Chapell Blog

Mapping the Display Landscape Panel

2011-08-02T13:15:00.010-04:00

Tuesday, July 26, 2011, New York, NY

How to Successfully Navigate the Shifting Currents of Display and "What's Next"

In the midst of the rapidly developing display ecosystem, it's easy to feel overwhelmed with the new technologies, acronyms and players in our industry. Media planners and buyers are routinely challenged to keep up with developments as they emerge and to navigate the changing mechanics involved in managing a digital media plan. On this panel, a host of industry leaders will discuss how to navigate this fragmented and changing world and touch on topics such as:

How to respond to the fast-pace evolution of the display landscape and what to expect in the near future

An Overview of new tactics in display: real-time bidding, DSPs, Video and how to holistically integrate these within the media plan

Best practices around data, audience targeting and branding

Panelists:

Chip Hall, Head of Buyer Development AdX, Google,
Ramsey McGrory, VP North American Marketplaces, Yahoo!
Chris Scoggins, SVP & GM DLX Platform, dataLogix
Andrew S. Feigenson, VP Strategic Accounts, The Nielsen Company,

Moderator:

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security

2011-08-02T13:12:00.004-04:00

FRIDAY, July 22, 2011, Pittsburgh, PA

The Battle over the Behavioral Advertising Choice Mechanisms

Do Not Track? Triangle i? Tracking Protection Lists? Who will win? You decide.

The debate over behavioral advertising has been the main topic of conversation at regulatory and congressional hearings, and industry and academic conferences for the past year. The choice mechanisms for consumers range from Opt-out cookie-based mechanisms, Tracking Protection Lists, and the Do Not Track HTTP Header. Of these choice mechanisms, which do consumers actually understand, and which are usable? This panel will explore these mechanisms as they battle to the death for both policy maker and consumer acceptance.

Panelists:
Lorrie Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University, Moderator
Alan Chapell, BlueKai
Manoj Hastak, American University
Aleecia McDonald
Brendan Riordan-Butterworth
Harlan Yu, Princeton University

FCC ANNOUNCES AGENDA AND PANELISTS FOR FORUM ON HELPING CONSUMERS HARNESS THE POTENTIAL OF LOCATION-BASED SERVICES

2011-08-02T12:43:00.014-04:00

Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Washington, DC

Trends in Location-Based Services

In this panel, carriers and application developers will discuss the types of Location-Based Services currently being offered, potential new Location-Based Services offerings that are in development, and general usage trends. In addition, the panel will discuss the business and technological interactions between carriers and application developers.

Panelists:
• Alan Chapell, Chairman of the Mobile Marketing Association’s Privacy and Preferences Committee and Founder of Chapell & Associates
• Kristi Crum, Executive Director – Consumer Solutions Verizon Wireless
• Alan Davidson, Director of Public Policy for the Americas, Google Inc.
• Carter Griffin, General Partner, Updata Partners
• Tim Sparapani, Director of Public Policy, Facebook
• Brandt Squires, Consultant, Squirebend LLC (previously Director Livingsocial, Co-founder BuyYourFriendADrink.com)
• Jon Steinback, Director of Marketing, Foursquare Labs, Inc.

BlueKai Data Summit: 2011: Your Audience 360

2011-08-02T12:38:00.004-04:00

Wednesday, June 29, 2011, New York, NY

The Plaza Hotel

Top Things You Need To Know About Consumer Privacy

Alan Chapell
Founder, Chapell & Associates

DIGIDAY:VIDEO UPFRONT

2011-08-02T12:29:00.005-04:00

Tuesday, APRIL 12, 2011, New York, NY

COCKTAILS AND CONVERSATIONS:

5:25-6:00pm: Live Content Panel: The Challenge of Live. Online video's Next Frontier: First came the scale of video snacking. Then came premium content from original web video creators and the migration of television content to the Web. Today, multi-platform video consumption is ideal for live events, bringing people together to share in the communal experience of "now," despite being hundreds or thousands of miles apart. How do brands get in on the action? Is there a "live brand halo" effect to be had for marketers wanting to bring friends and fans together?

Moderator: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Fifth Annual Law & Information Society Symposium: Mobile Devices, Location Technologies & Shifting Values

2011-03-26T13:23:00.001-04:00

Friday, March 25, 2011, New York, NY

Emerging Considerations for Transactional Practice

What new issues do mobile devices and location technologies raise? This panel will look at what practitioners can do to advise clients engaged in mobile computing and LBS. Topics of consideration may include: How do LBS providers allocate rights to mobile communications data? What happens to the location data upon dissolution or acquisition? What types of notice should providers give to users? Should the storage of location data occur on an opt in or opt out basis?

Panelists:
• Alan Chapell, Chapell & Associates, Chair of Privacy & Advocacy Committee, Mobile Marketing Association
• Brian Chase, General Counsel, Foursquare Labs, Inc.
• Fabiana Leek, Legal Director, North America, Nokia, Inc.
• Christopher Wolf, Partner, Hogan Lovells LLP

Digital Publishing Summit

2011-03-22T14:17:00.004-04:00

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

Privacy for Platforms Roundtable Discussion: The State of Online Behavioral Advertising Self-Reg: The Direct Marketing Association is actively enforcing the OBA Self-regulation program offered by the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), and the IAB is giving its members (which includes most companies in the audience) a six month window to join the OBA program. So now that the proverbial rubber is hitting the road, what do the platforms, networks and exchanges need to be doing in order to comply with this program? And how much do the answer(s) change for companies operating in the EU? Oh yeah, and what about mobile? Join an expert in privacy and interactive marketing as he walks you through a confidential working session on this important topic. -- PLATFORMS & TECH COMPANIES ONLY.

Moderator: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Digital Publishing Summit

2011-03-22T14:14:00.003-04:00

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Privacy for Platforms Roundtable Discussion: Browser-based Do Not Track: Back in December of last year, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission called upon the browser companies to provide consumers with a the ability to ensure that online companies do not track them. While a number of key details still need to be worked out, each of the major browser manufacturers has their own approach to DNT. And each approach provides a unique set of challenges to companies in the online media chain. This session will walk through how we got here and explore some key concepts that companies in this space should be thinking about regarding DNT – including how DNT may work with the existing OBA self-reg program. Join an expert in privacy and interactive marketing as he walks you through a confidential working session on this important topic. -- PLATFORMS & TECH COMPANIES ONLY.

Moderator: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

60 Speakers, 60 Minutes, 60 Ways “Personalization” is Revolutionizing the Field of Marketing As We Know It.

2011-03-21T13:02:00.002-04:00

Tuesday, March 29th

You’ve either seen it, or used it in your own marketing mix: Ads that appear based on that book you loved in 6th grade. Product recommendation engines that know you better than you know yourself. Behavioral targeting and artificial intelligence algorithms that show the right offer, at just the right time.

We call it the “Personalization Revolution,” and it’s been quietly enabling a select number of marketers to create not just windfall profits—but also far deeper relationships with customers, constituents, and the marketplace.

The fact is, if you’re a marketer, you probably are already using personalization. But you’re likely unaware of the extraordinary benefits that personalization can bring. And, as a result, you may just be missing out on one of the most important—and historic—developments in marketing over the past century.

Enter The Future of Marketing II: The Personalization Revolution, a virtual “microconference” featuring 60 industry analysts, CMOs, leading technologists, authors, bloggers, and more telling the story of personalized marketing in just 60 minutes. They’ll reveal the technology that drives it, the ethical issues that have resulted from its use, successful examples in action, and the implications that we all need to understand and consider.

MIMA EVENTS

2011-03-21T12:44:00.005-04:00

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Are you running behavior ad campaigns? Thought about who owns your data? Privacy guru Alan Chapell has.

Join us for an insightful and informative morning as Alan talks about who owns the data in theory and reality, the potential direction of proposed legislation, and what every interactive marketer should know to get their house in order and keep their company from a disastrous privacy lawsuit.

Because this topic is evolving at light speed, we've allowed extra time for your questions. So bring your burning topics, your stumpers and general questions about the meaning of life and data anonymity.

DigiDay:Target The SLS Hotel

2010-12-19T12:43:00.011-05:00

Monday, Dec 13, 2010, Los Angeles, CA

Luncheon Keynote: Fear and Loathing in a Do-Not-Track World. Where Do We Go From Here?

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Networks and Exchanges: IAB Marketplace

2010-08-20T21:44:00.016-04:00

Monday, May 3, 2010, New York, NY

Data, Transparency and Privacy

The evolving networks and exchanges marketplace gives rise to a host of thorny issues. Who owns the data? What does transparency really mean? Who should be responsible for privacy—and can it really be maintained? In this session, industry insiders offer their perspectives on how to manage these issues.

Introduction by: David Jacobs, Senior Vice President of Publisher Services, AOL, Advertising.com
Moderator: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
Joe Apprendi, Chief Executive Officer, Collective
Ramsey McGrory, Vice President, North American Marketplaces, Yahoo!
George Pappachen, Chief Privacy Officer, Kantar/WPP
Kirby Winfield, President and Chief Revenue Officer, Mpire

Digital Marketing Days Conference & Expo

2010-08-20T16:32:00.005-04:00

Wednesday, June 16, 2010, New York, NY

Mobile Ad Targeting and Government Regulation: From "Laissez Faire" to "Doctrinaire"?

Mobile Marketing has experienced significant growth over the past few years. And with that growth has come increased attention and scrutiny on privacy and compliance issues. Join an online media veteran and privacy expert as he explores the delta between innovation and regulation.

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

DiGiDAY:TARGET

2010-08-19T12:33:00.003-04:00

Monday, December 13, 2010, Los Angeles, CA

A Fist Full of Myths:

Privacy, innovation and picking your poison. Some things every interactive media person should be thinking about.

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Interactive Insights Summit

2010-08-19T12:23:00.003-04:00

Wednesday, October 13, 2010, Las Vegas, NV

The 2010 Interactive Insights Summit will be packed with case studies, best practices, tips and leading-edge thinking. The presentations and panels will arm you with actionable items to take back to the office with you. The exclusive networking events will give you the rare opportunity to mingle and with other industry leaders in an intimate setting.

Privacy Mythbuster: Facts and Fallacies

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

rightmedaiopen 2010

2010-08-19T12:06:00.007-04:00

Tuesday, July 20, 2010, Chicago, IL

Q&A: Protecting Consumer Privacy

Alan Chapell, Chapell & Associates
Leslie Dunlap, Yahoo!
Bennie Smith, Yahoo!

State of the Mobile Net

2010-04-19T17:26:00.005-04:00

Wednesday, April 21, 2010, 3:30 - 4:30, Washington DC

Locating Your Privacy

Location-based services (LBS) and advertising have exploded in the last 12 months with the advent of more powerful smart phones. That trend promises to continue with Twitter and Facebook joining myriad other LBS offerings from Google, Gowalla and Foursquare to name a few. These apps promise to lubricate the sharing of real time location information with companies and other people in ways not yet contemplated. Our panel will explore how people navigate their location privacy choices in a mobile net world.

Dr. Lorrie Faith Cranor, Carnegie Mellon University
Alan Chapell, Chapell & Associates
Tim Lordan, Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (moderator)
Julie Martin, Mozilla/Firefox- Bryan Trussel, Glympse

OMMA Mobile

2010-04-12T20:01:00.002-04:00

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:15 pm, New York City

Negotiating the New Fragmentation: Should Marketers Care Who Wins the Platform Wars?

This is the ‘Year of Android’ we are told. Apple better watch out. Yet, last time we checked RIM/Blackberry still had a dominant and growing market share. But wait, did you hear? Microsoft actually has a compelling mobile platform coming this Christmas. And don’t overlook HTML5 because that could make mobile operating systems moot. The new mobile app platforms were greeted as salvation from years of frustrating and costly mobile fragmentation, but this environment seems like more of same. Does it really matter to brands and marketers if Google extends its search dominance into the Android platform? Is Apple’s continued dominance a threat to marketing autonomy and open platforms? It is all well and good to say that a marketer will “be on every platform our user lives” but how do you manage development costs and what do these different platforms have to offer marketers?

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
Eric Bader, Chief Strategy Officer, Initiative
Ben Gaddis, Director of Mobile and Emerging Media Strategy, T3
Paul Palmieri, President and CEO, Millennial Media

IAPP Global Privacy Summit

2010-03-25T16:15:00.008-04:00

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:00 - 5:30 pm, Washington, DC

Building a Successful Privacy Practice: Advice from Freelance Privacy Pros

So you'd like to start your own privacy firm. You've told your family, your friends and your entire rolodex of work contacts that you've setup shop. Now what? What are the most important things to be thinking about and doing? What are the pitfalls to avoid? How are you planning on generating business? Share your insights and ask questions about some of the key dilemmas facing independent privacy consultants: How do you market yourself as an “indie” privacy professional? How do you figure out who your customer is? What is the right price point? How do you position yourself against the larger firms? How can you evaluate partnerships to minimize interactions with time wasters?

Alan Chapell, CIPP, President, Chapell & Associates, LLC

Privacy & Security Law

2010-03-25T15:43:00.012-04:00

Wednesday April 28, 2010 9:00 am - 12:30 pm, New York City Bar

Advising Clients How to Collect, Use & Protect Information

Every industry collects, uses, and stores information from one source or another, including customers, employees, and business partners. As the volume of data collected and stored by companies explodes, the number - and complexity - of laws affecting privacy and security have as well. Privacy and security of data is now a key concern of every client, and attorneys should be familiar with the general privacy principles and laws that apply in order to properly guide clients in any industry. This session will provide an overview of the hottest issues in privacy and security law, including security breaches, information security programs, advertising, industry-specific obligations, new and pending legislation, and practical guiandance to help any organization better manage its information gathering, dissemination, and use practices.

Alan Chapell, President - Chapell Associates
Gary Kibel, David & Gilbert LLP
Leonard Gordon, Director, Northeast Regional Office - Federal Trade Commission
Nuala O'Connor Kelly, Senior Counsel, Information Governance & Chief Privacy Leader -GE
Hilary M. Wandall, Global Privacy Leader - Merck & Co., Inc.

Admonsters Leading Operations Online

2010-03-24T13:11:00.006-04:00

Thursday April 15, 2010 US Leadership Forum

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates will deliver the keynote address: "Government Regulation: ADjust or ADmageddon?" What are the emerging standards for privacy and interactive ad targeting? And what should the operations side be thinking about to help protect the business side from the law of unintended consequences? Join an online media veteran and privacy expert as he explores the delta between innovation and regulation.

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

Mediapost OMMA Global

2010-03-24T12:59:00.018-04:00

Wednesday March 18, 2010 2:45 pm, San Francsico Marriott Marquis

Targeting Your Customers’ Transactions: Behavioral’s New Frontier?

Up to now behavioral targeting techniques have generally relied on Web surfing, search, or social media activity to create audience profiles. However, new companies have emerged with platforms can take you a step closer to your consumer base by targeting people based on their actual transactions. In this session, we’ll take a careful look at the efficacy of these transactional targeting channels and the best ways to successfully leverage this gold mine of consumer data. We’ll also give you a preview of the privacy concerns and solutions that arise when transactional data comes into play. Join us for an insider view of how a new form of BT could be applied to your needs with minimal risk.

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
Glenn Fishback, SVP, Adify Media
Tom Phillips, President and CEO, Media6Degrees
Omar Tawakol, CEO, BlueKai
Todd Teresi, Chief Revenue Officer, Quantcast
Hans Theisen, CRO and Co-founder, Cardlytics

SXSW Interactive

2010-03-21T15:49:00.017-04:00

Friday, March 12, 2010 2:00 pm, Austin, Texas

Smackdown: Consumers Privacy vs. Advertiser Revenue

In early 2009 the Federal Trade Commission became more vocal on its opinions regarding online advertising and privacy policies. To sum it up, the FTC has basically been saying advertisers are not disclosing how they collect information on users well enough. So what could happen to the future of advertising and online publishers if the FTC bans tracking consumers web activity? Let's discuss options, actions the industry is currently taking and the potential risks to advertisers and consumers if the bill passes. This panel is sponsored by Rubicon Project.

Alan Chapell, Chapell & Associates
Alison Pepper, IAB
Jordan Mitchell, the Rubicon Project
Ingrid Sanders, TARGUSinfo
Jay Habegger, OwnerIQ

Mediapost OMMA Publish

2008-06-14T11:18:00.001-04:00

Tuesday June 17 2:00pm, Marriott Time Square, NYC

Breakout One: Are We Engaged? The Meaning of the New Metrics
"Engagement" is the new black of online marketing: fashionable and perhaps designed to cover a multitude of sins, particularly lack of reach. As audiences fragment and media brands struggle to scale, publishers now sell their ability to engage visitors on their sites with their content, and presumably with advertisers aligned with this brand loyalty. But what is "engagement" anyway? Are there any metrics to indicate depth of involvement with a site? Does content engagement translate into ad effectiveness? When forums, videos, or games pump up "time spent" on a site, is that a fair indication of user loyalty? Ultimately, do media buyers accept this argument that deeper, longer, more targeted audiences make up for lack of scale?

Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
Kevin Mannion, Founder and Owner, Sky Road Consulting
David Honig, Co-founder, Media6°
Jill Griffin, Director of Marketing, Hearst Magazines Digital Media
John Brauer, Media Analyst, Nielsen Online
Ken Shapiro, Sales Manager, Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital

Mediapost OMMO Publish

2008-06-09T12:52:00.002-04:00

Tuesday, June 17 at 2pm at the NY Marriott Marquis, I'll be moderating a panel for OMMA Publish.

Are We Engaged? The Meaning of the New Metrics
"Engagement" is the new black of online marketing: fashionable and perhaps designed to cover a multitude of sins, particularly lack of reach. As audiences fragment and media brands struggle to scale, publishers now sell their ability to engage visitors on their sites with their content, and presumably with advertisers aligned with this brand loyalty. But what is "engagement" anyway? Are there any metrics to indicate depth of involvement with a site? Does content engagement translate into ad effectiveness? When forums, videos, or games pump up "time spent"on a site, is that a fair indication of user loyalty? Ultimately, do media buyers accept this argument that deeper, longer, more targeted audiences make up for lack of scale?

Moderator: Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates
Kevin Mannion, Founder and Owner, Sky Road Consulting
David Honig, Co-founder, Media6°
Jill Griffin, Director of Marketing, Hearst Magazines Digital Media
John Brauer, Media Analyst, Nielsen Online
Ken Shapiro, Sales Manager, Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital

DM Days

2008-06-09T12:45:00.002-04:00

I'll be speaking on a panel at DM Days at 10:45 to 11:40 on Thursday June 12 at the Javits Center.

The Online Advertising Boomerang: Targeting Ads Online Without Violating Consumer Privacy.

Much has been written lately about the perils of behavioral targeting. Google, AOL, the social networking sights are defending new ad models amid protests related to consumer choice, consent, control and privacy. Learn about how to target ads online, without violating the privacy of consumers; facing the impending backlash.

Rip Warendorf, SVP of Sales at Zango
Mike Zaneis, VP of Legal and Public Policy at the IAB
Alan Chapell, President at Chapell & Associates

MobileMarketingForum

2008-06-09T12:37:00.002-04:00

I've been asked to join Scott Delacourt of WRF on this panel for Legal issues in Mobile Marketing.

Wednesday June 11, 2:15 - 2:45 at the MMF, Marriott Marquis in NYC.

Mobile Marketing A Legal Perspective: What You Need to Consider as you develop your campaigns. Learn from an expert the topics to consider when launching your mobile marketing initiatives. This session will present some timely and worthwhile developments, insights, best practices, and risk/reward analysis to the new mobile marketing audience.

Scott Delacourt, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Alan Chapell, President, Chapell & Associates

2008-05-28T09:33:00.002-04:00

It was an honor to participate in the Mediapost Email Insider’s Summit last week in Florida. I’ve seen a number of links to this event, and thought I’d offer some of my thoughts as an event speaker.

David Daniels of Jupiter shared some research he conducted – as did Exact Target, and Habeas. And the consensus is that people of college age and younger are not using email to communicate. And a panel of Ball State students corroborated the research findings by sharing their own experiences. So from what I could gather, everyone in the room of email experts recognized that ‘the kids’ aren’t using email very much. There doesn’t seem to be much disagreement here.

The kids aren’t using email – yet, none of the email-marketing experts saw this as a bad thing. And that surprised me. Most of the experts are taking it for granted that the kids will start using email as they enter the work force. I think that’s a risky assumption for anyone who is counting on email as their livelihood.

Where is it written in stone that email will be a prominent tool for business in perpetuity? The hand written memo was all the rage at one point. And my dad made most of his living by dictating memos to his secretary via the smith-corona typewriter. And later, added the fax machine. If we’ve learned anything over the past ten years, its’ this – the way business is done is subject to change. Email is not a final destination – it’s only part of the journey.

Even if email remains the dominant business communications tool, that doesn’t necessarily follow that email will be used for personal communications. It’s hard for me to understand why people who are 15-20 years younger than me – who have less invested in email as a communications tool than I do – will somehow stop using Facebook, SMS and other tools once they enter the work place. So even if forced to use email for business, the kids are going to continue to communicate with friends via other mechanisms. If if kids aren't using email outside of work, that's going to make things very difficult for advertisers trying to reach them via email.

I’m not saying email is dead. But I am saying that it will not be nearly as popular five years from now. And if you make your living in the email marketing ecosystem, you’d be wise to invest in alternative messaging tools.

MinDay - Engagement Panel

2008-04-08T20:15:00.003-04:00

April 15, 2008 10:15AM - New York
The New Measure of Success: Metrics in the Age of Engagement
Engagement is the new mantra of online publishing, but how do publishers define and measure this concept and gather from their audience the data points that are the new coin of the realm in interactive advertising? What metrics really matter most with advertisers? Is it “time spent” or “audience reach?” Do video, digital magazines, mobile, podcasting and other emerging media enhance or confuse the numbers game online? Our panelist will explore how publishers can make best use of their site and audience numbers with media buyers.

Debbie Solomon Senior Partner, Research Director, MindShare
Carolyn Creekmore - Vice President, Client Services, Nielsen Online
Robert Ames - VP & GM Digital Automotive Group, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S
Alan Chapell - President, Chapell & Associates

A Privacy Officer's worst nightmare

2008-04-07T20:50:00.002-04:00

I just received an email about refinancing my home. Notice that the account manager suggests that I send him my social security number to him via email. Ugh!

Hello, my name is Brian H.,

It appears that we may have missed an opportunity to satisfy your financial needs (ie. your recent internet inquiry). I am a SENIOR SALES MANAGER with XXXX's Financial Division. With recent changes in the market (interest rate fluctuations and loan program restrictions) it is very important that we touch base SOON! We still have multiple loan programs with interest rates between 4.875% and 5.875%.

Please call me today for a complimentary home loan analysis. It's my job to recognize your needs and tailor a loan program to give you the features you want, whether your priority is:

* Affordable Overall Monthly Payments
* Debt Consolidation
* Home Improvements
* Getting Cash
* Fast Funding

You can reach me directly at 847-545-3982. I welcome the opportunity to serve your home financing needs in this rapidly changing market.! I only need 10 minutes of your time to qualify you.

Or if you would like to communicate via email, I need the following information to send you a quote via email:

* Full name of everyone on your current mortgage
* Social Security number
* Date of birth
* Annual income (specify wage earner or self employed)
* Current assets (401K, etc)
* Employer name
* Property address
* AND MOST IMPORTANTLY YOUR FINANCING GOALS (cash out, shorter term, fixed term, interest rate reduction and or debt consolidation)

Thank you again for your inquiry. XXXX Financial offers a wide range of home loan products, common sense underwriting, flexible income documentation, and more.

Sincerely,
Brian H. 
Sales Manager 
XXXX Bank, FSB

Keily on SNL!

2008-02-24T23:29:00.005-05:00

My daughter Keily scored a part in a Saturday Night Live skit that aired last night. Look for her at the 50 second mark.

Funny clip. Congrats to Keily!

IAPP Privacy Summitt

2008-02-20T13:29:00.001-05:00

Thursday, March 27 11:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Privacy Challenges and Opportunities With Evolving Advertising
Alan Chapell, CIPP, President, Chapell and Associates LLC
Don Lloyd Cook, CIPP, Chief Privacy Officer, Feeva Technology, Inc.
Dr. Eloise Coupey, Associate Professor, Pamplin College of Business, Department of Marketing, Virginia Tech

In the race toward ever-more precise marketing techniques, new models for delivering advertising are being developed and tested, such as behavioral advertising and location-based advertising, among others. The emergence of these new models has generated an intense discussion about how they fit into our current privacy policy and regulatory environment, leading the FTC to hold a town hall meeting on behavioral advertising in November 2007. This session will provide a report of the content and results of that meeting, and put it in the context of the current and evolving regulatory environment in the U.S. and internationally, with a particular focus on the EU. Additionally, the session will examine the possible impacts on consumer trust and perceptions of privacy in online and mobile environments.

IAPP Privacy Summitt

2008-02-20T13:24:00.003-05:00

Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Social Networking: Closing the Generation Gap
Van Allen, President, TimeLine Recruiting
Alan Chapell, CIPP, President, Chapell & Associates LLC
Philip Gordon, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC
Larry Ponemon, CIPP, Chairman/Founder, Ponemon Institute
Mike Spinney, CIPP, Principal, SixWeight

Explore the impact of social networking, both in terms of hiring practices (to Google or not to Google...) and establishing policies for monitoring employees' social networking activities within the workplace. This session will utilize Ponemon Institute research to identify the fundamental issues involved with social networking and blogging, and lead a discussion on the very real existence of a generation gap as it pertains to privacy perceptions and expectations. Attendees also will be exposed to the many legal issues (e.g., employee privacy and employment law) involved with employee social networking. All are encouraged to engage in this open discussion, ask questions and offer their experiences.

Mediapost OMMA Mobile Forum

2008-02-20T13:11:00.004-05:00

February 7, 2008
3:00pm: How Open is Open?
Google is behind it. Verizon chimed in. Sprint and AT&T claim they are already there. But what exactly is an "open platform" in mobile? Will it help marketers attaint he reach and standardization they find so elusive on mobile? Will "openness" really accelerate adoption of mobile media by offering users more innovative content and applications? What do the carriers mean when they say "open" and what do Google and the new Handset Alliance mean by it?

Moderator: Alan Chapell, President,Chapell and Associates
Christopher Payne-Taylor, CMO,AdME Corp.
Osama Alshaykh, CTO, Packet Video
Dave Oberholzer, Limbo
Webster Lewin, Director of Mobile Marketing, R/GA
Frank Barbieri, CEO, Transpera

Trade Associations - Practice what you Preach

2008-02-04T09:58:00.000-05:00

A few months ago, I ranted about a large trade association that called me at 8am with a prerecorded message about permission marketing. Oh, the irony!

I'm also a member of another trade association. This one is much smaller - maybe 300 or so member companies in north america. I really like this group. They do good work, their meetings are generally pretty productive, and they've managed to cultivate a culture where most of my interactions are with them are fun. I chair one of their committees and am very active in several others. What's more, my company has won a good deal of business through the relationships we've cultivated via this association.

It's also worth noting that this association has crafted some excellent standards on permission marketing. The association understands that too many annoying or intrusive messages will significantly dampen consumer trust and responsiveness.

Like most associations, this one has a board of directors. So every year, the association runs an election to choose a new board. And the election period lasts about 3-4 weeks while 20 or so members lobby for my vote. They lobby via email. They ask for my vote via long winded pre-recorded voicemail messages. Most of the messages open with some pedestrian line like "I know you're probably getting a bunch of emails requesting your vote in the upcoming elections..." Yep, pretty uninspiring stuff.

So what does that mean for me? It means that I'm inundated with messages - many from folks who I don't know - for 3-4 weeks every year. This is a pain in the neck - not only for me, but for other members too. (I've asked around a bit.)

Seems strange that a trade association that espouses permission marketing for it's members can't embrace those same concepts when electing its board.

Here's what I propose. for the next election.

1 . Only one email per candidate - I can deal with one email from each, but when you get up to 3-4 from each, it becomes annoying. (Side note: I strongly encourage the candidates to be a bit more creative in terms of their message, and discorage the use of large attachments.

2. No phone calls unless you know me - If you're really active in the association, I should have a sense of who you are. Like I said, I'm very active with this group. I go to several of their face to face meetings every year, as well as other association events. And it's not like the DMA or CTIA where it's so large that you can't possibly know everyone. So my second rule is that you shouldn't be calling me up and asking for my vote unless you already know me. Not only would this cut down on the number of calls, but it encourages people who are thinking about running for office to find reasons to reach out to the greater community BEFORE the election. Get to know some of the members at an event. And that way, you don't come off like some interloper come election time.

3. No pre-recorded messages - If you know me, and you want to contact me, pick up the phone. If you're too busy to take the time calling your friends and colleagues, then maybe your too busy to be on the board.

I'll submit these suggestions to the executive director of the association. Will let you know the director's response...

How Open is Open?

2008-01-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

On February 7 I'll be moderating a panel for Mediapost's OMMA mobile show in NYC. The title is "How Open is Open" and will focus on the trend towards openness in mobile platforms.

That will be our starting point, as the trend towards openness in mobile goes way beyond the handset. And in anticipation of the panel, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the concept of 'open.'

I see openness as encompassing four distinct areas: spectrum, handsets, message deployment and payment mechanisms.

Spectrum

Google and others have joined the wireless spectrum auction. Even if they don't prevail in the auction, they've already succeeded (with the help of many, many others) in making the bidding process more open, and (as it pertains to the C block auction) ensuring that the auction winner can't 'lock' or 'block' wireless devices.

Similarly, the increased use of Wifi to power the mobile web and phone calls will ultimately offer consumers significantly greater choice.

Handsets
Imagine if you couldn't download a piece of software onto your computer without the consent of your ISP, or your computer manufacturer.

Imagine if you moved and found out that the IBM Thinkpad you used with Time Warner Cable in New York did not work for COX cable in Atlanta.

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But that's exactly how things work in the wireless space. Yes, the iPhone brought with it substantial progress in this area. However, the core features of all wireless devices continue to fall into the sole domain of the carriers and wireless device manufacturers. In other words, the carriers continue to control the feature set of wireless devices. And that means that they tend to allow only those features which they can monetize.

That's not good for consumers - and it's a real drag on innovation.

As handsets open up, as more and more players are able to build upon each other's work, consumers will enjoy a more robust mobile experience. And smart companies will develop new revenue streams that may or may not necessitate carrier involvement.

Message Deployment

The carriers have used the SMS gateway to reap billions of dollars in data revenue from their customers. Billions of wireless customers actively communicate via SMS around the globe. To say that it's a cash cow for the carriers' would be an understatement. The problem is - SMS messaging isn't that great of a way to communicate. It doesn't generally synch well with the rest of your mobile device. For example, if someone texts me with the address to a restaurant, I can't automatically save that message to my calendar without cutting an pasting.

Also, SMS is not a great marketing platform. For example, unlike email there's no way for a marketer to track whether or not a particular SMS message has been read. Neither of those features (and hundreds like them) are likely to be developed by the carriers any time soon.

There's nothing inherently positive about SMS messaging other than it's quick and it's simple enough to do that even my mom has tried it. So while I think consumers are wedded to communicating via their mobile devices, there's nothing that leads me to believe that they are wedded to using SMS. In other words, consumers tend to be platform agnostic. So when they find something that is easier to use, or more fun, or cheaper, they tend to flock to the next thing. If you don't believe me, look at how AOL's subscription service and Friendster are doing these days.

Consumers will stop using SMS the moment they find something better. And while that better alternative may not be here yet, we're already starting to see some alternatives emerge. For example, I have a small Facebook app on my blackberry desktop that allows me to communicate with any of my Facebook friends very easily.

On the commercial side, look at companies such as Cellfire and Acuity Mobile (disclosure: I'm on Acuity's board of advisors), not to mention Google. All these companies offer a platform that allows companies to deploy messages to consumers without using the SMS gateway.

One of the loudest complaints I hear about working in mobile is that working with carriers on SMS programs is a HUGE pain in the ass. Do you think that marketers would be receptive to a non-SMS, non-carrier dependent messaging alternative? I certainly do! And as one or more of those platforms emerge, the carriers will see a drop in SMS revenue without necessarily being in a position to recoup revenue via the alternative platform.

Payment mechanisms

Like the SMS messaging gateway, carriers exercise significant control over most every transaction processed via mobile devices. It's a great revenue stream for the carriers, and ensures that the carrier takes their cut of every mobile transaction. But what happens if/when alternative mobile payment platforms emerge?

Companies like Shoptext, Mocapay, Pocket Concierge and Bango all offer consumers the ability to conduct micro-payments outside the control of the carriers. The carriers can't impose a tariff if they don't control the payment platform.

Conclusion

There's no doubt - open is coming. If ANY of the four areas (spectrum, handset, messaging and payment) take off as anticipated, we'll see a very different carrier relationship with the rest of the ecosystem. And carrier claims that they are value added partners will ring increasingly hollow.

And ultimately, the carriers will be relegated to status of 'dumb pipe' that has traditionally mired their ISP brethren.

And to paraphrase Henry Blodget, that's why the carriers are screwed.

George Costanza is smiling...

2007-12-06T11:48:00.000-05:00

Anyone who considers themselves a fan of Seinfeld knows that George had an intimate knowledge of every bathroom in NYC. Well, the good folks at MizPee have apparently taken that concept into the mobile space. You can search for bathrooms with the good stuff, add bathrooms that you've discovered, and even rate them for cleanliness.

Venture Beat covers them here.

This idea has worked really well for restaurants and bars (Citysearch, Dodgeball) finding a cleaning person people (Angies List) and even attorneys (avvo.com). So why not bring this concept all the way into the commode?

Well, my first thought - how often do you find yourself in a strange city or neighborhood and in need of a bathroom? Are we starting to test the limits of web communities?

This seems like a fairly interesting feature to an existing map program, but probably not a stand alone service.

Tales from SES

2007-12-05T08:49:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week, I participated in this years Search Engine Strategies Show. I was on a panel with Jack Myers of JackMyers.com, Pauline Ores of IBM, and moderated by Kevin Ryan and Kevin Heisler of Search Engine Watch.

Brian Cosgrove was kind enough to blog about it here, and I think he got most of what we said right. One notable exception, which I found funny.

"Alan states that you should let your child surf wherever they want without
supervision"

Ha! My ten year old would love to hear that....

The point I was trying to make (but apparently didn't do so clearly enough) was this.... Back in the 1960's, many people used to sit their children in front of the television with little supervision. The TV as babysitter turned out not to be such a good idea. Similarly, parents who allow the Internet to be their babysitter are making a huge mistake.

Facebook's Beacon Program

2007-11-26T08:40:00.001-05:00

There's been a good deal of noise around Facebook's beacon program, the company’s new advertising system. (See here, here and here.)

Btw, I am extremely sympathetic to the argument that MANY (if not most) people don't really care about any of this. The problem is that SOME do, and they can be a very vocal minority. Moreover, the Beacon program can (and already has) provided great fodder for the press and advocates looking to provide that 'gotcha' story. The same advocates who were struggling to define harm at the recent FTC behavioral advertising forum now have their “Aha” moment -their shining example of WHY the interactive space needs further governmental regulation.

My take? This is nothing new. I think Facebook is simply running up against the same issues that have created problems for other social networks over the years. Specifically, how does a social network offer adequate permissioning and information sharing options given the complex nature of human interrelation? And how can the social network create those permissions in a way that is easy and straightforward enough so that most Users will be both willing and able to use them?

Case in point - I am a moderate User of Facebook, and I have maybe 250 friends – a list that includes; clients, people I went to high school with, close friends, people I met while speaking at trade shows, former co-workers, and at least a few people I’ve met randomly. I don’t mind sharing my email and postal address, my band’s myspace page, my company URL and a few pictures with just about anyone. (It's all on my website anyway) However, there are other things that I might not want to share with all of my Facebook friends. And a list of what I’ve recently purchased is something that (at least for me) is not something that I necessarily want broadcasted to those friends.

What happens if my girlfriend sees that I've bought lingerie or a diamond ring recently? (And imagine the fallout if either or both gifts never makes it into her stocking this xmas!) (just an example....)

So I’m not yet ready to castigate Facebook on this, but I do think the company needs to be more sensitive in the future. Relevant advertising is fantastic. Permission marketing is even better. But as others have pointed out, the Beacon program is neither of those things. And that’s a problem. Data collected for one purpose should not be used for another unless the data provider has been notified that the deal has changed.

So here's what I think Facebook should do in the short term.

Provide Facebook Users with MUCH better notice of the Beacon program - and do so in multiple places. I don't necessarily think that they need to make Beacon an opt-in program, but I think they absolutely must make sure that Users know about it. And clearly, there are too many examples where Facebook hasn't done that sufficiently.

Enable Users to edit their list of purchased products after the fact – Many Facebook Users update their profiles on a daily basis. The upload new photos, change their preferences, list new favorite movies, Etc. Similarly, Facebook Users should have the opportunity to edit the list of purchases that appears on their profile. I wouldn’t be nearly as ticked off that I missed the notice from Amazon.com saying that the book I purchased would wind up on my Facebook profile if I could simply delete the purchase after the fact.

Offer a Universal opt-out – They were apparently planning to do this at one point. Bring it back, folks!

I’ve often said that with large databases comes large responsibility. Facebook has compiled significant information on its User base. What the company chooses to do with that information over the next 18 months will go a long way towards validating that hefty $15 billion valuation - or not.

Facebook'

2007-11-26T08:40:00.000-05:00

Guiliani in a new light

2007-10-04T14:48:00.000-04:00

I was a big fan of America's Mayor when he was in office here in NYC. At the time at least, I felt like New York City had really begun to turn a corner during the Giuliani Administration.

I fondly remember Mr. Giuliani's inaugural speech - the one where, his son Andrew at his side, was playfully mimicking his gesticulations. And I remember Rudy, upon noticing the young lad mocking him, just smiled and put his arm around the boy. At the time, most of us thought it was an excellent example of a man turning a potentially embarrassing situation into some positive PR. Rudy came off as a warm, loving father. (See limited coverage here and here, and an SNL skit lampooning the inaugaral address here.)

So when Mr. Giuliani was recently speaking to the National Rifle Association, and took a 'spontaneous' phone call from his wife Judith, many in the blogosphere were critical. (See video here) Some saw this as a transparent gimmick - particularly given that Mr. Giuliani had previously taken calls from his wife while on the podium. (See video here - wait till the end.)

Much of the criticism thus far is focused upon the question - was the NRA call from Judith really spontaneous? Frankly, I don't really find that to be of interest.

What I DO find interesting, however, is that Mr. Giuliani's recent cell phone stunt calls into question what happened all those years ago with his son Andrew. Was that a stunt as well? And if it was, does that recast Mr. Giuliani in a different light for anyone out there?

Chapell TV

2007-09-14T11:20:00.000-04:00

This morning I was interviewed by Kate Sullivan from WCBS 2 News This Morning regarding privacy and laptop security. Look for it to air next week.

Irony and the "new" DMA

2007-09-12T11:21:00.000-04:00

I was up fairly late last night working on a project for a new client. This happens from time to time, and when it does, I like to sleep in a bit the next morning.

At 8:01 AM, I was awakened by a call. A pre-recorded call from John Greco, CEO of the Direct Marketing Association. John's message was that there was some important information on - get this - ethical and permission based marketing at the DMA 07' Conference in October.

And just to add to the irony, the DMA website doesn't empower it's members to adjust their communications preferences.... which, if you think about it, is kind of permission marketing 101. Yes, they provide me with the option of not getting email messages, but nothing regarding unsolicited phone calls.

Now honestly folks, would you take advice on permission based marketing from someone that demonstrates so little respect as to call you at 8am?

I sent an email to John and to the DMA's customer service #. I'll let you know if/when I hear back.... ugg.

Protecting your kids...

2007-09-04T14:59:00.000-04:00

Via MobileCrunch, AT&T recently announced a new set of parental controls, which allow parents to set limits on the way their kids use mobile devices.

Don't kid yourself - this is in direct response to ongoing investigations of the ring tone space by state and local regulators, and paralells what some of the adware companies were doing a few years ago.

The adware companies were, generally speaking, enticing kids to download their software which was bundled with screen savers or file sharing programs such as Kazaa. Parents would come home to computers which (at times) were rendered unusable due to aggressive pop-up ads.

Companies in the ring tone value chain were enticing kids to sign up for ring tone subscriptions at $9.99 per month. Here, parents are often left footing the bill for something that they had no idea that their 16 year old had purchased.

As a parent, if I'm going to allow myteenaged kid to use what amounts to a credit card, I'm going to want to be able to exercize some control over how they use it.

The Big Picture

2007-08-29T13:38:00.000-04:00

Earlier this week the NY Times published an Op Ed that discussed the hazards of archived, and out of date news stories appear in search engine rankings. (Thank to Kevin Ryan for sharing)

Apparently, the issue is that newspapers sometimes print things that, upon further reflection, or additional evidence, turn out to be incorrect or untrue. While most newspapers print a retraction if their initial article turns out to be incorrect, that initial article often remains available on their site as well. Moreover, it's usually accessible via a search engine. So, if you happen to receive some negative press, and it ultimately turns out to be incorrect, that initial story could follow you around for years to come.

I don't think this is anything new, btw.

I thought that Danny Sullivan said it well, here.

If an article is factually incorrect, then correct it. If the article is about someone with a negative connotation, then a later article comes out updating the story, link prominently from the top of the negative article to the latest version of a story. It's called online journalism in the 2000s.

FWIW, here' my take...

I did an interview for a trade mag a few months ago and the reporter quoted me as saying something that came off as completely idiotic in many circles. Btw, he didn’t just misunderstand me. I was 100% clear that my position was the exact opposite, and for some reason, (e.g., it made his story better) the reporter essentially made up a quote and attributed it to me. I looked like a fool, and got a bunch of WTF emails from the privacy crowd. I got the publication to change the story, and make a small comment at the bottom announcing their error, but the damage had been done as an email had already gone out with the original article…

Not the end of the world, but a pain in the arse, nonetheless…. But I'm not going to sweat one bad article. Why?

As more companies such as Spock.com and ZoomInfo collect information on me - some of that information is going to be incorrect. That’s just the way it is, unless I want to spend half my day trying to get them to update. Given that there are so many sites, search engines, social networks, not to mention lazy journalists, there is not much I can do about it. Just not enough hours in the day.

What I have to hope for, is that the totality of the information out there is complete enough to create a reasonably accurate portrait of me when its all said and done. If you search for “Alan Chapell” you might find a link to an investigation conducted by the NY AG’s office where my name comes up. But you’ll also find my name linked to some thoughtful articles, best practice standards and other very important programs that are helping our industry. And you may even find some really cool MP3’s from my band.

Most people I respect will look at the big picture – and I think that’s all one can hope for these days….

My Interview with Jimmy Justice

2007-08-28T23:16:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Justice makes some great points. The NYPD should be held accountable. I agree. In fact, I wish we had MUCH more accountability from our Government over the past SIX long years - particularly at the Federal level.

But Jimmy's demeanor makes it hard to take him seriously at times. Some insist we refer to what Jimmy does as journalism. You may call him a journalist if you like, but if you do, then I think it's only fair to hold him accountable for his rants. (Some of which border on racist.)

And most of us who are really interested in finding out more about police corruption (as opposed to those who just want the titillation of seeing someone yelling obscenities at a cop) may want to look elsewhere...

Something tells me that we haven't heard the last of this story.

Anyway, here's my discussion with Jimmy on G4's Attack of the Show.

http://www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=17635

2007-08-28T07:25:00.000-04:00

Jeff Jarvis takes issue with David Gregory's treatment of video vigilante Jimmy Justice in a recent today show interview.

On the Today Show this morning, David Gregory got on a high horse interviewing
Jimmy, asking whether he wasn’t just a bit obnoxious.

Well, what’s any less obnoxious about a reporter asking the same question?
That’s exactly why subjects so often think reporters are rude: they’re being
asked questions they don’t want to answer. But here’s Gregory calling a citizen
with a camera obnoxious for doing what reporters do. Maybe that’s because Jimmy
has an accent and an attitude. Gregory clearly thinks that asking the question
in a tie with a sterile TV voice is less obnoxious: more professional. Style is
substance on TV. And I can hear someone now saying that Jimmy has an ax to
grind, a bias, an agenda. Well, yes, but so does a reporter when he decides to
follow that cop and confront her about her actions; that agenda is precisely the
motivation for the question. It’s all journalism.
If they really care about watchdogging government and its abuses of power, the proper response from the Today show and any journalistic organization should be to encourage more people to do what Jimmy is doing. What’s wrong with more watchdogs on the street? Indeed, Today should hand out some video cameras or at least share a few lessons with Jimmy about how to shoot video without giving us motion sickness. And it would be generous of them to talk about Jimmy’s rights to shoot public officials’ actions in public, since those officials try to threaten and
intimidate Jimmy.

I completely understand Jimmy's frustration. And if you can look beyond the yelling, the profanity and abusive language, I think he has a solid point re: predatory ticketing practices and abuse of power by the NYPD.

But Jeff, I think you missed the boat here regarding David Gregory's question. It's fair to ask Jimmy if he comes off as obnoxious. In fact, if David HADN'T asked that question he'd be open to criticism for NOT bringing up the subject.

For the record, I had an interview / debate with Jimmy Justice on G4's Attack of the Show last night. Jimmy himself didn't see anything wrong with Gregory's question.

Just because NBC is part of the establishment doesn't necessarily mean they are always in the wrong....

Mobile phones on subways

2007-08-13T11:07:00.000-04:00

A coalition of lawmakers is calling for the MTA to enable cell phone usage in NYC subways. This move is in the wake of last week's mini-monsoon which crippled the city's subway and train service.

The lawmakers argue that the MTA needs to do a better job of communicating to riders in the event of a natural or man-made emergency, such as inclement weather or terrorist attack.

"What happened this week with the meltdown of the subway system is clearly an example of how the MTA needs to do more to keep it's so-called customers connected,” said (NYC Councilman John Liu.

I completely agree with the basic premise. The MTA should be in a much better position to communicate with riders, as should the other other service authorities. But I'm confused how enabling cell phone access is going to help facilitate that communication.

Allow me to provide an example.

The entire city was brought to its knees by last week's storms. My girlfriend, upon getting to the L train in Brooklyn, found out that it wasn't operating. So she took a car service to Union Square so she could take a subway up to her job at Times Square. But when she got to Union Square, she found out that the subways weren't running there either.

I looked at the MTA website a number of times between 7:30 and 8am. And while the MTA site listed a few minor service outages as a result of the weather, there was nothing there that would have led me to believe that damn near the entire system had been shut down. Why wasn't the MTA website accurate? And what good would it have done subway riders to receive SMS messages from the MTA if the information in those messages was equally inaccurate?

Seems to me that lawmakers ought to be calling for the MTA to have the right information before worrying about who has access to that information.

Maybe the MTA could have whomever is in charge of each subway line communicate with their webmasters in the event of an emergency. Perhaps MTA employees could provide this information. Maybe the MTA could enable subway riders to call / email the MTA with service outages. (Although I really can't understand why subway riders would have access to this information before the MTA knows about it.)

Talk about putting the cart before the horse...

Fire them all!

2007-08-06T15:13:00.000-04:00

The CS Monitor reported that our Democratically controlled Congress quietly passed a law that expands the Government's ability to conduct warrantless surveillance on U.S. citizens.

I'm going to push aside the obvious privacy issues. I think most of us know all too well the current administration's ambivalence / hostility towards issues of privacy.

But what really irks me is that the Democrats in Congress, who CLAIM to know how bad this law is, apparently lacked the will to stop its enactment. WTF! And why is it that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks out AFTER the bill is pushed through Congress and signed by the President?

Just an hour after the House voted on the Legislation last Saturday,
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to the Judiciary and
Intelligence committees asking them to respond to the new legislation by
addressing its "many deficiencies," reports The Congressional Quarterly.

"Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and although the
bill has a six month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will
want to wait that long before corrective action is taken," Pelosi, D-Calif.,
wrote to Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and Intelligence Chairman
Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

Why not do something last week bac when it would have mattered? Why not address the laws "many deficiencies" BEFORE the Congress over which you preside enacts it into law, Ms. Pelosi? You're not the minority party anymore.

This country needs another party - and as far as I'm concerned, the Dems can go the way of the Whigs.

Another reason why privacy policies don't matter...

2007-07-22T21:34:00.000-04:00

The folks at the IMPACT blog has a great post about privacy issues created by Facebook Apps. Basically, most Facebook users don't understand that those 'super cool' applications they are downloading may collect their information and do who knows what with it.

So even if (and it's a big if) a User has taken the time to read the Facebook privacy policy, they are not necessarily made aware of the privacy practices of the third party application providers. Same with Myspace and the widget providers, btw.

There's been a good deal of talk about the impact that widgets have had on the business of online research....

... Need to have some talk about their impact on user privacy.

Chapell press roundup....

2007-07-15T21:38:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, Mediapost published an interview I did with Steve Smith - focusing on Behavioral Targeting... Hope you like.

Also, Imedia published a piece I wrote on Data Portability.

I'll also be moderating a panel at the Mediapost Behavioral Marketing Forum on July 24.

I PROMISE to blog further about these issues very, very soon!

Channeling Seth....

2007-06-12T23:43:00.000-04:00

So I'm on the phone with Pier1 customer service. They sent me a new credit card which had offered 20% off of my first order. I just bought a condo in Brooklyn, and I'm buying a chair for my living room. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the letter offering me my discount. I managed to get someone on the phone who was willing to ask the Pier1 marketing department to mail me the coupon. I asked if they'd be able to email or fax it to me so I could get the chair sooner, and she said:

"They're the marketing department - they don't fax things."

I have no idea what that means, but I can tell you that I'm getting my chair somewhere else...

Ad-funded Mobile the Future? ABSOLUTELY!

2007-05-31T16:26:00.000-04:00

MobileCrunch cites a study by Red Orbit which in turn notes that the "UK mobile network market has taken its first fully fledged steps towards the ad funded model." A few thoughts from yours truly:

Of COURSE mobile content will be mostly ad supported - eventually. We're just not quite there yet.

I've seen a bunch of studies on the mobile space recently that conclude that consumers would be happy to accept ads if they were relevant. Years ago there were similar studies used to espouse the benefits of behavioral targeting - I even sponsored one with Ponemon and Revenue Science. The trouble with these types of studies is they simploy ask consumers whether they'd like ads that are of interest to them. What right minded person WOULDN'T want to receive something that is of interest to them?

Many of the obstacles to moving towards ad supported content today lay with the carriers, who do not culturally understand the advertising business. (At least not the U.S. carriers.) For example, the carriers tend to view the concept of ad supported in very black and white terms. Advertising is NOT inherently good or inherently bad. Advertising can provide a GREAT consumer experience - or a HORRIBLE one.

Apple iTunes tears down the (DRM) wall, but ads a very long string

2007-05-31T09:51:00.000-04:00

This story came from the Digital Music News. Apparently, all those shiny new DRM-free files people are downloading form iTunes still come with strings attached - invisible strings that can potentially be used to keep track of purchases who might transfer the files to third parties.

"As users began experimenting with the premium, DRM-free downloads from EMI artists on Wednesday, an interesting discovery soon surfaced. The unprotected, higher-quality files may lack digital locks-and-keys, but they contain information identifying the purchaser. Specifically, the username and related email address are embedded into the file, and it remains unclear whether the information can easily be wiped away. "

Now, I'm going to leave aside the DRM issue for a moment - although it's somewhat disengenuous for Apple to claim that they've torn down the DRM walls while leaving open the possibility of keeping tabs on file sharing.

The LARGER issue here might be the impact on User privacy. If I purchase DRM-free music on iTunes, Apple embeds my email address and User name into that file. However, they don't disclose this anywhere in their privacy statement. In fact their privacy statement vows to protect the personal information provided to them. "Apple takes precautions — including administrative, technical, and physical measures — to safeguard your personal information against loss, theft, and misuse, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction." If I don't know that my personal information is being embedded into their files, then I don't necessarily know that by accidentally transferring that information to someone else, I may be inadvertently compromising my personal information.

Does that rise to the level of being false and deceptive? I dunno - maybe someone should as the FTC. Either way, it strikes me as bad policy. If you're Apple, and you're collecting personal information, and storing it in a place where consumers are not likely to know its being stored, you have a responsibility tell consumers so they can take appropriate safeguards.

Otherwise, you're just being sneaky...

Social Networking

2007-05-29T07:05:00.000-04:00

This comes from O'Reilly's discussion of Where 2.0. fatdoor is "is a Community Network that allows you to get to know your neighbors."

I agree that this service is potentially a bit disconcerting. I signed up using postal addresses in NYC and San Francisco, but fatdoor does not currently operate in either of those areas. Until they are up and running in my hood, I have no idea how they protect User privacy.

One potential byproduct of fatdoor and similar apps is that it organizes the data licensed from InfoUSA in such a way that makes that data much more digestible.

How does one opt-out from being listed on fatdoor? Do I need to go to InfoUSA or fatdoor? What if I don't know that either either company exists?

Privacy, Online Advertising, and Consolitation...

2007-05-29T06:29:00.000-04:00

Yesterday the NY Times discusses the FTC's preliminary investigation into Google's proposed purchase of DoubleClick.

I don't see this investigation going anywhere. Whether there is an antitrust issue will hinge on the definition of the relevant market. If the relevant market is the ONLINE advertising market, then I think the merger may be in trouble. However, if its defined as the advertising market, (as I believe it will be) then this deal has little risk of not moving forward.

Having said that, the level of consolidation in the online advertising space has been nothing short of amazing. For the sake of comparison, think about how long it took the U.S. auto industry to consolidate into the three major U.S. automakers.

If the 2008 election ushers a Democrat into the White House, (fingers crossed) we'll likely have a significantly more active FTC on issues of privacy. Until then, we're looking at more Laissez-faire.

Mobile Content and the Carriers

2007-05-24T17:12:00.000-04:00

Jeff Jarvis points out here that "paying for content doesn't work online." (itunes and the WSJ being two on a very short list of exceptions.)

Why doesn't this rule apply in the wireless space? Is it that mobile devices enable micro-payments.... or is it that the wireless carriers just don't understand the ad business?

Data Bill of Rights

2007-04-30T12:59:00.000-04:00

Last week John Battelle posted his latest version of his data bill of rights:

So, I submit for your review, editing and clarification, a new draft of
what rights we, as consumers, might demand from companies making hay off the
data we create as we trip across the web:

- Data Transparency. We can identify and review the data that companies
have about us. A sticky issue is whether we can also identify and review data
that is made about us based on other data the company might have. (IE, based on
your behavior, we at Amazon know you might also like....)

- Data Portability. We can take copies of that data out of the company's coffers and offer it to others or just keep copies for ourselves.

- Data Editing. We can request deletions, editing, clarifications of our data for accuracy and privacy.

- Data Anonymity. We can request that our data not be used, cognizant of the fact that that may mean services are unavailable to us.

- Data Use. We have rights to know how our data is being used inside a company.

- Data Value. The right to sell our data to the highest bidder.

- Data Permissions. The right to set permissions as to who might use/benefit from/have access to our data.

My first thought here is -- "Egad, how in the world does anyone harmonize this set of principles into their own business practices?" But leaving that aside for now, here are some thoughts.

First, I would add something about security. As the data owner, you have a right to expect that companies that have your data will properly safeguard it.

The concept of the consumer owning their own data is much more of a EU concept than a US one. Speaking of international, how does this concept play in Spain? In China?

Does this bill of rights (if implemented) kill the data broker business? If I allow a data broker to have my data, can I then limit their ability to transfer that data to only the third parties that I specify? If yes, that would seem to require an extremely complex permissioning system. (Oops, I'm back to talking about operational issues...)

And while I understand that under this bill of rights gives the consumer tremendous choice in theory, I wonder what happens when applied to real life. For example, I as a consumer would have a right to allow only one of the credit reporting agencies to have a file on me. But in order to get a mortgate recently I needed to provide the bank with my score from all three credit agencies. I suppose I could have asked the bank to use only one report, say from Equifax (they gave me the highest score.) However, by doing so, the bank is going to feel less comfortable about loaning me money. And when banks feel less secure, the APR goes up. So while in theory, I could use only one credit agency, doing so would cost me thousands of dollars on my mortgage. I'm in the privacy business and I'm not willing to make that trade off. Are you?

More on this later....

Eight Privacy Firms to Watch

2007-04-30T12:30:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the delay between posts. Lot's going on these days. Anyway, here's an article penned by my colleague Jay Cline of Minnesota Privacy Consultants. Jay recently moderated a panel I was on for the IAPP's March Summitt. We were talking about privacy as a career path. I've always wondered why we don't see more privacy forge out on their own....

Also, here's the orignal Q/A for the article. As you can see, there were a good deal of edits.

What prompted you to start your own firm?
I recognized that there was a significant need for online, mobile and other interactive technology companies to improve the transparency of their practices, and demonstrate their adherence to best practice standards. Generally, companies want to do the right thing, but they oftentimes lack the operational acumen or subject matter expertise required to be in compliance. Chapell & Associates can and does act as a resource for those companies seeking to do the right thing.

What's different or unique about your firm?
One thing that really sets Chapell & Associates apart is our ability to ingratiate ourselves into the client’s organization. We’re able to build trust within multiple levels of an organization, and that level of trust fosters the necessary communication to fully understand our clients’ business. Moreover, it provides us with the necessary political capital to effect change as necessary.

What kind of engagements are your strength?
I think Chapell & Associates fares very well in the interactive and technology arenas. We come from that space, so we understand the culture, the pain points and the issues which are specific to those industries. Having said that, over the past year or so, we’ve received a good deal of positive interest from some more traditional companies as well.

What was the biggest surprise or lesson learned you had in running your own business in this space?
One thing I learned very early on in this business is that we need to have a high activity level in order to meet our goals. I speak with dozens of people who are starting up their own consulting businesses. Too often in startup situations, there’s an over-reliance upon your existing level of contacts – perhaps from your pre-consulting days. I recognize that there’s a certain comfort level in speaking with people that you already know. But in my experience, a pool of existing contacts will only take you so far. In fact, my business didn’t start to take off until I had spent months reaching out to literally hundreds of others in the privacy, marketing and technology fields. And even though many of the folks I’ve reached out to have not turned out to be clients, I’ve found those relationships to be invaluable to my business. So, my advice to anyone who is starting out in ANY consulting business – is reach out to the market makers. Figure out a way to insert yourself into the conversations that are positively impacting your industry. Once you fully understand the major players in a business ecosystem, and once you understand the pain points of that ecosystem, you’ll be in a great position to help address those pain points.

Where do you think the market is going in the next 2 years?
I believe in that the next few years will bring some form of comprehensive data privacy legislation at the Federal level. This will significantly change the privacy consulting landscape as we know it. On one hand, it will probably make this business a bit less dynamic. On the other hand, such a law will significantly increase the need for expertise in privacy.

Any other questions you'd like to pose and answer?
Thanks for the opportunity, Jay!

A blog readers wish...

2007-03-14T10:11:00.000-04:00

Like many people, I find myself spending more and more time reading blogs. Frankly, I'm probably spending too much time reading, and not enough time writing on my own....

On any given blog, even those written by folks I respect, there's often too many posts that have little or no interest to me... whether its fatspam from Jason Calacanis..... (btw, Jason has a right to post whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean that I have to pretend to enjoy sifting through it.)

... or looking at pictures of deformed rabbits on Boing Boing. Boing Boing, in fact is a perfect example of what is both right and wrong about blogging. Just about every piece on there is interesting (on some level) creative and thought provoking. But on any given day, I may only be interested in only one or two of the DOZENS of posts on Boing Boing. And it takes time to sift through to find the stuff I like. Why can't my RSS feed only pull down posts from one or two of their writers? Why can't my feed be customized so I only receive feeds on topics that are of interest to me?

Perhaps I'm technologically challenged, but I can't see a way to customize the content on my RSS feed. It would seem fairly easy to do... any help out there?

Revol trials ad-supported wireless service

2007-03-14T09:49:00.000-04:00

Regional carrier Revol is testing an ad supported wireless service, reports RCRNews.

“The key to our solution is that it delivers content in a seamless and
unobtrusive manner that will be accepted and welcomed by consumers,” said Jon
Jackson, Mobile Posse’s CEO. “By giving consumers the opportunity to opt-in and
specify the types of content and offers they would like to receive, we are
bringing to market the mobile advertising solution of choice.”

I get it. People like relevant advertising and content. And they also like paying less on their wireless bill. But if you're going to require that people opt-in for ads and content in order to garner those savings, you'd better make sure that the interface is fun, easy to use, and offers lots of choices regarding ads and content they see. Right now, most of the mobile interfaces I've seen aren't there yet.

I'm sure the results of this trial will be very positive - but so were most of the email coregistration programs back in 2002. Consumers may enjoy the novelty of this program now, but I have a feeling we will see response rates quickly fade, and the ad delivery mechanisms grow increasingly obtrusive.

Who ISN'T offering behavioral targeting services?

2007-02-15T11:08:00.000-05:00

In Imedia today, Sean Quick from Mediaplex discusses different types of behavioral targeting services.

now that significant dollars are flowing to BT, it suddenly seems that every
marketing services company touts itself as a leading provider of the technique,
which leads to considerable confusion for marketers.

I agree - there's a whole bunch of (relatively) new players in this space. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are forty companies offering BT in the online media marketplace. Unfortunately, out of those forty, only EIGHT of them participate in the Network Advertising Initiative's self-regulatory program. Even if (as is rumored) a few more BT companies join the NAI in the near future, that's still only a 25% marketplace participation. That's pretty bad. (Mediaplex is not currently listed as a member, btw.)

Age Verification at Bud.tv

2007-02-06T08:07:00.000-05:00

Just registered at Bud.tv... I like the idea, but the content sucks, and most of it (and certainly the commercials) can be viewed on YouTube without going through the registration process - which, btw, (must be verified as 21 or older to view Bud.tv) is a pain in the neck. (And it apparently doesn't work if you don't have a U.S. driver's license.)

Just a thought - but in light of the Viacom / YouTube video battle, will Anheuser-Busch also demand that YouTube take down all those Bud commercials?

When Losing Feels Good

2007-01-31T12:30:00.000-05:00

It's now official.

As many of you know, I sing in a band here in NYC. We call ourselves LUXURY. For a bunch of guys who, for the most part, stopped trying to 'make it' years ago, we're actually pretty good. How do I know?

A few months ago, indie rock Gods The Meat Puppets 'borrowed' my band's drummer, Ted Marcus. Ted played on their album, and will be touring with them to support the album. First show is in Austin at SXSW. This probably means the end of LUXURY, but nothing would make me happier than to see him do well. Ted's a great musician, and an even better friend. I've known him since college, and I can't wait to head to Austin to hear them play.

Btw, LUXURY's last show is at the Mercury Lounge this Friday, February 2 at 9:30pm.

Despite Tiny Fines, NY Settlement Could Push Big Brands from Adware

2007-01-31T12:08:00.000-05:00

A recent article from Kate Kay at ClickZ. It focuses on the work of the NY AG's Internet Bureau:

In conjunction with its investigation of alleged spyware firm Direct Revenue, New York's Internet Bureau found Priceline.com, Travelocity.com, and Cingular Wireless were among advertisers using Direct Revenue's software to target their ads to Web
users.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the precedent that this sets, although I wonder if this will help create traction for TRUSTe's Trusted Download Program. The original set of standards (which Chapell & Associates helped to develop) included a provision for an Advertiser Registry. The Registry would, among other things, presumably create a safe harbor for Advertisers that purchased media through ad supported software "certified" by TRUSTe.

Stay tuned.

The YouTube Election

2007-01-29T13:30:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jarvis posted on the impact that YouTube is already having on the nascent 2008 Presidential Race.

The revolution will not be televised. It will be YouTubed. The open TV of the people is already turning into a powerful instrument of politics - of communication, message, and image - in the next US presidential election. Witness: Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards; Republican Sam Brownback; and more candidates just announced their runs for the White House not in network-news interviews, nor in big, public events, but instead in their own online videos.

The advantages are many: the candidates may pick their settings - Edwards in front of a house being rebuilt in New Orleans; Clinton in a room that reminds one of the Oval Office. They control their message without pesky reporters' questions - Edwards brought in the video-bloggers from Rocketboom.com to chat with him; Brownback, a religious conservative, invoked God and prayer often enough for a sermon; Clinton was able to say she wants to get out of Iraq the right way without having to define that way. (emphasis added)

I'm beginning to wonder if YouTube will have the democratizing effect that many believe that it will. Once upon a time, someone running for President WOULD in fact need to subject themselves to questions from pesky reporters. And once in a while, those pesky reporter would get the candidates to speak off script. They'd force the candidates to actually defend their positions.

The recent campaign commercials/announcements from Senator Clinton and others allow them to make those announcements with far less direct scrutiny. Is it really good thing that Senator Clinton doesn't need to provide us with any specifics regarding her solutions to Iraq? I know that might help her get elected, but it's not really helping to... ya know..addresss the problems over there. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I can tell you that an open exchange of ideas isn't such a bad thing. And forum in which the candidates present their message to the electorate free of give and take with an independent third party does not necessarily facilitate political discourse.

I recognize that most of the major media abdicated this responsibility in the run up to war in Iraq, but someone needs to hold the politicians feet to the proverbial fire. And yes, we can post comments on most blogs (assuming that the more pesky comments aren't deleted) and we can create our own blogs - but there's a difference between responding to criticism (or not) via a rehearsed podcast and being forced to respond to critics because Tim Russert is asking you tough questions on national TV.

Otherwise, you don't have political discourse... you have theater.

Advice to Small Business...

2007-01-29T13:10:00.000-05:00

My friend Mike Spinney asked me to contribute to a piece he's working on. Initially, I thought we wanted advice for businesses starting out. Turns out, he wanted specific advice on issues of privacy...

For what its worth, (and so it doesn't go completely to waste) I'm sharing my thoughts here...

Be Flexible – As you ramp up your business, be prepared to change you model frequently – and sometimes, drastically. When you get started, assumptions you make about the marketplace are often as likely to hit the bullseye as the darts you used to throw at some late night party in college. Sometimes you’ll ‘accidentally’ hit the mark perfectly; as often as not those assumptions will be way off. And that’s ok. The key is to continue to refine those assumptions as you learn and grow as an entrepreneur.

Look for Partnerships, NOT mentors - Many entrepreneurs start out looking for others who can help them. It’s never a bad thing to learn from others with more experience. However, if you want someone with more experience to take you seriously, you need to figure out what you can bring to the table to help them as well. While it may not always be a 50/50 partnership, nobody is going to put much energy in something where they are giving 90% and getting 10% in return.

Web 4.0(?)

2007-01-25T14:13:00.000-05:00

Seth Godin recently posted on some of the benefits of Web 4.0. From Seth's Blog:

Web4 is about making connections, about serendipity and about the network taking initiative.
Some deliberately provocative examples:

I'm typing an email to someone, and we're brainstorming about doing a business development deal with Apple. A little window pops up and lets me know that David over in our Tucscon office is already having a similar conversation with Apple and perhaps we should coordinate.

I'm booked on a flight from Toledo to Seattle. It's cancelled. My phone knows that I'm on the flight, knows that it's cancelled and knows what flights I should consider instead. It uses semantic data but it also has permission to interrupt me and tell me about it. Much more important, it knows what my colleagues are doing in response to this event and tells me. 'Follow me' gets a lot easier. Google watches what I search. It watches what other people like me search. Every day, it shows me things I ought to be searching for that I'm not. And it introduces me to people who are searching for what I'm searching for.

Seth listed a bunch more. All are great ideas, and undoubtedly be useful to some people, some of the time. But that's just it. These ideas are ONLY valueable to some people some of the time. Maybe I want David in the Tuscon office to know what I'm doing, but maybe I don't. Perhaps what I'm doing is confidential per my company President. Perhaps I'm working with them on an IP issue and David is talking to them about who their favorite paper supplier is. How does web 4.0 know all this? Under anything resembling current models, it doesn't.

So that means that I would need to go into all my devices and setup an increasingly complex permissionings system to account for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of situations. The alternative is for me to set all these permissionings to default, which means that I'll be receiving too many messages I don't want, and sending out more information than I'm comfortable with.

The part about collecting the data is easy. What's hard is setting up the permissioning process so that you can make use of the data...

Btw, my old friend Mike Song just published a book geared towards helping us make sense of our digital choices. I'm sure it's worth reading...

Privacy as a Career(?)

2007-01-23T13:52:00.000-05:00

In March, I'm speaking on a panel for the Internation Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Summit in Washington. The topic is "Privacy as a Career." I started thinking about the topic while on a plane the other day, and jotted down a few thoughts.

This piece will probably be published in the IAPP monthly magazine in February, but since many of you aren't part of the IAPP, I thought I'd share it here as well. I think many of the themes here are applicable for privacy pros and non-privacy pros alike.
____________________________________________________________________

At the IAPP Privacy Summit in DC this March, I’m proud to tell you that I’m participating in what I think is both an interesting as well as important panel. Namely, Privacy Career Planning: Guidance from Successful Privacy Leaders. My co-panelists, representing some of the smartest in our profession, will discuss different privacy structures and roles, and share insights into how each organization embraces privacy as a career path. I’m particularly excited to take part in this because I don’t think we talk about this kind of stuff enough as privacy professionals. In fact, I’m so eager to talk about this that I couldn’t wait until March to get things rolling. So, in the spirit of beginning the conversation, I’d like to share a few observations about the privacy profession.

It’s going to take another 5 - 10 years for the role(s) of the privacy professional to solidify.

For some this may seem hard to believe given that it’s been over a century since Brandeis penned the “right to be left alone” article, and over 30 years since the development of the Fair Information Practices. But the reality is that we’re still in the nascent stage of privacy as a profession and a career path. And I see that as a positive thing. There’s some room to grow here. In fact, if you think about it, the opportunities in front of us are staggering. But this means we don’t necessarily have anything resembling a ‘typical‘ corporate privacy office, a ‘typical’ privacy consulting firm, or even a ‘typical’ privacy role.

Privacy offices emerge out of different needs and amidst very different organizational structures and cultures. My roots are in law and interactive marketing, so I tend to approach things from a different mindset than say, someone coming from the auditing world. Similarly, it stands to reason that a privacy office which sits in a corporate legal department is going to have a very different outlook, and a different approach from that of a privacy office residing in the compliance, or marketing, or finance division. I think this is going to change, but I also think such change will be gradual. And I REALLY think that we in the privacy profession can have a significant impact on what our ultimate job functions look like. (Notice I wrote that we “can,” not that we “will.”)

Just as privacy offices are in flux, and privacy roles are changing, the career path of the privacy professional is a moving target.

Bear with me on taking a minor diversion, but I’ve noticed that many of us tend to get mired in the (current or proposed) law or regulation du jour or the latest social issue, or the latest process improvement. We could all benefit from taking a step back and looking at the proverbial big picture and our place within the organization as a whole. So the question shouldn’t necessarily be, “Is your current job title a destination or a journey?” Rather, the question one should be asking as a privacy professional is “how can I use my unique skill set to create positive change within my organization?” Through this lens, it is much easier to see your job title as a journey – and an interesting one at that.

Privacy skills should be PART of your toolkit – not the entire toolkit.

It seems to me that if you have insight into the processes around safeguarding data, you may also have insight into processes around leveraging that same data to create value. For example, you may be able to help build trust metrics for online communities. Or you may have insight into customer outreach via permissions management programs.

Some of the aforementioned projects do not lend themselves to what I would characterize as traditional privacy roles. Nevertheless, they are challenges faced by businesses every day. And, more importantly, they are challenges which many in the privacy profession are well suited to address. By definition, if you are reading these words, you are in possession of a unique set of skills. Use them to address your organizational obstacles without worrying about whether it is technically within the ambit of the privacy function and I’m sure you’ll see your career prospects soar.

Be willing to roll up your sleeves

I know we’re all busy. And amidst all this activity, it’s pretty easy to settle into a routine. And if that routine does not include regular interaction with other business units, you’re not going to be as effective as you’d like.

It’s not simply about crafting a compliance checklist and throwing it over the wall to the folks in marketing. And it’s not about setting up a one-time breakfast meeting with a colleague from IT. As privacy professionals, we need to have regular and consistent involvement in the other business units of your organization. Like my friend Reed Freeman likes to say, “Invite yourself to meetings.” Expanding your influence, exposure and value within the organization is an ongoing process that requires a significant commitment of time and energy. But if you make that commitment, I can tell you from experience that you’ll have a much easier time achieving your objectives – and you’ll probably have a more interesting and satisfying work experience and career trajectory.

This is just the Beginning

I really see this as simply the beginning of the conversation. In other words, don’t worry – I’ve got lots more to say on this topic – and will, at the March Summit. And my fellow panelists also have some fantastic perspectives and experience to share. What’s key for me, is that the conversation should go on far after the panel has ended. And I invite each of you to take part in that conversation.

Behavioral Tageting and Analytics

2007-01-23T13:35:00.000-05:00

Adage describes how BT is helping "marketers figure out what types of people are drawn to their products."

Love the idea of using BT to better understand your online customer / audience. And as Tacoda ramps up it's partnership with comScore, the back end analysis will (presumably) improve significantly.

Remember when online was just a direct response medium?

Funny, but we're starting to see a similar DR / Branding debate emerge in the mobile space now...

Database Acquisition Déjà Vu?

2006-12-28T18:34:00.000-05:00

Except for the online ad serving component, Alliance Data Systems (“ADS”) seems to be transforming itself into DoubleClick – or at least DoubleClick as it used to be. Epsilon bought DoubleClick’s email division back in April, and now has acquired Abacus, DoubleClick’s data division. Abacus’ cooperative databases contain lots of consumer transaction data – many people buy from Abacus’ cataloguers, which also have websites and retail stores. ADS will now have the ability to marry significant consumer financial data derived from its existing loyalty program and credit card customers with consumers’ retail purchasing histories. One question is “How does ADS plan to use the consumer models and transaction data that Abacus houses?” Another is “Will ADS be able to honor all of the privacy promises that appeared on Abacus’ members’ e-commerce websites?” And yet another: “What additional uses will ADS make of these data, given its robust email delivery capabilities?”

With its movement into the retail consumer information sphere, ADS could qualify as a “data broker” (as defined in some proposed legislation) and become the object both of regulation, with regard to its use of data, as well as a target for information-hungry government agencies. With the memory of DoubleClick’s privacy challenges when it acquired Abacus still relatively fresh in regulators’ and privacy advocates’ minds, ADS needs to tread carefully as it examines the uses to which it can apply its data.

Tacoda to Serve Ads about Its Ads

2006-11-08T15:02:00.000-05:00

ClickZ - November 8, 2006 - Call it a public service announcement for the behavioral targeting industry. Tacoda is making a preemptive strike with new ads explaining to consumers the role its technology plays in targeting messages to them. The firm's founder and Chairman Dave Morgan expects a "blow up" in the behavioral targeting industry over privacy concerns, he told ClickZ News during Tuesday's Federal Trade Commission hearings on "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade."

The Chapell View
I was at the FTC Tech-Ade hearings, but didn't see Dave speak. I think this is an interesting announcement for several reasons.

From a privacy perspective, it's interesting to see someone in the online media and technology space acknowledge that current mechanisms for providing Notice to consumers regarding their privacy preferences aren't really working. Many in the privacy space have been say that for a while now. And clearly, Regulators are paying attention.

From a tactical perspective, Tacoda appears to be playing upon the fears of advertisers. At least one FTC Commissioner (as well as other panelists) at Tech-ade referred to openly shaming advertisers who are advertising via Spyware and/or other nefarious advertising vehicles. The message here is "We're the good guys - work with us and you won't end up with your brand on the front cover of the NY Times as part of an FTC settlement." WhenU has made this argument for a while now, tho it isn't clear how successful it's been for them. I suspect Tacoda will have significantly more success as the BT space isn't so wholly negatively perceived... at least not yet.

Lastly, is Tacoda now driving the marketing with privacy standards? To early to tell if others (including the NAI and IAB) will follow their lead, but this will be interesting to watch...

Microsoft Hops on the Behavioral-Targeting Bandwagon

2006-11-08T14:31:00.000-05:00

ClickZ - November 8, 2006 - Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions recently hopped on the bandwagon of publishers offering behavioral targeting. I caught up with Meera Bhatia, group product planner at Microsoft, who gave me the lowdown on the offering.

Anna Papadopoulos: When did MSN begin offering behavioral targeting?

Meera Bhatia: We have been running internal and pilot programs for the last year, but we officially launched our offering on September 5.

The Chapell View
Sorry to rain on the parade here, folks. I 'm a big fan of Behavioral Targeting, and genuinely believe that it represents not only the future of online advertising - it represents a future that consumers can embrace. However....

There are at least 50 companies who currently offer some form of behavioral targeting services. Yet, fewer than half of them are currently listed as members of the Network Advertising Initiative, the industry trade association responsible for creating and (with the help of TRUSTe) enforcing privacy standards for Behavioral targeting.

At one time, the FTC applauded the NAI Principles for Online Preference Marketing (now more commonly referred to as Behavioral Targeting) as a vehicle for ensuring privacy via Notice and Choice mechanisms. But if the industry isn't fully embracing/adopting these standards, it would seem only a matter of time before Regulators step in.

Reexamining online search privacy

2006-11-01T12:51:00.000-05:00

The Daily Yomiuri Online - October 31, 2006 - You wouldn't tell your best friend. In some cases, you wouldn't even tell your spouse. But because of the seemingly anonymous nature of the Internet, most people don't think twice about the kind of personal information they reveal when performing an online search through services, such as Google and Yahoo. But is this information private? And are you really just an anonymous number or Internet address floating through cyberspace? The issue came to the fore this summer when AOL, the Internet Service Provider and subsidiary of Time Warner Inc. decided to voluntarily post three months of search queries on its Web site, representing the explorations of about 650,000 users. Even though AOL identified the search queries by number instead of names, it turned out to be surprisingly easy to piece together enough information to definitively identify at least some of the users.

The Chapell View
I like the concept of #Privacy, as it certain embraces the notice of consumer Choice when it comes to their privacy preferences. Two thoughts come to mind:

#privacy would require Users to append the string #privacy to their queries if they want to indicate that a search was private. I wonder how many users would bother to use that feature other than the die hard privacy evalgelists. Even if I wanted to use the feature, I'd probably forget to add the string to every search. Perhaps the search engines could insert a global on/off button so that User's wouldn't need to remember to add it each time they search.... My guess is that the major search engines would NOT, but perhaps a second or third tier search engine might.

#privacy would not facilitate privacy protection for illegal searches. Searching for term such as "Child Porn" is pretty easy to define as illegal. What about other items that might be legal in some jurisdictions, but not others? (Gambling comes to mind) When you get into specifics, what they are proposing might not be as simple as initially thought.

An interesting idea nonetheless - and another example of the continuing tension between search marketing and privacy...

Re-Evaluating Click Fraud

2006-10-13T19:31:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - October 12, 2006 A Chapell Article
We hear all the time that click fraud is one of most pervasive problems facing online advertising. Reports consistently place the percentage of click fraud in the search space at around 15 percent, while Google's and Yahoo!'s recent settlements with advertisers unhappy about fraudulent clicks focused additional industry attention on the issue.

Couponing in the Mobile Space

2006-10-03T16:23:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - September 01, 2006

A Chapell Article

My grocery store recently installed a set of those automated check-outs. So instead of having a cashier ring up my purchases, I sometimes do the scanning myself. Right before I pay the automated teller always asks me if I have any coupons. I never do-- after all, who still clips and carries around paper coupons? ...

The privacy investigation of eBay UK

2006-09-01T15:27:00.000-04:00

eBay UK is being investigated for possible privacy violations by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). eBay UK allegedly violated the UK Data Protection Act of 1998 by making it extremely difficult for users to delete their accounts. Although the other large website companies cited in the report by Privacy International, which spawned the complaint, don’t even offer users the ability to delete their accounts, Privacy International targeted only eBay in its complaint to the ICO.

Although Privacy International’s report focuses primarily on the issue of deleting users’ accounts, the reason that its “test complaint” was filed against eBay UK is probably due to eBay’s Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) Programme, which was also mentioned in the report.

eBay’s VeRO Programme is supposed to guard against copyright, trademark or patent infringement and help prevent the sale of counterfeit goods by sharing users’ personal information among the over 10,000 Programme participants. In an article that appeared in The Guardian, eBay stated that it shared user information only with law enforcement agencies. The same article reported that the ICO would be looking into what criteria are used to share the information among VeRO Programme participants.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the UK ICO to want to examine eBay’s VeRO Programme more closely – and for Privacy International to bring it to the ICO’s attention. However, it seems a bit disingenuous for Privacy International to prepare a report based upon the receipt of “a number of complaints from Internet users claiming that some large online organisations operating in the UK market have either disabled or obstructed the deletion of customer accounts,” and then to file a complaint against the only large company that permitted the deletion of users’ accounts, rather than against its other “case study,” Amazon.co.uk.

Privacy International notes that Amazon “provided the most blatant example of companies that refuse to provide account delete facilities.” Privacy International also acknowledges that eBay UK permits users to delete their accounts, albeit after some non-intuitive hoop-jumping. If this were really about denying users the ability to delete their accounts, why not go after Amazon UK, a well-known company that doesn’t permit account deletion at all? That would, after all, make a relatively easy and straightforward case for violating the UK Data Protection Act. Yeah, but then the Information Commissioner’s Office couldn’t also be looking into a law enforcement-type data-sharing program like VeRO as part of the complaint.

It would be nice – and consistent – if privacy advocates were as transparent in their motives as they expect other entities to be.

Protect Your Brand from Rogue Affiliates

2006-09-01T09:08:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - September 01, 2006

A Chapell Article
About a year ago, I attended an online advertising event in New York, where several retailers complained about affiliates who were distributing their ads via adware. Some of the merchants had chosen to cut ties with a number of these affiliates once they made this discovery. Seems reasonable enough, right? So here we are a year later, and there are still many organizations that don't have enough reliable information to determine with whom they should partner.

Why don't advertisers know more about their affiliate partners? And given the relative risk of NOT knowing, what does this mean for those who are looking either to enter or to increase their web presence via affiliate channels? At the very least, it means Caveat Emptor (or perhaps more exactly: Caveat Mercator).(more).

Reaching the Mobile Consumer

2006-08-18T10:41:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - August 18, 2006

A Chapell Article
One of the most cited features of mobile phones is just how personal they are. Mobile devices are frequently used, rarely shared, and often carried with consumers wherever they go-- a recipe unmatched by most other forms of media. But just how adept are mobile marketers at using personalization?

Marketers are interested in leveraging the personal attachment consumers have to their phones in order to serve more relevant and personalized messaging. And mobile users in turn seem open to personalization-- whether it's personalizing ring tones, wallpaper or other features. Mobile marketers are betting that given enough targeting this desire can be extended to marketing campaigns as well...(more).

Authorship gets lost on Web

2006-08-02T11:20:00.000-04:00

USA Today - August 1, 2006
The Internet is becoming a cesspool of plagiarism. Steve McKee, a partner at Albuquerque advertising agency McKee Wallwork Cleveland, found that out in June after he wrote his monthly column for BusinessWeek.com. The column, entitled "Five Words Never to Use in an Ad," was one of his more popular pieces. A search revealed that 36 blogs had picked it up and posted it to their sites, something that is usually considered to be fair use in the blogosphere. However, to McKee's annoyance, 13 of those took credit for writing it as their original prose. "They're like cockroaches," McKee says. "Ideas are our assets, and it's frustrating when people take them from you without shame."

The Chapell View
I had my own experience with plagiarism recently. About a year ago, a friend asked me to act as a resource for a magazine article. The article focused on privacy, cookies and behavioral targeting. We were supposed to do a phone interview, but after a few go rounds, we realized that our schedules just weren't going to mesh. So, he asked me to answer a bunch of questions via email. The questions were good - very detailed, and it took me over an hour to answer them.

So when the article came out, I noticed that I wasn't attributed in the article. Apparently, the magazine had some kind of 'no quoting' policy. Not that this is the end of the world, but it would have been nice for this person to inform me of this policy BEFORE I took the time to answer his questions. (Since then, I always ask beforehand...)

What really ticked me off is that I noticed that entire paragraphs of his article were cut and pasted from the answers I provided. Yes, he changed a few of the words around, but he took my ideas! And there were a few sentances which were copied verbatim from my email.

But that's not what really gets me. The "author" of the article was in fact a professor of JOURNALISM at a prestigious University!!!!

When I brought all this to his attention, he tried to deny it. When I pushed back, he gave some lame apology (the kind where you tell the other person that they are very smart and that you empathize with their position, but you don't actually admit that you did anything wrong.) I thought about taking it to his University, but recognized that it would be hard to prove (even with the email trail) and that my energy would be better spent in other endeavors.

My point here is that it's getting harder to keep tabs on one's own intellectual property. And not just because of technology, or the Internet. We're undergoing a cultural shift. I mean, if you can't trust a professor of journalism to do the right thing, then who can you trust?

Warner Bros. To Cut Link With Adware Firm Zango

2006-07-31T00:24:00.000-04:00

Washington Post - July 28, 2006 Warner Bros. Studios, home to Bugs Bunny, Scooby Doo and Harry Potter, said yesterday that it plans to terminate a business relationship with Zango Inc., an adware company that has been offering free games on the Warner Bros. Web site in exchange for permission to install a computer program that could push advertisements and pornography.

The Chapell View
View Many of us were pretty surprised when this deal was originally announced. The record labels have traditionally been very conservative in their online endeavors. But Warner agreed to move forward so long as Zango in turn agreed to adhere to a set of standards. It'd be great to catch of glimpse of that set of standards - just to compare it to TRUSTe and similar efforts.

I've always thought that Zango (formerly known as 180 Solutions) had one of the more interesting business models in the adware space. The concept of accepting pop-ups in exchange for access to MP3's from your favorite garage band seems compelling - at least compelling enough that SOME people would be willing to make that deal.

The problem with Zango historically is that they have (allegedly) been unable or unwilling (depending upon whom you ask) to effectively police their large distribution network. And that's not me talking, that's the Center for Democracy and Technology as well as others industry experts with whom I've spoken with over the past year. Anyway, it would seem to me that if Zango could figure out a way to keep everything on the 'up and up' that they'd be able to leverage more deals like the one with Warner, and could hypothetically be the leading Adware company when all is said and done a few years from now.

TiVo Is Watching When You Don’t Watch, and It Tattles

2006-07-27T15:18:00.000-04:00

NY Times - July 27, 2006 (Registration Required)
AS the advertising and television industries debate how to measure viewers of shows watched on digital video recorders, the pioneering maker of the recorders, TiVo, is getting into the argument. It is starting a research division to sell data about how its 4.4 million users watch commercials Â or, more often, skip them. The service is based on an analysis of the second-by-second viewing patterns of a nightly sample of 20,000 TiVo users, whose recorders report back to TiVo on what was watched and when.

The Chapell View
I'm sure there's somebody out there blogging about the collection and sale of consumer television viewing habits. "Why does TIVO have a right to my information?" Etc. Etc. Etc.

But Tivo really isn't the story here. A quick glance at their privacy policy indicates that they seem to do a pretty good job of disclosing their data collection practices. YES, their policy is too long, and written like a contract, and a pain in the arse to get through...

But the real story is the number of companies that have access to your consumption patterns. Television is relatively simple. Your Cable/Satellite company has access to this data, either by themselves, or via atechnologyy provider such as Invidi. And yourdigitall recording device, if you have one, also has access to this data. (i.e., Tivo).

What are the odds of the average person reading through even ONE of these privacy policies - let alone both of them?

And again - television is relatively simple, when compared to other forms of media consumption. Take a look at your computer, where several third party service providers have access to some or part of your data, including:

Your Internet Service Provider
Just about every web site you visit
Many of the thid party vendors for those web sites, including ad serving, behavioral targeting and analytics companies.
Your browser and/or operating system manufacturer
Other software resident on your computer, including certain anti-virus and anti-spyware software.
The company that provides the names of artists on the CD's that you play/upload onto your computer.
The DRM agent when you purchase or consume music on your computer.

Now, let's assume that each of these organizations AREdoingg the right thing - as I think most of them are...

How long would it take a reasonable consumer to read through all those statements in order to make an informed choice? If a consumer opts out from one of these collection programs, how would they know their opt-out was honored?

Maybe the large online companies are right - build a brand, demonstrate trustworthiness... and bank upon that fact thatno onee has time to read the fine print...

Technologists square off on Net neutrality

2006-07-18T11:12:00.000-04:00

CNET - July 17, 2006
Two Internet pioneers dueled on Monday over whether proposed Net neutrality regulations supported by companies like Google and Amazon.com are the best way to prevent "abusive" behavior by broadband providers. A debate here hosted by the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan research institute that brags of challenging "conservative thinking," pitted Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, who co-developed the Internet's backbone protocols and has emerged as a leading proponent of congressional antidiscrimination mandates for network operators, against Dave Farber, a Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist widely considered to be a "grandfather" of the Internet.

The Chapell View
Seems like the whole Net Nuetrality debate is LESS about allowing broadband providers to charge more for high bandwidth internet traffic per se, and MORE about the carriers building direct relationships with Internet Users. Broadband carriers have increasingly recognized the folly of thinking like mere traffic cops, facilitating and regulating the content as it passes through their pipes. This type of thinking is what has commoditized their offering - driving down their ability to drive profit, recoup investments., Etc...

So this whole conept of Broadband carriers harming innovation by creating a two tiered system is somewhat of a red herring.

Broadband carriers have figured out that signing up new customers, and offering them additional products is only one way to grow revenues.

The REAL upside for the broadband carriers lay in their ability to leverage eyeballs. They are increasingly doing this in the mobile space, as well as the online media space. And THIS is really what's keeping the Google's and the Amazon's up at night. If the ISP's charge them more for access so what? But if they are able to develop direct relationships with internet Users, then they are positioned to take on the Internet Giants right where they live.

Remember, the broadband carriers have access to more data than anyone...

The Corruptables, brought to you by the EFF

2006-07-10T19:31:00.000-04:00

Does anyone remember the ACLU Pizza video? I sure do. I thought it was a brilliant effort, even if I didn't exactly agree with their viesion of Database America.

Now, thanks to Kevin Heller's Tech Law Advisor blog, I've come accross this excellent piece from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Check it out - its cool. And its on point.

One area that doesn't get enough mention within the context of the great DRM debate is the impact that many of these devices have upon your privacy. I participated on a panel on this subject with some of my colleagues from Delloitte at the last IAPP conference.

Oftentimes, in order to enforce a copyright, the entainment industry needs transparency into the way users interact with various media. In other words, the entertainment industry needs to track the music consumption habits of EVERY user if they want to catch the 'bad guys' who are 'stealing' music. And historically, they don't do a great job of notifying users that they are collecting this data, explaining why they are collecting it, how long it will be stored, Etc...

And what are they doing with the music consumption data? In many instances, this data is being handed over to marketing and other departments. In privacy circles, that's considered a big no no. But in the DRM world where "it's my bloody content and I'll go to whatever lengths I need to in order to enforce my rights," it's all too commonplace...

Behavioral Retargeting 101

2006-07-07T09:05:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - July 07, 2006 A Chapell Article
Marketers have been trying (and succeeding) to up-sell consumers for years-- it's hardly an idea that began with the internet. The era of online media, though, has brought a unique twist on this old concept: instead of trying to get consumers who made purchases in the past to buy again, what about getting consumers who didn't convert to buy for the first time?

This idea has led to the growth of retargeting (sometimes also referred to as "behavioral retargeting" or "behavioral search retargeting"). There are a few different models, but the basic idea is that by visiting a website, a consumer is demonstrating that s/he is interested in that website's products or services. Retargeting uses a website visit -- or a search ad that led a web user to a website -- as a targetable behavior...(more).

ID Theft: More Hype Than Harm

2006-06-28T13:52:00.000-04:00

Businessweek - July 3, 2006 - Law enforcement officials say the criminals tend not to follow through after stealing personal data The headlines are enough to make you swear off eBay and lock your wallet in a safe-deposit box. Supposedly trustworthy companies like LexisNexis, Time Warner, ChoicePoint, and Wells Fargo, admit that the records of their customers or employees have fallen into the wrong hands. In one case, thieves break into a Midwest office of American International Group and steal a computer server containing personal data on 930,000 employees of companies seeking medical coverage. And in the Big Kahuna of identity theft, a laptop containing Social Security numbers and other sensitive information for nearly 29 million active and former military personnel is stolen from a Veterans' Affairs Dept. staffer's home in suburban Maryland.

The Chapell View
Ahhh... the power of statistics and hype. It's easy to pull headlines with statistics such as "1 in 4 American's has had their digital data exposed in the past 18 months," and "X% of American's has had spyware on their computer." While there's definately a good deal of truth to the hyperbole, I don't think anyone really knows the broader implications of either of those stats. The police (in many cases) are not particularly advanced in spotting and investigating these types of crimes.

While I don't think that ID theft is going to cause a financial crises, these are certainly people in this country whose lives have been absolutely torn apart by ID theft. And I would hate to think that some old-school direct-marketer (many of whom still really don't get it when it comes to privacy and security) would look at this story and think, "gee, maybe this isn't such a big deal."
"the Communist Party has infiltrated all levels of the U.S. Govt.

Until we fully understand how to reliably detect and report these types of breaches (we're getting close) and understand their full impact upon victims (and not just in terms of credit card fraud), we can't make a prediction as to their relative impact.

Web Services Increasingly Under Attack

2006-06-27T11:52:00.000-04:00

SF Gate - June 23, 2006
As more people turn to Web applications for everyday tasks like e-mail, friendship and payments, cyber criminals are following them in search of bank account details and other valuable data, security researchers said.

Users of Yahoo Inc.'s e-mail service, Google Inc.'s Orkut social networking site and eBay Inc.'s PayPal online payment service were among the targets of attacks in recent weeks. All three companies have acknowledged and plugged the security holes.

The Chapell View
We probably shouldn't be terribly surprised that online applications are beginning to become the target of hacking or other malicious attacks. These applications are being increasingly used - webmail, messaging, online office applications (not to mention social networking) are all getting increased traffic. And as the author of this AP story notes, a lot of the security issues with operating systems and desktop applications have been fixed by Microsoft and others.

What goes unmentioned in this story, though, is the increased data collection that often goes along with web-based applications. Why is this relevant? In part, because of the struggle for consumer eyeballs. Marketers have found that online applications are a great place to serve advertisements, and this is how many online applications are monetized.

Take the many web-based services offered by search engines. Google Desktop Search, for example, uploads copies of desktop files to Google's servers in order to create a better search index. Now, Google theoretically can put this data to use when serving advertisements on its search engine (and most search engines, including Yahoo!, MSN, and others are all at least testing "personalized" search results).

But this transfer of data from the desktop to business servers underlines
a couple of possible risks. First, more data is available to hackers on company servers - and according to the AP, this is where they're increasingly looking for it. Second, as the line between desktop and browser continues to blur (and it's getting pretty fuzzy), the number of exploitable flaws may increase. I'm no security expert, but it seems like the more connections in place between a company server and a consumer desktop, the more places there are for a hacker to get in. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

As more online applications emerge, I think many business models are going to depend on advertising in some regard - and may draw on and store desktop data as well. Think about Windows Live. Microsoft's suite of online applications and office tools (currently in Beta) has already begun serving MSN ads, and certainly gives users the ability to share or upload data.

Microsoft has said it plans to publish its privacy standards come August - and this may be just the time to do so. As more and more of lives shift toward a web-based model, and more data is increasingly traded between consumer and company machines, I do think there are going to be increased privacy concerns.

Microsoft to publish its privacy rules

2006-06-26T18:03:00.000-04:00

ZDNET - June 25, 2006 Microsoft plans in August to publicly release the privacy rules its employees have to follow when developing products. The move, which offers a look behind the scenes at Microsoft, is meant to give the industry an example of what the software giant sees as best practices in customer privacy, said Peter Cullen, the chief privacy strategist at Microsoft. "We think that this is information that partners and others could benefit from. Lots of people build and develop applications," Cullen said in an interview Thursday in the US. "The privacy development standards will not only be made public, but we will actively be promoting their use so that others can benefit from what we've learned."

The Chapell View
A nice idea, although it's hard to comment too much until I have a chance to read through them. Having interacted with several members of MSFT's privacy and software teams over the past year, I will say that they've developed as detailed a view of the consumer consent and download experience as just about anyone.

My assumption is that there's nothing in these guidelines which will contradict the TRUSTe Trusted Download program requirements, the Anti-Spyware Coalition standards documents and/or other privacy standards. Unfortunately, we'll need to wait a month to find out...

Given that MSFT has a tendancy to sit on many different sides of the proverbial equation (anti-spyware software, O/S maker, Search, Media network, ad supported software vendor, just to name a few) I would imagine it must've been a challenge to craft a workable document that didn't collaterally damage one or more of its businesses.

Of course, any set of standards tends to paint a bullseye on the back of those who create them...stay tuned.

BT for Email Campaigns

2006-06-14T10:27:00.000-04:00

ImediaConnection.com - June 14, 2006 - Global Resource Systems' campaign manager gives background on how and why to use BT in your email campaign. Behavioral marketing, with its ability to truly segment and target your audience by their past online behavior, is not only for banners or networks. Using this method in your email campaigns can significantly change the way you send your emails for the better. By collecting information about your lists, you can send relevant offers based on a user's prior purchases. Instead of just relying on demographic data, you can deliver each unique addressee offers and information that they want, according to their behavioral patterns.

The Chapell View
Now that just about everyone seems to be talking about using behavioral targeting with email, I wonder how many in this space are providing some level of notice of this fact to their customers? If you're going to combine personally identifiable information such as name, street address or email, with online behavioral information and analytics such as web surfing information and online purchase history, shouldn't this be communicated to consumers in some way?

If the answer is YES (which would seem to make sense to me), then exactly how many marketers and/or publishers are in fact providing these disclosures? How many analytics companies and email service providers are requiring (or at least encouraging) that their customers make these disclosures?

Isn't this what DCLK got into hot water for several years ago?

Using Behavioral Targeting with Email

2006-06-07T22:05:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - June 7, 2006
Email is where advertisers can best integrate BT with all their other customer information. "Using behavioral targeting with email is not a new idea," says Shar VanBoskirk, senior analyst with Forrester Research in Cambridge, MA. "It is something that good, smart marketers have been tuned into for several years: understanding that the activities within an email are good clues to the types of offers that would be useful to send in a subsequent message. In fact, email used BT even before other types of online advertising did." So it's no surprise that right now email is where advertisers are best integrating BT with all their other customer information. Let's examine the current use of BT with email in more detail...

The Chapell View
Not to pick on Robert M., (I'm a fan) -- but what's the deal with using the term "Behavioral Targeting" to describe what (until recently) we used to call Email Personalization, or even Database Marketing?

Guess that's a sign that BT is hot - everyone wants to say they do it...

So what will we call it when an email marketing actually figures out how to combine email performance data with online surfing data in a manner that is privacy safe?

The Status on Mobile Spam

2006-06-02T10:15:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - June 02, 2006 A Chapell Article
About once a month, I get a SMS (text message) from a five-digit number asking me something like, "Would you like to receive great relevant offers from so-and-so?" I can't say that this has ever seemed like the most compelling pitch; I don't remember ever signing up to receive this sort of marketing, nor am I told what sort of ads these will be. The SMS also states, "If so, txt YES to this number. If not, txt STOP to this number." So I send a four-letter SMS in reply and about a month later get the same message again.

Evidently, I'm not alone. According to a new study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the Associated Press and AOL, 18 percent of cell phone users report getting text message spam on their phones...(more).

Let's Kill Off the 'Report Spam' Button

2006-06-01T11:43:00.000-04:00

ClickZ Newsletter - June 1, 2006
Later this month, if a cake is provided, I'll blow out 50 candles to mark the anniversary of my birth. Not sure I'm any wiser after all these years, but I am less patient with those who waste time. This world has no shortage of real problems to deal with, so we should focus on putting our energies, support, and priorities in order. This entire debate around spam, filters, blocking, absorption, Sender ID (define), and DomainKeys (define) ad nauseam has reached my boiling point. For the almost 28 years I've been in the ad business, there have been people who won't stop complaining until there's no shred of commercial messaging available anywhere on the planet. These are the folks who don't like commercials on TV, too many print ads in their magazines, :30 spots on radio, billboards, telephone calls, direct mail, pop ups, banners, and so on. It appears these folks will never be satisfied...

The Chapell View
I agree with Big Al on the problems caused by the "Report Spam" button, and completely understand the frustration over the propensity of the anti-marketing zealots (and others who simply can't be bothered with finding the unsubscribe button) to use "Report Spam" as a first, rather than a last resort.

Having said that, (and at great risk of sounding like one of those "anti-marketing zealots") I think that part of the problem lay in email marketers' reliance upon hitting the "Send Button" instead of taking the necessary (and sometimes costly) steps to build an effective preference program. Even many of the so called "legitimate" emailers have told me both privately and publicly that they don't have the resources to develop such a program. Al talks about email marketers that "fail" to develop a relationship with their audience - it's hard to build that relationship unless you know something about the audience AND use that knowledge to engage them...

On a similar note, I had a chat with Richard Gringas from GoodMail last week. And I now have a significant amount of confidence that GoodMail may hold a solution to both of these problems. First, if ISPs use Goodmail's certification as a determining factor in whether email gets through, that will likely lessen the impact upon deliverability of those Users who are prone to hit the "Report Spam" button. Second, if emailers are forced to incur additional costs around sending additional email messages, they may be forced to make a business decision prior to hitting the "Send Button." I guess we'll see...

Most Americans Are Taking Steps To Prevent Identity Theft, Poll Shows

2006-05-31T11:22:00.000-04:00

Wall Street Journal Online - May 11, 2006
Few Americans say they have been victims of identity fraud, according to a new Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive personal-finance poll. But a strong majority of them are taking steps to prevent the theft of personal and financial information that can lead to fraud.

About 3% of 2,120 adults polled said their identity has been used to open a phone, utility or other type of unauthorized account; 1% had a mortgage or line of credit opened in their name; and 2% said their personal information was used for nonfinancial fraud. Another 6% reported some other type of identity theft. Still, nearly three-quarters of respondents said they watch for suspicious activity on their accounts or shred mail that contains their account numbers.

The Chapell View
There's a lot of interesting data in this report, but there are a couple of points that seem particularly striking:

- First, one in four consumers report that they have begun to limit their "online banking transactions." This may make some amount of senese, given that banking information is some of most sensitive that consumers use online. But 80 % also say that they trust banks to "prevent others from accessing [their] sensitive personal information or account number." If so many consumers trust banks in this ways, why are they choosing to scale back their online banking?

- Second, retailers fare rather badly in the poll. Only 43 % of respondents said that they trusted retailers to safeguard their information. In addition, 30 % reported restricting their purchases from online retailers. Given the amount of purchases consumers make from retailers every day - and the limited number of data breaches caused by retailers (notwithstanding DSW, Sam's Club, and so on) - this is somewhat surprising. What reason to consumers have to distrust retailers over other businesses? And do consumers really feel so insecure every time they charge a latte at Starbucks?

Both of these questions have been asked before, as more than one report (for example, last year's Consumer Reports WebWatch poll) has made it clear that consumers view the online space as less than entirely conducive to their privacy and security. What is clear, I think, form this WSJ / Harris poll, however, is that the distrust that many consumers feel for the internet is beginning to bleed over into other areas of their business interactions.

Although only a minority of consumers will ever be victims, Identity Theft is a real enough threat, and consumers are rightly nervous. There is also the perception that identity theft is more likely to occur because of a consumer's online (rather than offline) actions. So although consumers may trust their banks, they're hardly sure if online banking is safe; and when it comes to businesses with whom they are have a less established relationship - such as retailers - consumers would much rather be safe than sorry.

When unsure of the risks, 'safe' means providing less personal information, and shopping less, online.

Consumers also reported taking a number of active steps, including checking their credit reports, shredding mail that has account numbers, and so on. These are all quite useful and effective methods of limiting identity theft, but only when ID theft occurs because of a consumer's own actions. In many cases, however, we're finding that ID theft occurs because of business mistakes (see last week's theft of 26 million SSNs at the Department of Veteran Affairs), and there's nothing a consumer can do.

Unfortunately, many consumers feel that the best way to avoid ID theft is to simply limit the information they provide online. This is a potential danger for any online business - and it hits especially close to home for those in the online marketing space. As John Greco, president of the DMA, put it in April, "Consumers are increasingly concerned about the level of trust they can place on marketers." Greco has argued that the way to build consumer trust (and avoid penalizing legislation) is to self-regulate the use of consumer data. Marketing data, he argued, should be used in line with "three r's: relevance, responsibility, and results." Although these are admittedly somewhat vague terms, what I think Greco is getting at is the idea of demonstrating value to the consumer.

Online marketers are hurt by consumer distrust because security fears lead them to provide no data at all to businesses - including less sensitive marketing data. If marketers can, through an effective self regulatory program, demonstrate that they are providing value from that provided marketing data, then this distrust may be limited. Which is to say, if a marketer learns that I'm interested in buying a new car, and uses this to provide valuable advertisements, is open about the knowledge he has about me, and ultimately leads me a purchase, I'm a lot happier.

If, on the other hand, I were to receive broadly targeted ads that lead nowhere, with no explanation, I might start to worry about who knew what about me.

Overall, this sort of industry self-regulation may go a long way to help consumers see that they gain some benefit from shared data - and let them focus on the steps they can take to ensure the safety and security of their data. Without such assurances - and something of a push in the right direction - they're likely to remain convinced that it's better to be 'safe' than 'sorry.'

Personal Data on Veterans Is Stolen

2006-05-23T14:16:00.000-04:00

Washington Post - May 23, 2006
As many as 26.5 million veterans were placed at risk of identity theft after an intruder stole an electronic data file this month containing their names, birth dates and Social Security numbers from the home of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee, Secretary Jim Nicholson said yesterday...A career data analyst, who was not authorized to take the information home, has been put on administrative leave pending the outcome of investigations by the FBI, local police and the VA inspector general, Nicholson said.

The Chapell View
I used to live in Los Alamos, NM - a town pretty much centered on Los Alamos National Laboratory, a federal research facility. It was very common for people in the town be working with classified and secure data, and while I lived there, I heard about more than one loss of sensitive data that shut down the lab for days.

In each case, it seemed, it wasn't that the data was accessed by hackers or left unencrypted. An employee would have moved computer disks somewhere, or brought home an unauthorized laptop.

I'm reminded of this because the recent breach at the Department of Veteran Affairs didn't stem from any lack of technological security. No - an employee had taken a laptop home from work in order to finish a project - which was then stolen in a burglary. Unfortunately, it's this simple sort of mistake that can have enormous consequences - whether it's the loss of classified information (as happened in Los Alamos) or more than twenty million sensitive consumer records.

As CNET reports, this data was mostly made up of social security numbers (SSNs) - and is likely the largest theft of SSNs ever. It's pretty clear that SSNs, the basic identifier for many aspects of modern life (medical care, bank accounts, college admissions, et cetera) are becoming more and more at risk. I don't know if I agree with Avivah Litan, a security analyst at Gartner, who is quoted by CNET as saying "One out of seven Social Security numbers is in criminal hands...You can't rely on them anymore." I do know, though, that the risks associated with using SSNs have led some colleges to replace them with generic ID numbers - such as NYU did, after its own breach was caused by an employee error.

So I'm glad to see that the VA is going to require employee training as a result of this breach. It's unfortunate, however, that it took this massive of a breach to cause it - and that previous reports on data security, as cited by the Washington Post, had focused on the threat of someone hacking into VA computer.

Sometimes, all the data security in the world can mean very little without consistent employee training.

Activists challenge AOL's e-mail fees

2006-05-22T17:49:00.000-04:00

Reuters - May 20, 2006
Four years ago, a small e-mail campaign saved a struggling coffee shop in Portland, Ore. Today proprietor Becky Bilyeu is among the thousands of people fighting to preserve the free flow of electronic mail. Bilyeu contacted the MoveOn.org political advocacy group earlier this spring when she heard that Time Warner's AOL, the largest U.S. Internet service provider, planned to start charging for guaranteed delivery of certain types of bulk e-mail. The fee--a small fraction of a cent per e-mail--took effect two weeks ago. AOL says it will help stop spam, or junk messages, from clogging their customers' inboxes. But many say e-mail should move freely so that people can build and maintain large communities over the Web. Nearly 500 organizations, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the Gun Owners of America, have joined together to create a coalition called DearAOL.com.

The Chapell View
This is very much like the Net Neutrality debate. For one thing, each side's argument is imperfect... but it's also similar because the Goodmail debate asks essentially the same question as the Net Neutrality debate -- does the ISP have the right to discriminate between Internet Traffic?

(Btw, I find it interesting that Yahoo's answer to this question as it pertains to Net Neutrality is "NO", while their answer to the same question regarding Goodmail would appear to be "YES!" more on this another day...)

As a privacy guy, I understand the benefits of creating an ecosystem where emailers need to consider the costs prior to hitting the send button. Most bulk emailers (even the 'reputable' brands) would rather just hit the send button rather than put together a comprehensive permissions management program. For one thing, it's MUCH easier. So in theory, charging emailers might make some of them think twice before hitting SEND - and that's probably not a bad thing.

And I'm pleased that Goodmail has decided to release their standards, although I'd encourage them to provide additional transparency regarding how their reputation scores are calculated. (I'd also like for them to demonstrate that they are actually certifying to those standards -- but that is a challenge faced by just about any business certification program.)

One thing that hasn't received a tremendous amount of press is this -- Goodmail fundamentally will change the relationship between large email sender and ISP. Under the current ecosystem, the large email sendards are beholden to the ISPs. After all, the large email senders won't make any money if their messages don't get through. And theISPss are fairly agnostic - their only master is their subscribers, and if you tick off enough of their subscribers, your messages get blocked.

However, Goodmail fundamentally changes that ecosystem. Once theISPss start deriving revenue from the delivery of emails, they become beholden to the large email senders. Does that mean that AOL and Yahoo! might give the benefit of the doubt to a large email sender that is paying them lots of money? I hope not, but it's certainly a fair question...

On the other hand....

I don't entirely embrace the argument that says "email should move freely so that people can build and maintain large communities over the Web. " I like that argument - again, in theory. It's nice to think about harnessing the power of the Internet to 'do good' in this world. But for every online community that's built upon making the world a better place (or providing Swedish doglovers a place to talk about pet products, or whatever) there are FORTY other groups who insist that their right of free speech includes the right to bug the hell out of me by polluting my inbox with stuff I don't want. Perhaps I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, but I increasingly am left with the sense that the baby has been drowned a long time ago...

Does this privacy stuff really work?

2006-05-22T08:13:00.000-04:00

Last week, I was invited to present to a group of email marketers in NYC. The luncheon was sponsored by the email marketing division of a large list and data company. It was positioned as a 'value ad' - so the parent company could demonstrate their commitment to privacy. I won't tell you the name of the sponsor, nor will I tell you any of the names of the attendee companies - but I will tell you that we're talking about prominent, top tier brands. I was joined by two other privacy professionals, whom I've known for some time. Also, most of the attendees (being emailers) were from the online divisions of their respective companies.

Anyway, I thought I'd share some of the audience' sentiments:

The ROI of Privacy was 'nice', but is anyone really doing any of this? - The luncheon attendees were very attentive, and asked some good questions, but the overriding theme of the afternoon was - "I like this in concept, but nobody is really executing this type of program!" This is admittedly a fair point. While there certainly are organizations that are able to affirmatively demonstrate the ROI of their privacy programs (HP being a good example), those organizations are probably not entirely willing to give away the secret sauce to competitors.

Great idea, so where's the turnkey solution? - While the attendees were interested in the concept of a ROI focused privacy program, they are generally looking for something they can simply implement. Few (if any) have the stomach (or the time) to take the necessary steps to build this type of program. One of the reason that the Spammer title fits most email marketers is because it's much easier to just hit the SEND button more often than it is to invest the time and capital to develop a real privacy and permissions program. Many attendees complained about fighting for headcount. (Recognizing that this is a challenge for just about all departments, I think it's particularly problematic for online divisions of companies - who've historically positioned their industry as cheaper, better, faster, leaner, Etc... The online ad space in particular is going through all kinds of growing pains as they attempt to find funding to build out infrastructure around governance.... but I digress.) My point here, is that there just isn't anything resembling a turnkey solution yet. Companies need to, for the most part anyway, build their own program from scratch. So until there's several demonstrable examples of robust (ROI driven) privacy and permissions programs, I think most organizations will sit on the sideline and continue to tap on the SEND button.

Great idea! I think my email/data provider should be offering that as a value ad service - I think this is a great idea. When I look out at Axciom, Experian, InfoUSA and other large data companies, I see an increasingly commoditized business. The first one of these companies that is able to demonstrate that they have the capacity to help build out an effective privacy and permissions program will have a HUGE advantages over the rest of the field. (In case any of them want to hire me to help build one of these programs, I'm all ears....)

Musician Moby raises voice for Net neutrality

2006-05-19T15:41:00.000-04:00

CNET News.com - May 18, 2006 Net neutrality believers have officially ordained a celebrity poster child. Musician-turned-cafe-proprieter Moby turned up on Capitol Hill on Thursday to urge passage of a proposal by Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey that would write Net neutrality principles into law. Sporting his signature dark-rimmed glasses, with his head clean-shaven as usual, the artist said that a world without legally binding Net neutrality principles would mean that today's "egalitarian" Internet would be privatized by large telecommunications companies.

The Chapell View
I'll admit that I'm still not sure what to make of the Net Neutrality debate. One the one hand, it's difficult to be sympathetic to the ISPs. After all, it's not like this whole concept has snuck up on them. Colleagues of mine at Jupiter were talking about using the Internet to deliver phone and video almost ten years ago.

On the other hand, if technology and innovation are impacting the ISP's ability to make a profit (or to at least recoup their investment), then perhaps its reasonable to expect that those same ISPs will seek new ways to recoup their investments.

More on this later...

Real Estate Services Company Settles Privacy and Security Charge

2006-05-16T11:13:00.000-04:00

FTC Press Release - May 10, 2006
A title company that promised consumers it maintained "physical, electronic and procedural safeguards" to protect their confidential financial information, but tossed consumer home loan applications in an open dumpster, agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its inadequate storage and disposal procedures for sensitive consumer information violated federal laws. The settlement with Nations Title Agency, Inc., Nations Holding Company, and Christopher M. Likens bars deceptive claims about privacy and security policies, and requires that they implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain audits by an independent third-party security professional every other year for 20 years.

The Chapell View
According to the FTC's release on the case, the financial services company National Holding Company (NHC) and its subsidiaries violated consumer protection laws in two significant ways. First, they failed to appropriately safeguard the data they collected - leaving it on easily accessible computer networks and even trashing it in open dumpsters. Second, they made false representations about the protections they claimed to (but didn't) afford to consumers' information.

Where this case is most demonstrative, I think, is in the reasons listed by the FTC as to why NHC had "failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security." These included failing to use appropriate website security and fraud detection methods. But just as importantly, the FTC cited a failure to "implement...employee screening and training and the collection, handling, and disposal of personal information," "assess risks to the information they collected and stored," and "provide reasonable oversight for the handling of personal information by service providers, such as third parties."

These three factors - employee training, risk assessment, and third-party oversight - are key elements of any privacy protection program. Unfortunately, as businesses - and especially online businesses - focus more and more on technology, companies can sometimes overlook these factors. Providing real protection, however, requires doing more than developing technology or building a secure network. There's some irony here: the technology of collecting and storing data is rapidly improving, and yet this may lead to an increase in possible security threats. Why? Many of these improvements involve storing data on third party servers (as desktop search applications, for example, do). How big these risks will be remain to be seen, but it's doubtful that technology alone with alleviate them.

The other part of the story is the FTC's increased willingness to go after companies that aren't addressing security issues. And businesses, I think, have reason to take note of this, whatever the final consequence. After all, without real risk assessment, it's hard to determine where possible threats are; without third-party oversight, and without employee training, even the best privacy practices can get lost in the shuffle (or dumpster). Third-party oversight is especially important. In recent months, businesses have been held responsible for acts they authorized third-parties to take on their behalf. Even if a business has put the proper privacy and security measures in place, they're going to want to make sure that anyone using their data is following the same guidelines and procedures.

Not all of this has to do with avoiding legal repurcussions, and it goes to the heart of why companies should respect consumer privacy for business reasons. Consumers want these protections, and are more likely to trust - and patronize - a business that enacts them. Chapell & Associates has often argued that privacy isn't just about technology - it's also about what businesses do with technology. The FTC, it seems, agrees, and is acting accordingly.

Republican Politico Endorses Data Retention

2006-05-10T07:33:00.000-04:00

CNET News.com - May 05, 2006
A key Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives plans to find a way to force Internet providers to keep records of their customers' activities, an aide said Friday. The aide said Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, who chairs the House committee responsible for writing Internet and telecommunications law, has pledged to work on legislation related to mandatory data retention--a concept recently endorsed by the Bush administration as a way to crack down on child pornographers.

The Chapell View
Now, I'm not saying that I advocate Representative Edward Markey's (D-MA) proposed alternative, but the impetus behind this proposed bill isn't all that clear to me. In fact, it seems the opposite extreme: instead of requiring businesses to delete a great deal - if not all - of the data they collect, ISPs would be required to retain customer information for at least a year.

The bill, an amendment to a broader telecommunications bill being debated, was written by Representatvie Diana DeGette (D-CO) with the ostensible goal of combating child pornography. Now, this is hardly a position that can be argued with. But there doesn't seem obvious reason why this should require ISPs to retain customer information for a year after the customer leaves their service. Moreover, according to CNET, a broad reading of the amendment might require just about any website to retain and store this sort of customer information.

As Congress debates a new and updated Telecommunications Bill - the first since 1996 - many provisions are likely to deal directly with the internet and online privacy. It's worrisome, however, that recent legislative proposals dealing with consumer privacy have taken one extreme (required deletion) or another (required storage). Online privacy is always a matter of balancing business - and government - needs against consumer interest. Markey's bill went too far in the latter direction, while DeGette's does just the opposite. As Chapell & Associates has noted before, collected data is often easily accessible by the government which is of course the intention of this very amendment.

As things stand, telecommunications law generally specifies that ISPs - like most telecommunications companies - must retain information for a limited period of time, and only upon government request. Perhaps this is restricting the government's ability to prosecute certain offenders. But there are definite risks associated with the broad collection and storage of consumer data, something that seems to have gone missing in the DOJ's (and now, Congresses') drive to have such data available to them as needed.

A Click Fraud Solution?

2006-05-08T10:49:00.000-04:00

iMedia Connection - May 08, 2006 A Chapell Article
After representatives from Google and Yahoo! sat down to discuss click fraud at the Search Engine Strategies New York conference this March, the issue seemed squarely back on the front stage. Maybe it never left, but it's clear that an increasing number of online marketers are expressing concern about the money they've spent on search ads.

But no matter how concerned these marketers are, it's principally a business problem, right? What in the world, you might be asking yourself, is a privacy guy doing talking about click fraud? Bear with me-- I'll get to that in a moment. Taking a look at the current state of click fraud - and the solutions that have been suggested - will make it clear how consumer privacy may soon become an issue...(more).