Home One Question One Question: What Do You See At The Heart Of The Debate Around Consumer Privacy?

One Question: What Do You See At The Heart Of The Debate Around Consumer Privacy?

SHARE:

One QuestionOften, a question doesn’t have an easy answer in the digital advertising business. This is a new column devoted to an answer to a single question – and providing a bit of space for it.

Today’s participant is Spanfeller Media Group CEO Jim Spanfeller who recently answered the following question during a conversation with AdExchanger.com…

AdExchanger.com: What do you see at the heart of today’s debate around consumer privacy?

JS: Well, let me preface by saying – I actually had this idea long before the U.S. Federal Trade commission came out with its paper. And the idea begins with recognition of the ongoing evolution of media in general and that it has been around different types of formats of content, whether they be audio, video, data, prose, text, what have you. All of this is coming together – something we all know as convergence.

And then, of course, there is the much‑yapped‑about consumer control. People think of consumer control as this notion of time‑shifting, which of course is true. We started thinking about it a couple years back at Forbes as what I called “Entwined media, ” which was the ability to control not just when and where I was involved with a specific storyline, but also how I was involved with that storyline.  Was it a video, was it text, was it data? Was it some combination of all of the above? Or was it social, which is another phenomenon that had to come along as soon as we realized that the web was indeed interactive.

And I think this growing notion of consumer control is actually at the heart of the whole privacy issue. It actually is a way to make the privacy issue less about a religious conversation and more about a business conversation.

Because at the end of the day, you talk about privacy because everyone starts with the notion that privacy is good…that it is American if you will.  The data exchangers and ad networks will say, yes, but this benefits the end user so they should be willing to give up some privacy because they’re going to see better‑targeted ads.

OK, maybe. Who knows. I think the bigger issue is that people want control. They want control over their experiences. And so I agree. I think there are people, lots of people, who will give up data about themselves willingly in return for something.

I don’t know what that something is. It might be more content. It might be cents‑off coupons. I think if you have a CVS card or a shopping card, that’s an analogous situation where you’re giving up privacy for money off. You’re letting people track what you’re buying, but in turn you’re getting 10% off.

So plenty of Americans will give up some of their date, they just want something in return for it. They want control over the experience. I think that’s what’s going to come out of all these discussions. I think this notion of privacy will quickly become aligned with transparency, and in fact I think the FTC release sort of fundamentally says that.

I think that’s where the world’s going to have to coagulate around and deal with. So the ad networks are going to have to find ways, if they’re going to exist, to be transparent about what they’re doing. Marketers who use reams of data aggregated by third‑party sources are going to have to be transparent about A) how they have the data, and B) what they’re doing with it.

Finally, I think all those things are doable. Targeting is not going to have to stop it is just going to have to get very much more controllable and way more transparent.

Ultimately, publishers are the ones that’ll be the most advantaged in a move towards transparency. They have a first party relationship with the end user and a history of doing user data relationships.  The issues has been in the past that the publishers have just been idiots about three things A) recognizing that it exists, B) how to use it. And then C), most importantly in the past three years or so, is how to protect it.

The vast majority of data pillaging has been done without a publisher’s knowledge. They just turned a blind eye to it and never paid attention.

Follow Jim Spanfeller (@JimSpanfeller) and AdExchanger.com (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Tagged in:

Must Read

multiple sets of eyes

Amazon DSP Adds Adelaide’s Pre-Bid Attention Targeting

Advertisers can target high- and medium-attention ad inventory in Amazon DSP while filtering out low-attention placements and made-for-advertising sites.

Marketers Are Getting Used To AI In The Ad Stack

Marketers and media buyers are gradually getting more comfortable talking about ad campaigns they’re testing on large-language models like OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

For Video Publishers, Performance And AI Go Hand In Hand

In Connected TV Ad Land, proving performance is the priority for video advertisers. To drive more demonstrable reach and results, publishers are trying to expand their reach while wringing more data and AI features into their offerings. 

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Independent Ad Tech Is Reframing Itself Around Cloud Hardware

Nowadays, programmatic vendors, and SSPs in particular, are carving new paths of differentiation based on their type of adoption of cloud infrastructure.

Ad Performance Hinges On Kicking Fragmentation’s Butt

As performance takes center-stage in more advertising discussions, demands to solve fragmentation and cruddy measurement are reaching a fever pitch.

AdExchanger's Big Story podcast with journalistic insights on advertising, marketing and ad tech

AI Off The Rails

A word of caution to digital advertising companies, as they go all in on AI algorithms: They need to build these solutions with ownership, governance and accountability from the start – or AI could sink them with a single mistake.