Marketers Freak Out About Mandates To Make Clickstream Tracking Opt-In Only

from the but-what-about-our-data? dept

Wed, May 7th 2008 4:38pm — Mike Masnick

With all of the fuss finally being raised concerning clickstream tracking by companies like Phorm and NebuAd, there's an effort underway to force ISPs to make any such tracking strictly opt-in. That is, users would have to proactively agree to allow their data to be used in this manner. In response, various marketers are complaining about how much data they would lose, claiming it would be an "armageddon" for the industry. Don't believe them. This is the same thing marketers warned about when the US instituted a "Do Not Call" system, and it's hardly decimated the marketing industry. Instead, it's improved marketing by making firms focus less on intrusive telemarketing and more on useful marketing. The same would happen if ISPs were required to make this an opt-in instead of opt-out setup. It would force the ISPs and companies like Phorm to make sure that the services really benefited customers in meaningful and noticeable ways so that customers would be happy to make use of the services. By whining about an opt-in solution, all these firms are really admitting is that they do not add value to the surfing experience of users.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: clickstream tracking, marketers, opt-in, opt-out
Companies: nebuad, phorm

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

some old fool, 7 May 2008 @ 5:31pm

Dont listen to marketers?
Your advice is to not listen to marketers? That surely is sage advice, but it's not quite limited to just this context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2008 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re: Dont listen to marketers?
  ".. but it's not quite limited to just this context."
  
  Oh but only if it were would the world be a better place. Not much, but enough.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 7 May 2008 @ 5:48pm

The reason that do-not-call lists haven't ruined the telemarketing industry is that telemarketers have largely ignored the lists ;)

"hi, we're conducting a survey: do you want to buy a kitchen from us?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Norm, 7 May 2008 @ 5:56pm

Opt-In for money
Why don't the ISPs just subsidize the tracking by offering a slightly lower price for customers who opt-in? This would result in an incentive to participate for customers. The customers that do opt-in are more useful (like the "Do NOt Call" example). It would even allow for the tracking companies to slightly raise their margins to compensate for the loss of tracking. It essentially converts the questionable-at-best practice of opt-out tracking to a service provided to the customers by the ISPs for the tracking companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Porkster, 7 May 2008 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: Opt-In for money
  Sweet! charge for not getting tracked. while you at it you should also charge for not gettting the newsletters, not getting the sales sms and oh yes twice the price if your blocking ads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BadPhormula, 10 May 2008 @ 5:58am
    
    Re: Re: Opt-In for money
    @Porkster
    
    Then I would be considered a ransom, and the ISP would be a highway man. Didn't we used to hang scum like these in the UK?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - badphormula, 10 May 2008 @ 6:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Opt-In for money
      *typo
      
      Then I = Then it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2008 @ 6:14pm

Luke, It's a trap !
Even if it were opt-in and you do not agree to be tracked, does anyone believe they will not be tracked ?
I trust these slimeballs as far as I can throw a piano.
This sort of thing is presently illegal and should remain that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoeppner, 7 May 2008 @ 6:15pm

You are of course forced to opt-in via this size 4 font in section-5A part B sub section X. Otherwise your tubes will not be filled with stuff from our dump truck station.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 7 May 2008 @ 10:23pm

"Phorm works by taking a copy of the traffic generated when a users visits a web site, analyzes the text in this traffic and then uses the resulting information to insert targeted ads on sites that have signed up. Phorm responded in a statement to the allegations and said that it complies with 'all the appropriate U.K. laws.'"

So - sounds to me like people can put up tons of hidden text on websites and just confuse it.

I'm sure there will be an ad-block equivalent, or just blocking their subnets entirely might work too.

They can do it if they want - and I can ignore ads too. I don't mind checking advertisements, but just because I'm searching for information on say... Tennis, doesn't mean I want to buy a racket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jake, 8 May 2008 @ 1:44am
  
  Re: Spoofing Phorm
  The handy little widget you can download from http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en would probably help; it routes you through a randomly-assigned proxy every time you click a link or refresh your browser, so it'll stop them forming any sort of profile on you.
  And I stand by my earlier assertion that an easy-to-perform opt-out is perfectly adequate; I shan't trot out the tired old cliche, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear," but I've yet to hear anyone explain exactly how one's browsing history might be used by a third party for nefarious purposes. Besides, doesn't personal responsibility come into this? Anyone too lazy and/or ignorant to bother searching the 'Preferences' tab for a clearly-marked box and un-checking it deserves what they get as far as I'm concerned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shill Bait, 8 May 2008 @ 6:47am
    
    Astro Turf ?
    #10: 1) "opt-out is perfectly adequate"
    2) "exactly how one's browsing history might be used by a third party for nefarious purposes"
    3) "clearly-marked box and un-checking it"
    
    1) The only perfectly adequate opt out would be to cancel your ISP account.
    2) I doesn't matter what they say their intentions are, it will be abused.
    3) What ? Maybe you do not understand how they collect data.
    
    #11: "I think people aren't considering the view point of a marketing person"
    
    Yes, lets all feel sorry for the marketing folks - awwwww.
    Get real. Go monitize elsewhere.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trevlac, 8 May 2008 @ 12:50am

This scared me at first. When you mentioned "clickstream" I thought of the company I'm heading a sub-site for called Clickstream TV. DON'T DO THAT, MIKE. GEEZE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ferin, 8 May 2008 @ 4:51am

Look at it from their point of view
I think people aren't considering the view point of a marketing person, beyond the idea that they want mroe money. For years people have complained about being marketed stuff they don;t want or need, or about how ads they see aren't relevant or interesting. In a sense, this type of data collection was an attempt to solve that problem(and yes, make them a lot of money, I'm trying to be a little less cynical). I think on some level this could be an honest attempt to improve the product they're offering. Obviously it's not a great way to go about it, but perhaps that mindset could be leveraged to look for other ways to acheive their goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2008 @ 4:55am

It is Armageddon, just like the do not call list
This opt-in would be and the do not call list is Armageddon for the marketing industry. The current industry state is that large amounts of relatively easy money are made on a garbage quality product. This opt-in, like the do not call list, would change the situation such that the marketing companies would make less money, working harder, delivering an higher quality product. This is difficult for the marketing industry to accept. Remember, the computer user is the product being sold, not the customer. The customer is the mega-corp purchasing marketing data. Sort of an "internal" outsourcing, so to speak. Thus, marketing firms would be fewer, slimmer and more productive. Why, marketing company managers may actually have to manage their company, in order to make a sellable product!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 8 May 2008 @ 7:46am

The Data Has Value So ...
If the data is so valuable, we should get a royalty for its use. If marketers have the technology and money to tract down our addresses and send us junk mail, surly they could enclose a nice little check!!!

Anyway, this is always amusing. If we attempt to use their "content" in a manner that they do not like (copying a music file from the PC to a CD) we are "stealing". But if they collect our data and privatize it to make money for themselves that conveniently isn't "stealing". Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Kahler, 8 May 2008 @ 9:05am

Opt in - absolutely, and enforcement, too
Forget opt-out unless it's basically universal like do not call. Opt in works fine, I'm happy to let the supermarkets I frequent track my shopping. In return, I get targeted mailings letting me know about stuff I buy when it's on sale, discounts that require the card, a shopping list online that I can use to place orders for delivery (though I usually go to the store), even frequent flyer miles. And if I don't want to be tracked, I don't use my card. Works for me.

Do not call, at least in Pennsylvania, works really well. Report violations to the attorney general's office, they follow up and it sure seems like there's very little junk calls compared to what it used to be. Marketers are catching on - even got the cable company I'm stuck with to stop calling to sell me stuff when I complained to the telemarketer, though the do not call laws let them call when they have a "relationship."

I appreciate marketing, and the marketers who let me choose on my terms, for my needs, get my business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Katie Butler, 8 May 2008 @ 11:19am

We've been successful with opt-in tracking
ClickStream Technologies has been conducting opt-in data collection studies of browser and software use since 2003 with much success. We find that, when fully informed and fairly compensated, people are happy to represent thousands of computer users and help improve the applications and website they use every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Truth, 19 Jun 2008 @ 3:15am

Not interested in advertisements
I don't need some slimey scammer in a dark basement somewhere deciding that I am interested in some arbitary product hawked by some company that is probably in the practice of employing botnet operators to flood my inbox with spam. I block all the ads I possibly can using a combination of firefox extensions and domain & IP range blocking at my firewall.

I am an intelligent person who knows where to look for what I need when shopping both on and offline. You can put your ads back into the dark hole from which they emanated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]