Chrissy Clary

ponder. conspire. digitize.

Category: Exploration

Is there a conversation around ethics and
digital marketing happening today?

A dialogue about ethics practices in the field of digital marketing, while not completely non existent, is limited and lacking in substance.

When the machines take over the world what part will marketers have played in the demise of of the human race? Unfortunately, we don’t know and won’t for a while.

In my opinion normalizing a conversation around ethical practices for the digital strategist should be an essential part of the conversations we are having regarding consumer targeting. I have no expectation that we will get it right, or save the human race, but it is worth a healthy conversation.

Notably, the topic is a complex one, but much of what I found easily available on the Internet appears to lacking in research and depth. Scholarly references, while not plentiful, were available for those with access to scholarly databases.

In the USA in 2013, full-year Internet advertising revenues totaled $42.78 billion, up 17 percent from the $36.57 billion reported in 2012 (IAB 2014). Search-related revenues accounted for 43 percent, display-related advertising for 30 percent and mobile, which grew by more than 140 percent between 2011 and 2013, reached 17 percent of the Internet advertising revenues (Nill, Aalberts, Li, & Schibrowsky, 2015).

The lack of dialogue focused on ethical practices in digital marketing compared to the amount of money being spent on digtial advertising appears unbalanced, to me at least. I found quite a few discussions centered on the pros and cons of machine learning and the use of big data, but to little regarding the use in the marketing space.

I believe we are only beginning to understanding the effects of our focused, personalized targeting efforts.

Consider this, “the recent advances in the use and potential abuse of ‘big data’ is one of the most pressing issues facing both marketers and public policy decision makers,” according to Alexander Nill, Robert Aalberts, Herman Li and John Schibrowsky -contributors to the Handbook of Ethics and Marketing. The team of researchers are in support of “more ethics-based research” focused on data privacy and consumer targeting (2015).

While [Online Behavioral Advertising] potentially provides advantages to online
consumers such as ‘free’ access to online sites – the advertising revenues
pay for keeping the sites free of charge – the practice has the technological
potential to violate consumers’ privacy to a hitherto unmatched extent.
OBA is poorly understood by most consumers, often non-transparent
And sometimes outright deceptive. Since the practice is relatively new, laws and
regulations are still evolving (Nill, Aalberts, Li, & Schibrowsky, 2015).

Evil much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ethical decision making works in a similar fashion, each person makes decisions based on the experiences and biases they bring to the table (2015). Statements like “don’t be evil” (Google, 2014), just won’t cut it and do not clearly define the ethical stand of the company.

What I am not advocating for is the erection of regulations that stifle creativity or risk innovation, but I do think it is time for a real discussion about the ethics of profiling and targeting consumers.

References
Google. (2014). U.S. Public Policy. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/publicpolicy/transparency.html

Nill, A., Aalberts, R. J., Li, H., Schibrowsky, J. (June 26, 2015). ew telecommunication technologies, big data and online behavioral advertising: do we need an ethical analysis? Handbook on Ethics and Marketing. Retrieved from https://www-elgaronline-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/view/9781781003428.00025.xml

Who and what do we trust?

We as a society are still placing trust in large brands and big names. Maybe that trust is wavering or changing a bit, but in a society where alternative facts and echo chambers are real, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recognize authority and know what to trust.

When I googled the phrase “what makes an authority,” I didn’t receive the results I had hoped for. Instead of handily presenting me with a psychological paper, my search returned a list of resources designed to teach me how to become an authority myself.

The Launch Coach wants to help me become an authority, not simply an expert. The Goins Writer can help me get 100K readers in 18 months, and the Authority Blog Starter Kit shows what an Authority website really is.

Before I conducted this search, I thought we had to earn authority. From this results list, it looks as if we can purchase it at a reasonable rate. To understand the difficulty in knowing exactly who to trust, or consider an expert, think about how many people out there are calling themselves experts. “In 1970, there were about two dozen think tanks. Today, there are over 3,500 worldwide” (Weinberg, 2011).

To dig into this idea, I ran a few studies through Amazon Mechanical Turk—a service that allows anyone access to a massive number of users at a low cost. I ran two tests. In the first test, I surveyed 200 people, asking them to select the tweet that was most likely true.

The tweets that appeared to garner the most trust were a posting by NBC about celebrities raising money for semolina victims (31 percent) and a tweet from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s head of athletics with recent stats from a game (27 percent). Coming in a close third was a posting by Business Insider Magazine about Ikea’s effort to build shelters for homeless people that can be assembled quickly (21 percent).

The final two tweets identified as trustworthy were retweets by people who carried no brand recognition. One claimed a black man had been killed by white supremacists in New York City (11 percent); the other accused Congressman Devin Nunes of protecting President Trump (10 percent).

I also asked survey participants why they chose as they did.

Here are some of my favorite responses from my survey: “Don’t think anyone would make it up;” “This tweet has most number of hearts and retweets;” “Nunes is corrupt;” “Because it is from a reputed news channel with blue tick, which means it is authentic;” “It is from a reputable Twitter account and the story is non-clickbaitey;” “Ikea often does things like this, it is totally believable. As it is the one most easily proven, I chose it over the others;” “It seems factual enough and people don’t usually lie over scores.”

In the second test, I asked Amazon Turk workers to review a website and tell me which sites of the ones presented were most likely to be reputable and which were least likely to be reputable. I had 50 responders to this test.

The five sites selected for this test originated from a Google search for the phrase “raising children” and are presented in the table below.

Website % who selected not reliable % who selected reliable
Raising Special Kids 14% 14%
Wikihow 35% 41%
Washington Post 19% 21%
American Psychological Association 14% 12%
Up Worthy 18% 12%

A few reasons users gave for identifying a website as disreputable:

  • Raising Special Kids: “The site design looks cheap and dated (I’m on a desktop). There’s not really any helpful information on the front page. It looks like I’m going to have to click around to find out what sort of site it is.”
  • Wikihow: “I think the article is good. But I am not sure if the person who wrote the article is trustworthy.”
  • Washington Post: “Too long.”
  • American Psychological Association: “Pretty disorganized format with poor choice of fonts and bad front-end code upon checking the page’s development features.”
  • UpWorthy: “It’s a site known for click-bait and low quality content”

Reasons participants offered for identifying a website as a reputable source:

  • Raising Special Kids: “The website looks legit and is followed by .org.”
  • Wikihow: “It seems to incorporate the most different sources, rather than just relying on one person’s point of view.”
  • Washington Post: “It is a news article and has a Harvard psychologist offering tips.”
  • American Psychological Association: “APA is a trusted source.”
  • UpWorthy: “It seems relevant to what I am looking for but also interesting to read.”

From my anecdotal surveys, I can begin to make a couple of assumptions.

First, we still have trust in branded organizations. In many instances, survey participants indicated that they made their selections based on brand recognition.

Second, our personal experiences greatly affect what we find believable. In the end, it appears our confirmation biases—a tendency for look for information that confirms previously held ideas—heavily influence our judgments about what is true and who or what we should believe.

Third, design plays an important role in how we decide if information is true.

Next Read: Is There a Conversation Around Ethics and Digital Marketing Happening Today? 

References:  

Weinberger, D. (2012). Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Not That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everwhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room is the Room. Basic Books. New York.

What data do
they have on us?

Corporations are gathering large amounts of data on us: data about our actions, our interests, what we search for and read, and how we interact with others. Of concern is the idea that interpretations of our right to digital privacy are in the hands of the corporations and government organizations that own the data, leaving us little control over our own digital data points.

Have you ever heard of a data broker? This term refers to companies that gather information on consumers through a variety of channels and then sell that information to corporations. The corporations use the data to build consumer profiles. They then use those profiles to market to those consumers in a targeted, personalized way.

According to Brian Naylor’s article on the NPR website, data brokerage is not anything new, “but the Internet upped the ante considerably” (2016).

Naylor explains how it works:

Once these companies collect the information, the data brokers package and sell it—sometimes to other brokers, sometimes to businesses — that then use the information to target ads to consumers. And it’s a lucrative industry. One of the largest brokers, Acxiom, reported over $800 million in revenue last year” (2016).

This raises concerns around the right to privacy. We do have that right, right?

The Fourth Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (National Constitution Center, 2017).

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not anticipate digital media or the Internet, so the Fourth Amendment does not include anything about large corporations selling, buying, storing, or mining your data.

The American Civil Liberties Union expresses its concerns about the privacy of our data on its website:

Technological innovation has outpaced our privacy protections. As a result, our digital footprint can be tracked by the government and corporations in ways that were once unthinkable. This digital footprint is constantly growing, containing more and more data about the most intimate aspects of our lives. This includes our communications, whereabouts, online searches, purchases, and even our bodies. When the government has easy access to this information, we lose more than just privacy and control over our information. Free speech, security, and equality suffer as well (2017)

To compound this concern, we are freely sharing intimate information on websites and applications owned by large corporations. That information is being archived, mined, and sold. Based on data gathered, corporations can use machine learning to understand and make assumptions about who we are and what actions we are likely to take.

Curious about my own data floating around on the Internet, I spent 30 minutes googling myself. I found information on my age, design style, address, career and education history, cities I’ve lived in, homes I’ve owned, things I am interested in, projects I’ve worked on, awards I’ve won, court records, and my relationship and marital history. Click on the items in the chart below to see what my search revealed. 

This search did not take into account the mounds of search and activity data about me that corporations have stored but not made public. If you are interested Google will share an archive of your data from the Google apps you use. You can delete those accounts and clear your browser history, but I was unable to find a statement indicating that if you delete your account or clear your history that data will be erased from Google’s files (Google Support, 2017).

In the book The Internet of Us, Michael Patrick Lynch notes, “In some cases—many cases in fact—we trade information in situations where trust has already been established to some degree.” For instance, if you have an affinity for a particular brand you may be more comfortable completing an online form and giving over your personal information than if you had never heard of the company (2016). Can we assume that humans who give their data up freely trust the organizations to which they are giving that data?

We may well be trusting blind. We have little visibility into what data is being stored on us and even less visibility into how those data are being mined and harvested. Even if we did know what data these corporations have, most likely we still would not know what assumptions the corporate algorithms are making about us.

Alas, in an article on Backchannel.com, David Weinberger explains how machine learning works and how little we can hope to understand:

Clearly our computers have surpassed us in their power to discriminate, find patterns, and draw conclusions. That’s one reason we use them. Rather than reducing phenomena to fit a relatively simple model, we can now let our computers make models as big as they need to. But this also seems to mean that what we know depends upon the output of machines the functioning of which we cannot follow, explain, or understand (2016).

Next Read: How Does Trust Work?

References: 

ACLU. (2017). Privacy & Technology. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology

Google Support. (2017). Retrieved from https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/3024190?hl=en

Lynch, M., P. (2016). The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data. Liverlight Publishing Company. New York.

National Constitution Center. Amendment iv. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-iv

Naylor, B. (July 11, 2016). Firms Are Buying, Sharing Your Online Info. What Can You Do About It? NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/11/485571291/firms-are-buying-sharing-your-online-info-what-can-you-do-about-it

Weinberger, D. (April 18, 2016). Alien Knowledge: When Machines Justify Knowledge. Backchannel. Retrieved from https://backchannel.com/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand-857a479dcc0e

Why I Marched

On January 21, my son, my mother and I participated in the Women’s March in Washington D.C. We made signs and braved a sea of protesters. I am a strong woman, but I wouldn’t consider myself the protesting type. So why go?

I think it was good ole women’s intuition. I was drawn to it. And well, maybe I am simply afraid.

  • Afraid of what may come next from Trump’s Twitter account.
  • Afraid of not seeing the day when women achieve the goal of equal pay for equal work (I really thought we were getting close on that one).
  • Afraid that my child will think that using hateful rhetoric to get ahead is in anyway acceptable.
  • Afraid that the feeling of nausea and dread that I’ve had since Trump won the election won’t go away.

The dread is still there, but the hope is back too. Bearing witness to the mass of people who stood up, squeezed in and braved overflowing port-o-potties to make it clear to the new administration that democracy is alive and well, and we will not, as many signs said, “go quietly back to the 1950s.”

“A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.” — Bob Dylan

Learn more about the Women’s March.

© 2018 Chrissy Clary

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑