Online privacy may be one of the most important digital issues of the day, and it's only getting more important as more and more people use the internet more frequently.
Not suprisingly, government is increasingly looking to assert its role in the debate. Late last year, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a staff report suggesting that one attractive solution to many privacy concerns would be a Do Not Track mechanism that allows consumers to opt out of tracking.
The primary method of accomplishing this, the FTC proposed, would be a "persistent setting, similar to a cookie, on the consumer’s browser".
It's been a bad week for J.C. Penney, which found itself penalized by Google and scrutinized by the media after a paid link scheme apparently orchestrated by an outside vendor -- now fired -- was uncovered and detailed in the New York Times.
Not surprisingly, J.C. Penney isn't sitting idly by. It's defending itself.
Marketers have been paying celebrities to endorse their products and services for decades, so it's no surprise that there's a booming market for celebrity endorsements via their social media profiles.
With the help of companies like Ad.ly, celebrities and 'influencers' are reportedly earning thousands upon thousands of dollars for a single tweet or Facebook status update.
In the United States, marketers paying high-profile individuals to tweet and blog about their products worried the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) so much that it developed guidelines around the practice.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has increasingly been taking a more active role in trying to make sure that online marketers aren't harming consumers. That has meant, amongst other things, keeping a close eye on marketing taking place through social channels. You know, Kim Kardashian's tweets.
Yesterday, the FTC issued a long-awaited staff report that "proposes a framework to balance the privacy interests of consumers with
innovation that relies on consumer information to develop beneficial new
products and services."
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a comprehensive online privacy report calling on the industry to offer consumers a simple opt-out mechanism, i.e. a universal "do not track" setting on the browser. So what will the FTC think of the digital fingerprinting businesses a new crop of tech firms are trying to launch: targeting ads by tracking users' individual devices.
The promise is more accuracy and better targeting than cookies. But
will the business model creep consumers out more than cookies already do?
Foursquare's founder Dennis Crowley has an idea: turn influential social media users into affiliate marketers.
At a panel discussion the other day, he suggested that if you mention a
brand, or one of its products and services, and that mention generates
revenue for the brand, "you should get some kind of referrer’s fee." He
predicted that within a year, "there will be some way for [users] to get
kickbacks" through social media platforms.
Not sure why Apple hasn't permitted your awesome iPad app in the App
Store? Worried about developing an iPhone app using anything but
Rejoice. Yesterday Apple made a major, unexpected announcement: it's
going to be providing official guidelines "to help developers understand
how we review submitted apps" and it's also easing restrictions on the
tools developers can employ when developing for the iPhone/iPad.
The Federal Trade Commission made waves last October with new disclosure guidelines for endorsements online. Repeatedly, the group has expressed surprise that consumers and brands reacted so strongly. From their perspective, the guidelines simply elucidated rules that were already in place.
At BlogHer Business '10 in New York on Thursday, Stacey Ferguson, senior attorney in the Division of Advertising Practices at the FTC, reiterated that fact. But while the guidelines may not have changed any of the FTC's rules on endorsements, they brought increased scrutiny without clear enforcement rules. And it looks like the FTC still doesn't have any clarity on that part.
If an industry's broken, can regulation fix it? That's one of the
issues that is currently being addressed in the respect to journalism. The Federal Trade Commission is convinced that original reported journalism
cannot be sustained by the current environment online. To fix that, the organization is considering
a few remedies. One could be a 5% consumer electronics tax. Another is
regulation that will prevent low cost news aggregators from scavenging
newspapers' reported content.
But there are more than a few things that stand in
the way of such regulation. Including Google. In a
blog post called Business problems need business solutions, Google explained in no uncertain terms that
regulation isn't the way to save journalism.
Journalism, apparently, is in trouble. The once-dominant financiers of journalism -- newspapers -- are dying. And while some see hope in new media, the harsh reality is that journalism's woes have less to do with distribution mediums and more to do with business models.
That's because the kind of journalism that is threatened is expensive, and even online, there aren't too many business models that can support it. So what should we do?