Digital privacy is something industry must get right

In an article for this month's Prospect magazine, media consultant Peter Bazalgette (of Big Brother fame) poses the question: who needs digital privacy?  His piece actually discusses the importance of privacy to the growing online economy and - interestingly - seems to argue that respecting some relatively simple principles might actually enhance digital privacy without tarnishing the rich rewards (ie free content & services) that targeted advertising can deliver to users. 

In response, Becky Hogge of the Open Rights Group, suggests that we all need digital privacy.  I think Becky is right.  Concerns about digital privacy will only continue to grow as we do and share more online.  Industry (I'm leaving government - the biggest data collector of all - out of this debate for now!) needs to tread a careful line between delivering more customised advertising and protecting privacy.  Many users are happy to 'trade off' some of their personal data in return for better, more relevant and free services.  But the bottom line is that digital privacy is a good thing: we need greater transparency in how online data is collected and users need greater control over their online experience. 

However, I don't agree with Becky about the role of government here.  I don't believe it should step in and "fill the policy vacuum".  It's looking at the Internet the wrong way.  At the IAB we're developing some self-regulatory principles - principles aimed at delivering that careful balance: more relevant advertising supporting the many free services and content we all enjoy whilst protecting user privacy.  It also means a greater reach for advertisers and a better return for web publisers' investment in this content, services and applications.  It's in all our interests that we get this balance right, but it's this approach that has the most realistic chance of success.

PS Becky is featuring in a Palace of Westminster debate on online privacy (sponsored by the IAB) in the evening of Monday 17 November.  For more details see here.

The view from the Nile

Hey there blogworld. So I'm writing this from holiday - why I hear you ask? Haven't i got anything better to do? Well I do (I'd like to pretend) but also out of a very strong sense of loyalty to my fellow blog team at the IAB and the blog reader universe I am going to give you a little insight to the world of the internet in the country where I am - Egypt (plus if I call this work maybe i can get away with charging the hugely expensive internet bill on expenses! Nice try eh?).

According to our guide, the very learned Mohammad who took us round the Cairo Museum yesterday and patiently waited while my Mum and I argued over which Louis Vuitton bag looked less fake in the bazaar, Egyptians will surf the internet and read news in Arabic, but chat rooms are predomimantly carried out in English. I tried to ask him what an arabic keyboard looked like but he wasn't really sure what I was talking about - I especially confused him by talking about qwerty and what were the most popular keys in the Arabic language. He did look at me very funnily when I asked if Google had an Arabic version - of course they do.

 I find the internet habits of different countries fascinating. It is fast becoming obvious that English is the language of the social net, and as a result of this may become the language of the younger generations as time goes on. But the different nuances of each language online is amazing - imagine reading the internet in one language but when you want to chat to your friends reverting to another? Possibly having only 26 characters to choose from is a big plus when typing fast trying to ape conversation. But what are we doing to this language? Will we all end up typing LOL (I still haven't worked out if it means lots of love or laugh out loud - probably a good thing as the wrong interpretation with the wrong person could be very bad) - will our language become adapted to the device or the type of interaction? Will shortened txt spk become what we all end up using in years to come purely because Blackberry keyboards are so frustrating and aren't really keyboards at all, just the chance to prove how fat my fingers are and hence why I can't end up typing anything on my new blackberry (can you sense my blackberry rage coming through?!).

It is very inspirational being in the country of the originators of the hieroglyphics - surely the founding fathers of icons that some of us use online now. In ancient Egypt they had the philosophy that meant they used pictures instead of words wherever possible. Not only did this look much prettier and make things more enjoyable to read, but also shortened the amount of space you needed to tell a story giving you more room in which to write. Imagine if instead of writing we would use icons to get our meaning across. It would make reading work emails much more exciting, and you'd never get confused as to whether or not someone was laughing out loud at you or telling you they loved you lots. So my challenge to the mobile internet portals and handset manufacturers is this - give us tools to stop using short letters instead of words, and give us some pictures instead, a whole library of them (and no, emoticons don't count, not unless they're much improved on). That would give the archeologists of the future something to get excited (and probably very confused) about. As it is at the moment future historians will probably see us as the era where no vowels existed, everyone had tiny little fingers and large eyes - all the better to type with and see on small screens. Something that may happen as we evolve if mobile keyboards don't get better soon. There's a challenge to Apple et al, come up with some cool icons that we can use in everyday language when typing online or on mobiles - let's make our online language much more colourful and fun!

Max Clifford could learn a lot from Online PR.

Stop hiding behind mediums

Last week I attended an event where a leading figurehead from the TV industry spent 45 minutes talking about how great the medium was.  I couldn’t agree more - I love TV, I watch tonnes of it, and in fact since having my Sky+ I watch more TV than ever, the only difference being I only watch what I want (no channel surfing because I’m bored) and I watch a 1 hour programme in 40 mins as I forward the ads and ignore the titles.  What amazed me was not one ad was shown.  No mention on how to make an engaging ad, or how to stand out amongst the rest or what is the magic formula for a truly amazing piece of TV advertising. I haven't met anyone who doesn't believe in the power of TV to build a brand - it kicks arce (spelt like this because there's a swear filter on BR).  What I do hear is what needs to be done with ads to make them work harder in TV.  

Newspapers are also to blame.  I read the Times every day during my long commute, but recently I’ve migrated to the ePaper version.  It's great - I download it, turn pages, zoom in and out and download versions for later. 

My Mac even reads the paper for me, which may sound lazy, but I can now type and digest the news at the same time.  However, all the effort appears to have gone into the medium (newspaper) with little or no thought going into the ads it hosts.  No interactivity, no working links, no video, no bespoke creative.  Too much focus in the medium and not enough in the delivery of the work.  I bet agencies don’t even know their work appears in the e-version.

Online is another culprit.  Clearly video is a very exciting development in internet advertising.  With broadband penetration at 90% and bandwidths getting bigger we are consuming more than ever.  However banging on about the fact that the internet can host video only says part of the story.  This maybe the reason so much online video is actually repurposed TV spots.  This does not make the most of the online opportunities.  We need to hone our craft so that the right video is delivered so that the message works as hard as it can.  Keep saying you can do it, doesn’t make the work any more impactful.

So lets all make a pact – let’s stop talking about mediums (platforms bla bla – don’t get me started) and lets talks about ads and how to make them great.  Ads that are fit for purpose and make the most of their placement.  Heaven forbid this might actually mean making bespoke creative for TV, print and online – oh the chore of it all.

Browser schmowser

After having a quick squizz at the IAB website's latest traffic reports, Google Chrome is clearly our fourth most popular browser of choice among visitors already (although our visitors are more likely to adopt new software). It's closing in on Safari fast, too. Is anyone else experiencing a similar take-up? I'm still undecided as to whether it even matters which is more popular except to the companies providing them. They all run slightly better or worse than each other in different areas, but at their core they all do the same thing for 'the average Jo/e'. I just feel for web developers having to test across them all. Personally, I like all of the latest versions of the top four browsers and flick between using each one, but Chrome's stripped back presentation is very nice and it helps that it appears to be more stable than others.

Obama is Google, McCain is AOL and more detailed measurement is the Holy Grail

So I've read this morning that the US think that Barack Obama is more like Google, and that John McCain is more like AOL. So what does this say about these brands?

It's good news for Obama, as Google is no young pretender to the throne. Some would say it is the throne.  And what about AOL? Is it all traditional American heartland values? What we don’t realise over here is the strength of AOL in the US.  AOL is the fourth largest website in the US, with 111 million unique users a month (thank you Comscore). Google is on 142 million – so it would win the online election, but on a time spent per site basis it’s fair to say AOL may be giving them a run for their money (can’t find the statistics on this one, but it’s not hard to imagine that people will spend more time on a content site than on a search engine). Does this mean Obama’s a dead cert?

Well here comes the science bit – I am a research person after all – the context of the online visit varies dramatically. Some work done by MSN, MEC Interaction and OTX Research earlier this year gives some great insights into what people do online and the times of day and moods that they are in when they do these things. All fairly obvious stuff, but it is increasingly obvious that as online usage diversifies and time spent online grows that traditional measurement metrics do not give the full picture. In fact unique user statistics barely give any picture at all, except the numbers of people through the front door. How much time they spend on a site, the route they take, the tasks they carry out and the level of engagement and interaction they have is not quantifiable on unique users and page impressions alone.

You could conclude then that it’s not all bad news for McCain (on this poll, possibly there is much worse news out there for him if the papers are anything to go by). Being compared to the 4^th largest website online with a reach of 111 million is no bad thing. Further demographic and reach and frequency metrics would be needed to properly quantify the value of his 111 million versus the value of Obama’s 142 million. As anyone who has heard of JICIMS will testify, unique user numbers alone do not tell the whole story -  it’s just the starting point. You need engagement measures and reach and frequency data to really know what the value of a unique user is. Interestingly McCain was also likened to Ford, whereas Obama was BMW. If you looked at things that way, the trusted American brand would be McCain, with Obama the more stylish – but expensive – foreigner.

Over to you blog readers – what brands would Gordon Brown and David Cameron be? All suggestions welcome, though I take no responsibility for the findings!  And don’t try and pretend that you are far too busy to answer this, you’re reading this blog aren’t you?

David Milliband has a beautiful face, apparently.

So what was intended to mark a significant step in the formation of policy resulted in Joe Public responding with: “Hi there.  I’m David, Dave, Milliband.  I’ve set up this big conversation in Cyberspace here to try and create a news story based around the fact that New Labour (and me especially) really want to think about the environment… Also, look at my beautiful face”.

Arguably not the best result for what was probably intended to be a largely collaborative and successful PR exercise, but an important lesson for us all.  The blog is still there.  Comments are few, but KUDOS to the 'spin doctors' for the lack of overt moderation.    But this what you you get if you're not transparent, not honest, and appear to be totally unbelievable.  It may not effect the way we vote, but these learnings should certainly affect our communications strategies.

Give a little respect get a little

God knows how much the new St Pancras station cost but what a joy it is to arrive at every morning.  The hotel clock tower peering through the ‘shed’, the beautiful restoration, the plethora of eateries and of course Fat Face for a cheeky browse (on the way home of course).  Everything oozes of respect for William Barlow who built it way back in 1863.  I can’t help picturing it full of steam and orderly civilians tipping their bowlers to bid fellow passengers a safe onward journey.  Why the do people think it’s ok to walk the full length of a good old English queue and push in.  Avoiding stereotypes, these are generally Brits, with nothing but rudeness coursing through their veins.  Rarely is there even a reason – e.g. a bun fight for seats, there is nearly always room for everyone.  The other day I did the rather un-British thing of challenger a ‘pusher’ as they are known.  I said, “Excuse me mate, would you like my ticket?”  When asked why, I simply responded by saying, “if you feel you can push in, why don’t you take my ticket as well.”  He puffed his chest and stormed off accusing me of being “f*!king rude.”  I still haven’t quite worked out why, but what I do know is he utterly lacked any form of respect.

Putting a positive spin on this, I think respect is one of the most underrated terms used in marketing today.  You’ll here a client talk about ‘respecting the brand values’ but do we spend enough time respecting consumers?  If someone (consumer) is prepared to give a brand some time whether its watching a TV ad, or writing a review or passing on an email the very least you can do is make the most of their time.

Try this - think of the most famous person you’d like to meet and imagine you have 10 seconds with them.  What would say?  How would you behave?  What would you want to get out of the encounter?  How would it meet you expectations?

Now try the exercise as a brand meeting a consumer.  You’ve got 10 seconds, what would say, how would you behave…………..and so on.  If you can respect that initial period with a consumer it may lead to a longer dialogue.  So often we respect our own craft and don’t consider enough about, am I being respectful of their time, am I wasting it and do I have permission to say what I want to say. 

Part of the challenges Facebook have faced recently is respecting the community – if you want to talk to me, respect my time in this space. 

Big respect to the Top Shop App on Facebook, which is useful to consumers and used amongst the community.  Big respect to Play’s scuba game for Fosters where a blokey bloke is quite happy to burst bubbles of lager in a huge tank.  Big respect to Nike PhotoiD that actually does what it said it would – design a shoe that matches the colour of my boxer shorts.  These are all campaigns, which make the most of the time with their consumers. 

So let me know if you think ‘respect’ should make it onto the creative brief and in return I’ll let you know which famous person I met and how I made the most of it.

 

How good is the new Britney come back?!

In my opinion it's in the so bad, it's good territory with an amazing video and yes, I unashamedly love it. How have I formed this strong and ridicule enticing opinion when it doesn't go on sale in the UK for weeks? It has been everywhere on the internet for ages. Everywhere for free! Seriously music industry - and I say this because I care - get your act together.

The single has gone to number one in America on downloads, so in terms of a US Britney comeback it’s highly successful. In terms of a world-wide comeback from a monetising music point of view, I’d say this has at best been a terribly wasted opportunity and at worst, a disheartening shambles.

Broken record

Almost a decade ago when I’d just begun running online campaigns for music artists, mp3s were taking off, yet the music industry resisted what consumers wanted and it dismays me to see that the industry still hasn't picked up the pace. Let’s recap: it’s been a decade! That’s almost a tenth of the lifetime of the music industry business model that remains largely unchanged today – quite a chunk.

Britney has been in the headlines every week for the past year for negative reasons and her 'come back' song, Womanizer, has been one of the biggest events in music for the past 12 months. Websites like PopJustice, PerezHilton, YouTube and the newsletter PopBitch had a combined audience of millions hanging on the edge of their seats waiting to see Britney wowing the pants off them. She's Twittering as well.

Hit me baby one more time

Three weeks ago, OOPS!, there the final song was, everywhere on the internet - for free. Last Monday, OOPS!, the high budget video was everywhere on the internet - for free. "Great!" the music industry may cry, "this is no different to radio and promotes what we're ultimately going to make money from, the album" but this is such a redundant model.

Weeks since the song and video were made available for free, they still haven't appeared in online shops likes iTunes and Amazon and this is the problem, they aren't there when I want them. Coming from an industry that moves faster than most with trends and consumer thinking - usually leading them - it is unbelievable that it hasn't collectively managed to change its business model yet.

Overprotected

If I sound passionate about this, it’s because I am. The music industry has been one of the most vociferous of all about digital rights management and illegal downloads. They have even struck a deal with ISPs to send printed letters to “illegal downloaders”. I won’t go into this debate because it is a long one, but I will say that I fall into the camp that says this is an unbelievably stupid waste of time and resource, not to mention a violation of their own customers’ rights.

There is light at the end of the tunnel and some instances of the music industry getting it 100% right. Amazon and Play now both have download shops with mp3s available without digital rights management. Napster offers unlimited music for a fixed monthly fee. Others try new models but get it slightly wrong, like Radiohead attempting to work with consumers by releasing one of their albums first on their website using an auction basis. Without set pricing however, people bought the tracks at a lower price than was hoped.

Me Against the Music

Sadly, while I’m pointing the spotlight at Britters, the inability to keep up with consumers is a recurring problem I see time and time again with every music release and increasingly, film releases. Record companies in the UK still work to a release schedule in an attempt to shoot to the top of the charts and music fans still beat them to it online.

In the case of this Britney release, the video does incorporate (quite humorously) some product placement and yes, it is an ad in itself for the album and brand Britney. However, the video and track should have first been made available in online shops in high definition to keep forever for the current going rate of between 79p - £1.79. Do we really think the legions of Britney fans dying to see it wouldn’t have paid? And if it was also premiered for free on the likes of YouTube and Yahoo! Music, would fans not accept relevant advertising in return?

Make it easy, price it right and supply what your customers demand. It’s not rocket science, it’s the first rules of business.

Phew! Give me a blog and a video with a naked Britney in and it seems to send me over the edge. For those who haven’t seen it yet, you can view the entire high quality video for Womanizer including a naked, totally smokin’ Britney for free, without ads, here:

Do we need further food advertising restrictions online?

It’s my first entry to the IAB blog on Brand Republic and I’m going to dive head-first into the thorny debate on junk-food advertising.

Brave: probably; crazy: quite possibly.

However, we do need to have a debate as to whether further restrictions on food advertising are needed online, and this week has seen a number of developments on this particular issue.

Earlier in the week, the Department of Health published a report saying that fewer children are being exposed to junk food advertising on TV.  The report states that there has been a 46% decrease in junk food advertising on TV since 2003 (the good news).  However the report also states that other media has increased.  For example, radio, internet and cinema combined have increased by 11% between 2003 and 2007 (the bad news).  Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo MP commented on the report saying that “we must keep an eye on other types of media.”

Consumer body Which? criticised the Public Health Minister for not going far enough.  It issued a press release calling on the Government to introduce further restrictions covering non-broadcast advertising methods, such as the internet, that are used to target less healthy foods to children.  Which?’s response raises two questions: firstly, what is the role of Government in regulating advertising on the internet?  And secondly, do we really need further restrictions on food advertising online when there are stringent rules already in place?

To answer the first question: I think the Government would be the first to acknowledge that a ‘top-down’ approach to a medium like the internet is probably unrealistic.  Which? is also unclear about what exact role it envisages for the Government.  A more sensible approach – one that Which? also advocates – would be to strengthen the self-regulatory Codes already in place.  So, let me try to answer the second question: do we need further self-regulatory restrictions on food advertising online?

Let’s be clear: there are already strict rules in place for advertising unhealthy food online.  The CAP Code for non-broadcast advertising specifically says that “marketing communications should not condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children”.  It actually goes further than this by implementing strict rules for food advertising directed at pre-school or primary school children.  Except for fresh fruit and fresh vegetables, food and drink advertisements for this age group should “not include promotional offers" or include licensed characters or celebrities popular with children.  If you want a quick and easy guide to online advertising regulations you can read them here.

But these rules apply to paid-for advertising (eg display advertising/search marketing that an advertiser has paid for).  What about social networking sites?  Which? is right to highlight these ‘gaps’ in the rules.  After all self-regulatory rules – particularly in the digital world – are only effective if they’re kept under review and maintain pace with changing consumer behaviours.  Social networking sites and other 'non-paid for' advertising does need to covered off and I’m sure industry will do this when the new version of the CAP Code is published next year.

The IAB is not shy of controversial debate so let’s kick the debate off here and now…

The Queen goes all Google on us

Today’s big story in new media land is that the Queen is visiting Google. Obviously I believe if she really wanted to get to the heart of the digital industry then she should have started her day off with a quick nip around the IAB offices (especially now we’re in fancy new ones in deepest darkest Covent Garden). I guess if you worked for MSN you’d be wondering why she couldn’t just pop over the road and have a squiz at your own offices, just to avoid playing favourites. She could fit in Yahoo! with a visit to their Shaftesbury Avenue HQ (convenient as it’s on the way to our offices) and then a quick hop over to Hammersmith to say hello to the Platform A crew and she’d have covered a large part of the industry in one motorcade driven morning.

The question that I’m asking is why is she visiting Google at all? The Queen hasn’t been to any other bastions of British industry recently (actually she may have but I tend to ignore everything else apart from digital news so excuses to any car manufacturing plants or supermarket warehouses where she may have been busy doing  the whole handshake thing). What does she Google? It’s hard to imagine the Queen sitting down and looking for 0% credit card offers. My guess is flee collars for Corgis and presents for wayward grandsons (a hash pipe for Harry and a book on how to avoid pushy girlfriends for Wills). Perhaps she owns Google shares and is hoping that her visit will boost stock market confidence in digital, though this isn’t something we need her help with though with our 21% year on year growth for the first half of 2008. Maybe she wants a sneak preview of Google’s Q3 results – out later today – so she can do a bit of insider dealing of her own. Though the word on the street (Wall street) is that the fall of Google’s share price lately could be because some traders are offsetting huge losses elsewhere by cashing in on their Google investments. So perhaps she’s just popping in to say thanks for keeping her pension fund afloat.  

But maybe she really should have been visiting MSN instead – as I found out something this week that surprised me. Did you know that the Queen was the first person to ever send an email in this country? She sent an email back in 1976 – the year I was born, that’s how long ago it was – from Malvern Air Force Base, so the home of hotmail would have made a more poignant port of call perhaps.

Let's get everyone widgetised by 2010

Although possibly a little late to hop on the bandwagon, I'm currently obsessed with widgets. Not obsessed to the extent that I actually use that many you understand, but in terms of what they represent for the future of advertising - not just online - i think they're pretty spot on. However there exists a contradiction surrounding the premise behind them, in that making marketing, and indeed your brand, useful, should not really be a new thing. What's a corporate website if it's not a useful source of information about your product, service or corporation? What's a press ad, if not a useful form of communication with numerous readers, inviting them to engage with you further via a unqiue design and persuasive prose? All useful, I would argue, yet manifested in different ways.

Therefore this apparently 'new' concept of the branded utility should not be treated with caution by advertisers, rather they should simply be seen as the next step in building your brand online. At the IAB we're used to being told about the next big thing, in fact we're quite used to talking about it too, with each year being heralded as the year of something, whether it be video, mobile or social media. In march i read that 2008 would be the year of the widget, as eMarketer reported that this year, US companies will spend approximately $40million simply making themselves more useful online. Social networkers love them, brands have embraced them and developers couldn't get more excited about them, it seems. But lets not consider the widget as the next big thing, rather a mainstay of modern marketing.

Over the past couple of days I've been looking around trying to find the best 'stuff' that marketers have been creating, widget-wise. UPS is a great example, staying ahead of their competitors with a useful application that tracks your orders whilst sitting on your desktop. Cancer Research can monitor your drinking with their widget, Nike launched a video widget in tandem with their NIKEfootball website and the STA travel application handily counts down to your holiday. All useful, relevant stuff, that fits the brand and makes perfect sense for consumers. During my research I even found whole blogs dedicated to the things, which only served to fuel my obsession even more! Who would have thought such a small form of branded content could have attracted such a widespread band of faithful followers?

Basically, because they're brilliant. What better way to extend your online presence, over and above the more traditional forms of internet advertising? What better way to literally sit in front of your consumers, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Widgets should be a natural progression from developing your own website, and frankly i don't know why every brand doesn't have one by now. So, with my current commitment to waxing lyrical about the widget, in true politician style, I hereby announce by aim - and the IAB's, sorry guys! - to have every single one of the top 100 UK brands widgetised by 2010. Sure, it's not quite as siginificant as aiming for a better educational system, or a robust National Health Service, but it's significant nonetheless. Over the next couple of years, marketers should be thinking more and more about how they can make themselves more useful to consumers, and by doing that, earn their respect and encourage brand loyalty. And if you can't think of anything useful that your brand can do, then how useful is it in the first place?

Does it matter that online campaigns are instantly forgettable?

 So, welcome to the new IAB blog and our first attempts at trying to get some thoughts out for comment and debate.  When approaching my entry the first thing that struck me was my lack of experience in writing for a blog...  Sure I can write stuff but that doesn’t make me experienced.

There’s a great story about Van Gogh who was approached at a party to draw a picture.  He duly responded, though the recipient commented on the fact that it only took a few minutes to draw. VG snapped back by saying, “it had actually taken a lifetime to draw.” I don’t know or care whether it’s a true story, but its meaning does ring true.  I believe experience + creativity = something amazing.  When I started in advertising, Campaign magazine reported on the first Account Director at the tender age of 30 - now you are lagging others if you’re not one by 25.  Now I’m in danger of being a moaner here, but I do believe there is a probation period of listening, learning, and making mistakes, but most importantly understanding what is at the heart of brands and brand building.
 
Just take a look at the best digital advertising agencies, they all bear the hallmarks of traditional advertising disciplines.  They are experts in brand marketing, production values, client service and measurement.  Why then do so few online campaigns spontaneously spring to mind, and does it matter?  The IAB recently ran a round table of top-level online creative directors and they all genuinely didn’t give a hoot that their wares weren’t being celebrated down the pub alongside the latest Lynx ad or new spectacle for Sony Bravia.  No, they were utterly absorbed by the challenge of making their product better for their clients business – check out the Orange work by Poke or Dare’s Johnny X campaign.  So why is there this unspoken tension within the industry that our work is better than yours, and we’re better than you at this and you’ll never be as good as us at that,  I believe ‘experience’ is at the heart of it.  Brand experience from the traditionalists and digital experience and know-how from the online camp.   Experience tells me that if we park our egos, we can truly work together for the good of the brands.