better through smart technology.

Jason Kint is the CEO of Digital Content Next, the only trade association that exclusively serves the diverse needs of digital content companies that manage direct, trusted relationships with consumers and marketers. He has a deep passion for journalism and evolving content brands — established and new media alike — into their multi-platform digital future. A 20-year veteran of the digital media industry, he previously led the evolution of CBS Sports into a multi-platform brand offering premier broadcast, online and mobile sports content as SVP and general manager of CBS Interactive’s Sports Division. Reach him @jason_kint.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.