PRIVACY MATTERS: MORE THAN YOUR REGULAR REGULATIONS
2:10 pm-2:50 pm Decoder SessionsDataFuture Trends
It’s surprising to say so, but data privacy and regulations are juicy issues right now. Broadband privacy has made its way onto the front page, GDPR brings a flood of questions for the international digital media community, and there’s much for publishers and agencies to be briefed on. Will you be prepared when the legal team come knocking?
Speaker: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
We’re at the dawn of the voice computing age, an emerging field of computer science underpinned by natural language processing, technology that both executes and learns from interactions between computers and human languages. In 2017, Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa are the clearest and most widely distributed examples of auditory chatbots, or voice-powered virtual assistants, but Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are investing heavily in the technology, too. Are we witnessing the birth of a new medium? Does the emergence of voice come at the expense of other media? Will ad messaging follow closely behind? We assess the implication and application of voice for marketers.
Marketers are all publishers now, or so they say when they claim to put “content” at the center of all they do. But what does this mean in practical terms? Content marketing has its own complex subset of marketing tech, from social media analytics and listening tools to blog and CMS platforms, back end metrics, SEO and just writing and image tools. Several years into the content marketing wave what have marketers learned about this tech stack, internal workflow and staffing, and evaluating ROI?
Moderator:
Alan Chapell, Principal, Chapell & Associates @chapell68
Panelists:
Mark Egan, Chief Client Officer, Maxus @markegan
Craig Elimeliah, Director of Creative Technology, North America, VML @craigelimeliah
Matt Rednor, CEO & Founder, Decoded Advertising @mrednor
NAI Summit, April 13, 2016 - Panel 1 PII vs. Non-PII: Is there still a distinction
The DoubleClick/Abacus case helped spur the creation of NAI in 2000 and led to
one of the fundamental principles of the NAI Code - the distinction between
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and Non-Personally Identifiable Information
(Non-PII), with heightened requirements for the collection and use of PII. The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has said that the distinction continues to “lose
significance” as technologies evolve and data collection increases. In fact, some
(non-NAI members) already merge consumers’ PII with non-PII web browsing
history to serve relevant advertisements, underscoring the FTC’s view.
This panel will explore the rationale for maintaining the PII and Non-PII distinction.
Panelists will debate the policy, privacy, legal, and business implications of
eliminating this distinction, and discuss how Europe’s General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) and the evolving definition of personal data impact this debate.
Moderator: Alan Chapell, Principal, Chapell & Associates@chapell68
Panel: Geotargeting, Conquesting, Couponing: The State of Last Meter Tactics
We kick off OMMA Mobile Local surveying the most successful tactics in the battle over local mobile airspace. How do leading tactics like geo-targeting ads, conquesting competitor spaces and local couponing map against different marketing goals. Are local data and the mobile ad ecosystem up to the task of real-time geo-targeting? Is couponing already overused and cluttered in the space?
Presentation: 2021: The Year it all Comes Together for Digital
2021 is the year digital media turns 25. Will it be cause for celebration, or will we all be looking back fondly on our industry's kinder, gentler days? Digital Media Analyst and Futurist Alan Chapell takes a look at several current trends and predicts how they play out over time, including: permission marketing, click-bait publishing and consumer privacy perceptions.
Panel: The Data-Driven Consumer: Imagining An Opt-In Ad Economy of 2021
How long has the industry been assuring consumers that tracking their online behaviors, preferences, personae and compromising their privacy gives them more relevant and better advertising and better media? But has it…really? Maybe users are blocking ads because the purported value exchange of advertising is invisible at best, laughable at worst. This panel explores the possibility of data collection becoming an opportunity for media and advertisers to reset the relationship. Will the media of 2021 need to better leverage opt-in relationships where the exchange of data for content is more transparent, clearly beneficial to the consumer and under her control? As content and data diffuses into the Internet of Things, especially, won’t permission-based marketing relationships become pretty much required. Why wait to figure out how this all will work?
We’re
witnessing a transition in the way advertisers approach media spend.Andrew Cleland characterizes
this as the transition “from an impression-centric paradigm (what does this
piece of media cost, how many impressions will it generate and what does the
audience look like?) to a user-centric paradigm (what are the characteristics
of this particular user at the point at which they encounter my brand?).” Put in
simplest form, brands are increasingly demanding to get a better sense of where
their customers and prospective customers reside at all possible touch points. That’s
one of the reasons that every drug store or other retail outlet now has a
rewards program that is usually tied to an email address or phone number. And
these types of rewards programs take on even more importance in an Internet of
Things enabled world.
This transition will have an impact on the privacy rule set.
Here’s
some background on the privacy rules for digital media. Most of these rules can
be traced back to 1999 when technology firm and ad network DoubleClick purchased
database marketing firm Abacus Direct. Abacus had a large database that
included personally identifiable information. There’s some dispute about what DoubleClick
was actually planning to do with the Abacus PII. For the purposes of this
analysis, it is less important what DoubleClick was planning. What’s important
is what advocates, regulators and press THOUGHT DoubleClick was going to do
with the Abacus PII: namely, that DoubleClick was going to merge the ad serving
information collected via DoubleClick’s network of sites with the PII collected
via Abacus. To put it mildly, advocates and regulators were uncomfortable with
this practice. And the fallout to the DoubleClick Abacus merger was so severe
that it sent DoubleClick’s stock price tumbling, among other things.
What
become known as the DoubleClick
Abacus privacy scandal resulted in the Adtech
industry creating a set of privacy rules that were mostly focused on the
third-party ad network model (i.e., DoubleClick’s network of sites). Thus, our
industry created a set of self-regulatory rules around privacy that so severely
restricted the merger of ad serving data with PII that it was tantamount to a
prohibition.
Networks Vs. Agents
But
the PII merger rules were not absolute. For example, email marketing service
providers like Cheetahmail
have been collecting digital data such as clicks and visits to websites for
nearly 20 years. Similarly, website analytics firms like Omniture have routinely merged PII
with website surfing data.
So
you may ask yourself: why can one type of tech company merge PII with ad
serving data, but others may not?
A
key distinction was drawn in the very early days of digital media: ESP’s and
site analytics companies were the agents
of their advertiser and publisher clients – and generally collected information
across a single site. In other words, ESP’s and analytics companies for the
most part utilized the data they collect only as directed by their clients.
Conversely, ad networks leveraged publisher and advertiser data to create
interest segments for use on other
publisher and advertiser’s sites. By virtue of the fact that they created
interest segments across multiple sites for use downstream, the ad network
model was subject to a different set of rules than the agent models utilized by
ESPs and site analytics firms. The Network/Agent distinction was as much about
intellectual property as it was privacy. Nonetheless, this distinction has
governed the digital privacy world since the year 2000.
But
here’s the thing. The marketplace was very different back in 2000. Convergence
of ad network and service provider platforms, the growth of social networking,
onboarding of first-party offline data, not to mention nearly a dozen gigantic
entities collecting first party data in a third-party context across a
significant portion of the Internet have stretched the digital ad framework
circa 2000 almost beyond recognition.
The marketplace has changed: is it time revisit the digital
privacy rule set?
This program will serve as a primer on key legal issues surrounding the collection, use, and monetization of user data, from the perspectives of
legal counsel for a digital media service and legal counsel for consumers.
The program will occur in three parts, first with a broad
overview of data privacy laws in the United States, as provided by an in-house
counsel at a digital media service.
The second section will focus on the rules surrounding
cross-platform and cross-media data sharing, and personally identifiable
information as opposed to anonymized aggregate data.
The third portion will focus on the European Union and the
differing data privacy regime governing similar activities in the EU, and how
that directive is interpreted by the EU's different member states.
Panelist(s): F Paul Pittman, Laura Pirri, Ot van Daalen
Moderator(s): Alan Paul Chapell
Sponsor(s): Center for Professional Development, Forum on the Ent and Sports
Industries, Young Lawyers Division
