advertising – Terence Eden’s Blog

The IAB loves tracking users. But it hates users tracking them.

@edent — Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:34:28 +0000

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is a standards development group for the advertising industry. Their members love tracking users. They want to know where you are, who you're with, what you're buying, and what you think. All so they can convince you to spend slightly more on toothpaste. Or change your political opinions. Either way, they are your adversaries.

The IAB's tech lab is working on a system called UID2. It's a more advanced way to track you no matter what you do and no matter what steps you take to avoid it.

UID2 is a framework that enables deterministic identity for advertising opportunities on the open internet for many participants across the advertising ecosystem. The UID2 framework enables logged-in experiences from publisher websites, mobile apps, and Connected TV (CTV) apps to monetize through programmatic workflows.

Basically, they tie your email address to everything you do. Signed in to watch a TV show? Better sell that info to the advertisers so when you sign in to a different site they can send you targetted messages. Yuck.

One of the ways privacy conscious users normally avoid this is by subtly altering their email addresses for each service they use. For example, GMail ignores any dots in your username. So if you are Han.Solo@gmail.com you can also use H.ansolo@gmail.com or ha.ns.ol.o@gmail.com. A user might sign up to a service and use a specifically "dotted" email address. If they later start receiving spam to that address, they know the service has leaked or sold their info.

You can go one step further and use plus addressing. For example han.solo+amazon@gmail.com and han.solo+github@gmail.com. They both will appear in your normal inbox, but are unique for every service you use. Again, this is great for making sure that someone hasn't sold your email address to spammers.

The IAB hates this.

As part of the UID2 API they specifically describe how an advertiser must "normalise" their users' email addresses.

This means h.a.n.solo+iab@gmail.com becomes plain old hansolo@gmail.com

I think this is pretty shitty behaviour. If someone has deliberately set their email address in this form it is because the user does not want their identities to be commingled.

Last year, I asked them to respect users' privacy and reverse this change. They finally responded:

Thank you for your input, we thought long about this update and ultimately as it stands today it is not a change we would like to add.

So, there you have it. If you want to take even the smallest step to preserve your privacy - tough. If you want to track which IAB members are using your data - tough. If you want to track users even if they don't want to be tracked - the IAB is happy to help.

If you want to opt out of this - and you trust the IAB to handle your data safely - you can submit your email address and phone number to https://transparentadvertising.org/.

Personally, I recommend installing the uBlock advert blocker on all devices which support it.

My theory on why advertising is so terrible

@edent — Fri, 02 Jul 2021 11:03:02 +0000

I accidentally watched a TV advert the other day.

A woman was on a Zoom call with friends. Her blurred background failed and revealed her ugly kitchen. Her friends all laughed at her. So she went along to AMAZING KITCHENS DIRECT 2 U and got a brand new kitchen. Now her friends are embarrassed about their kitchens!

What kind of fucking psychopath puts that out there into the world? Preying on people's insecurities when there's a pandemic on is disgusting and irresponsible.

I stopped watching adverts around the turn of the century. I got an early TiVo and merrily used the 30-second-skip to jump through them. My housemates didn't understand. They saw the adverts as a kind of alternative programming. And, to be fair, some adverts can be as amusing and heart-warming as any show. But most are just low-grade junk designed to get you to buy crap you don't need.

And so, on to my theory. Most advertising is crap because it is designed to be watched by people too stupid to block advertising.

In the seminal paper "Why do Nigerian Scammers Say They are from Nigeria?", a Microsoft employee posits that the "scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor." (emphasis added)

That's what has happened now. Anyone with a lick of sense has an ad-blocker on their computers. Anyone with money has either a streaming service with no adverts, or a TiVo style box to skip them. So advertising goes from being merely an irritant to a stream of toxic sludge filled with parasites.

Advertising doesn't attempt to be clever - because clever people aren't watching. Advertising doesn't attempt to be honest - because victims don't know how to complain. Advertising doesn't attempt to be decent - because emotionally mature people don't fall for it.

The single most important thing you can do to improve your life - and the lives of your family and friends - is to install an adblocker.

Book Review: Good Data by Sam Gilbert ★☆☆☆☆

@edent — Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:24:29 +0000

This is a Bad Book. It is probably the most profoundly disturbing book I've read about the misuse of personal data. Not because it exposes the horrors of algorithmic harassment and discrimination, but because it joyfully revels in them.

The book's central thesis is that slurping up personal data, without explicit permission, and using that information to target people is a good thing.

While books like The Age of Surveillance Capitalism and Privacy is Power are deep, scholarly works which investigate the way we are being abused by data brokers, Good Data is a little more than an obsequious love letter to Facebook. It is charmingly written, and superficially attractive, but contains no real research other than personal anecdotes.

Its arguments against Surveillance Capitalism can be summed up thusly: how bad can it really be if it made me a lot of money?

The author argues that Facebook's targeting is amazingly powerful while simultaneously claiming that the fears around its power are overblown. Apparently the rampant psychological targeting is perfectly fine - because it is done in aggregate, rather than individuals! He even makes a distasteful comparison claiming that users "donating" their data to megacorporations is morally equivalent to people donating their organs... I really don't know where to begin with that!

There is a reasonably good section on using search data to look for hidden business opportunities. If you can find a bunch of search results which have no obvious conclusion, you can start a business satisfying those unfulfilled desires. But the author seems to think it is his god-given right to get that data - bemoaning the fact that privacy advocates shuttered his source of customer intelligence.

There is an almost wilful misunderstanding of why users value privacy, wrapped up in a breathless paean to how Facebook made the author rich by targetting disabled people.

There's a basic introduction to Bentham's panopticon. Apparently Facebook isn't a panopticon because you can also look at Zuckerberg's page and see what he has liked. Completely ignoring that Zuck's page is highly curated and you can't look at the pages of the countless FB engineers who've made their pages private.

Oh, and because we can target Zuck with an advert (if we have the money) we should accept his company targeting us. It is a strange and contradictory argument.

The author's naïve worship of all things Zuck is evident in a later rambling chapter about "Zuckian Liberalism". Apparently all Zuck wants is for the world to be free and happy, man! While essentially ignoring the true Zuck Doctrine "What's good for Facebook's stock price is good for the world."

The book glosses over the ethnic slaughter in Burma, which was amplified by Facebook and claims it is just "an engineering problem waiting to be solved."

I'll be honest. The book is pretty hard to stomach. In a section praising the power of predictive policing, the author appears ignorant of algorithmic oppression - instead treating life-or-death decision making as little more than a customer segmentation exercise. A later chapter briefly covers ethical issues but quickly descends into a GCSE level run through Kant, the Trolley Problem, and Aristotle. It then concludes with the "radical" idea that big tech firms should make their data openly available to help fight big problems. And, coincidentally, help advertisers.

The publisher of the book praises its deliberately contrarian position:

"Flying in the face of much of the current doom-laden opinion and publishing about our digital world, he’s setting up a vital debate for our futures. And who doesn’t want to read something optimistic right now?"

But it is not optimistic. It presents a dystopian nightmare where shady data brokers get fabulously wealthy from pilfering your innermost secrets and using them against you.

The only reason to read this book is to understand how some people want to steal your data, abuse your rights, and profit handsomely from it - while painting themselves as moral saviours.

Let's Disrupt TV Advertising!

@edent — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:35:14 +0000

Matt Webb has a whimsical blog about buying unused TV advertising space. There are a bunch of shows on streaming services which have ad-breaks unfilled. Mostly, I assume, because everyone hates adverts and no one can afford to buy anything right now.

Matt proposes that he hyper-targets his friends and family with fun little messages. I think that's a nice idea.

The cost of TV advertising has plummeted. So, naturally, my mind turns to mischief!

How much would it cost to buy a 30 second spot and just display van Gogh's Starry Night. No text. No voice-over. No call-to-action. Just a moment to appreciate a beautiful artwork. Perhaps a countdown clock in the corner, so people know their TV is still working.

Back in 2010, Seth Stevenson bought cheap TV spots using Google Ads for TV:

One day, when I'm rich enough off the back of wasting my time on Twitter, I plan to spend my vast fortune buying up every advertising space in London and replacing them with... nothing. Turn off the screens, let the billboards go fallow, keep the Tube distraction free.

I'm not that wealthy. Yet.

Sadly, Channel 4 don't let you programmatically buy advertising. You have to speak to a sales-weasel first. Wouldn't it be lovely to buy all those unused, unloved advertising slots and fill them with art without agenda?

So - who do I know who can help me buy some UK TV advertising on the cheap?

Crypto Scammers Abusing Twitter Cards via Redirects

@edent — Mon, 04 Mar 2019 12:30:34 +0000

Twitter has a problem with scam advertising. Rather than having humans manually check adverts for acceptability and authenticity, they let almost anyone promote anything.

Whatever meagre protections they build in are rapidly evaded by the scammers. Let's take a look at an example of a promoted crypto-scam about Singapore. I'd say it was obviously a fake, but Twitter says this story comes from CNBC...!

Take a look at the bottom of the image - the CNBC domain name is there...

Diving into the source code of the ad, we can see that the link does not go to CNBC.

In fact, it goes to a crappy WordPress rip-off site on a completely different domain.

What's going on?

Twitter has a product called Twitter Cards which lets developers embed data on their page. These data are used to display large images, videos, and other stuff on the Twitter site.

What's curious is that there are no meta-tags on that spam site to populate the Twitter Card. So why does Twitter think the page is CNBC?

Using Twitter's Card Validator on that spam URl gives us this response:

When the spam site sees the Twitter Card Generator requesting the page, they redirect it to CNBC. Regular users are not redirected.

The Tweet was sent through the Twitter Ads Composer. Which, I guess, lets advertisers pick the image that they want to go with a link.

This is an obviously exploitable hole through which to spew disinformation.

Could this have been prevented?

The account "edayisagift" last Tweeted in 2017. It has a low follower count. I suspect it has been hijacked by spammers.

Should accounts like this be allowed to promote posts on Twitter? Is there a minimum quality threshold that should be met? Are there any ways to check adverts?

Even an automated check on common scam words, and recently reactivated accounts would help to prevent this sort of rubbish.

Perhaps they want to rely on crowdsourcing reports of bad behaviour?

The problem is, this spammy account has already been reported by reputable users - and nothing has been done about it!

Of course, crowdsourcing can also be gamed and manipulated. But this seems like such an obvious scam that I don't understand how it has been allowed to stand.

Recap

Spammers are abusing Twitter cards to lend legitimacy to fraudulent adverts.
Users report these scams.
Nothing happens.
Trust in the platform falls.

It is still going...

The Uncanny Valley of Consent - when advertising gets creepy

@edent — Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:57:37 +0000

Music streaming service Spotify has launched a new range of adverts which have gathered mixed reactions.

On the surface, they seem like the usual bland corporate attempts at chumming down - trying to cynically pass off advertising as friendship.

It's kinda funny, right?

Is that OK? It feels like it might not be OK.

There's no doubt that some people find these adverts unsettling.

The Uncanny Valley

As robots and computer generated imagery become more realistic, they hit an inflection point known as the "Uncanny Valley". Something which looks and behaves in an almost lifelike fashion is repulsive to many people.

... subtle flaws in appearance and movement can be more apparent and more eerie in very humanlike robots. MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337. doi:10.1075/is.7.3.03mac

You've probably noticed bad special-effects in a movie where people don't move quite as you expected them to, or been irritated by the phony intonation of a computer generated voice on the phone.

A good example of the uncanny valley is this almost-human-yet-really-creepy robot of the actor Scarlett Johansson.

It's is hard to identify what precisely makes the robot look so wrong. The pose is a little off, the skin tone is not quite right, the eyes are... I can't put my finger on it.

To experience the full terror, you can watch the video about the robot's construction. Warning you may find disturbing. Also it contains (robot) nudity which... I dunno... feels like it ought to be NSFW.

Feels Vs Reals

Let's take another quote from the original paper about the Uncanny Valley. Emphasis added:

... the eerie sensation associated with the uncanny valley may be peculiar to the violation of human-directed expectations MacDorman, K. F., & Ishiguro, H. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in social and cognitive science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297–337. doi:10.1075/is.7.3.03mac

That's the crux of the matter. Corporations aren't people. When they behave like people, it gets weird.

Holly Brockwell has written eloquently about the problems of Facebook's algorithm-driven "On This Day" feature. When Facebook says you might be interested in reliving old posts which bring you nothing but pain it feels like a personal attack.

It isn't, of course. It is a coldly mechanical procedure which is trying desperately to pass itself off as human. In doing so, it exposes just how far from human it is.

If your best friend sent you a birthday card making reference to a book you both loved as kids, that's adorable.

If Amazon strip-mines your chat history and suggests buying the same book, that's creepy.

Is Spotify being creepy?

Feelings are intrinsically valid. You can't tell me that watching a horror movie didn't scare me, or that listening to The Beatles doesn't make me happy.

Many people find these adverts creepy.

Let's assume that these are data-driven adverts based on real users (I suspect that they're purely creative).

Have people consented to having their data used in this way? Probably.

You did read the Terms & Conditions when you signed up, right?

You grant Spotify a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, fully paid, worldwide licence to use and distribute any of your User Content in connection with the Service through any medium

(Edited for brevity.)

But legal doesn't mean morally right. And that is why people are having a visceral reaction. There's something innately inhuman about about a large, powerful company mocking its customers.

Imagine if you are the Londoner who featured in this advert. Do you find it funny? Upsetting?

Does it make you paranoid if you see that poster in your local tube station? Is everyone laughing at you? Are you OK?

Be seeing you.

Virgin Wines Misleading Adverts

@edent — Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:45:16 +0000

Welcome to another edition of "Middle Class Whinging!" The exciting blog where I chronicle disappointing experiences with admired brands.

Virgin Wines loudly and repeatedly promise "next day delivery" on their wine cases. What they don't tell you is that this excludes orders made on Friday. And Saturday. And Sunday too. Basically, they only consider an order valid if it was placed on Monday - Thursday.

I believed their lies and ordered my wine on Friday morning - so it would arrive in time for Cheesemas. It was only after placing my order that I was made aware of Virgin's "creative" interpretation of "next day."

The Evidence

The very first page of their promotion mentions "next day delivery".

No mention of restrictions there. No asterisk and no disclaimer.

A little further on in the purchase process, and I'm again promised "next day delivery".

I'm well before the cut off time - both for regular and gift orders - and I'm reassured that there's only a 4% chance I won't get my lovely wine.

Still, best to check the terms and conditions, eh?

Express! Well! Now I know I'm getting my wine tomorrow!

It was only after I placed my order that I was explicitly told that a Friday order means a Monday delivery.

The Accusation

I've reported this to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority. They appear to agree that this is misleading and they've raised the issue with Virgin.

Am I being unreasonable?

If the adverts had said "next working day delivery", this could have been avoided. The only reason I can see for Virgin's choice of wording is that they intend to mislead their potential customers.

We live in a world of instant delivery - or close to it. If I place an Amazon Prime order on Saturday, it will get delivered on a Sunday. The concept of "working days" is an anachronism which isn't suited to the modern world.

The web is not the same as a printed brochure - it can be updated instantly. It would be easy for Virgin's website to dynamically change depending on the weekday. Once Friday rolls around, the website should let customers know that their tasty wine won't appear until after the weekend.

What's next?

The ASA have asked Virgin Wines to respond by 22nd December. We'll see if they can manage those timescales.

You Can't Buy Your Way Into Social Media

@edent — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:30:33 +0000

I've been taking a look at how big brands try to buy their way in to social spaces online. I'm not talking about ephemeral advertising on the side of the screen, I mean "sponsored posts".

It strikes me that large companies simply don't realise that buying your way into a conversation is an admission of failure. It's like being that kid who no one likes but, hey, we'll play with him because his parents buy him loads of toys. It's not friendship, it's not authentic, it doesn't create anything more than the most transient of relationship.

This is best summed up in this quote from Mike Arauz:

Buying a sponsored post on Facebook or Twitter is the equivalent of winning a prize when you've bribed the judges. Unsurprisingly, people react negatively to it. I've already written about the backlash against TomTom's advertising. In this post, I want to focus less on the argument about whether social media should have advertising, and more on why advertisers need to be worried about how they position themselves and respond to critical content.

Here is the latest Facebook sponsored post from Coca Cola. By most lazy metrics, it's a success - 32 thousand likes and over a thousand comments. What's not to love?

Once we dive in to the comments, and see what people are talking about, we get a very different impression.

At first, we see a mix of banter - praise and disparagement.

Some people think it's too early for a Christmas campaign and react in a humorous fashion.

But it turns sinister very quickly.

Some users are clearly very upset about the presence of Coke on their wall.

Others want to talk about Coke sponsoring the homophobic Winter Olympics.

Spammers quickly jump aboard. After 7 hours, it's clear no one from Coke is monitoring these posts.

The vitriol begins to grow.

The dirty tricks of Coca Cola begin to be discussed.

As do the health effects.

The "Good Deeds" theme is quickly exposed as corporate greenwashing.

I haven't even mentioned the posts promoting competitors, the racist language, or the repeated calls for them to stop avoiding tax.

Without realising it, Coca Cola have created that most valuable of things - a Social Object. Essentially, it's the nexus of a social network - a thing that people want to talk about.

...[H]ere we all are gathered here tonight around this Social Object. The network builds itself around it. The money, therefore... is in the object. Not the network. If you build it they will come.
James Whatley on Social Objects

This advert is a fantastic Social Object! They've got people talking about their advert - the only voice missing from the conversation? Theirs!

Yup, they've built a Social Object and completely failed to capitalise on it. They could be talking about the good work they're doing, refuting the health claims, talking seriously about workers rights, sharing insights into why they made this advert rather than use their old one - the list is endless.

Instead, they've chosen the laziest way imaginable. Release an advert, force it into people's social networks, then sit back and relax.

If one of the world's largest companies, employing the best advertisers, working in conjunction with the top social network, can't get this right, we might as well call game over for social advertising.

I understand and accept that a free service is paid for by advertisers. But do the advertisers understand how to use this medium? After all, Facebook has only been open to the public for 7 years - we can't expect advertisers to understand how the medium works - not with the amount of coke they "drink".

If companies can't figure out how to engage with their audience in an authentic manner, they will face a backlash of their own making.

To those who say "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product", I'll let my wife rebut this lazy generalisation:

Facebook might not like this attitude, but they made the decision to design a business which sells rational, self interested agents in the first place. If they didn’t want their "product" to rebel against them they shouldn't have gone into the business of selling something which has a brain.
Liz Eden

Why Do Companies Still Use Microsoft Windows For Displays?

@edent — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:17:37 +0000

As I was exiting Oxford Railway Station, I glanced at this screen showing the bus departure times. Notice anything odd about it?

sigh Yet again someone has shoehorned Microsoft Windows into a product it is completely unsuitable for. Why does a screen which displays a fairly basic set of information need to be running on an expensive Windows licence? Moreover, why is such a machine connected to the public Internet?

For bonus points, take a look at the program which has automatically loaded. Yup, they're running a program to prevent Windows kicking off its screensaver. Why? Why not just disable the screensaver? Or, even better, run the whole thing from a Raspberry Pi loaded up with Linux?

I've been ranting about this for years.

My good friend Kai Henry runs a company called Webconverger - a simple and free Linux based kiosk display system. Why on earth pay Microsoft over the odds for a buggy, crash prone, Operating System which isn't very good at kiosk displays?

How Not To Run An Interactive Advertising Campaign #TAP4offers

@edent — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:08:01 +0000

Public transport is a great way to assess the Zeitgeist. Watching commuters transition from iPhones to Samsungs, and from paper books to Kindles, really gives one a sense of how the world is changing. Advertising is also a great way to measure society; seeing lots of adverts for dodgy loan companies can give you an interesting idea about the direction of the economy.

I've been tracking the rise of QR codes in advertising for several years now. People keep asking me when NFC will take over for "boring" QR codes - based on the few live NFC examples I've seen in the UK, NFC will be trailing QR for several more years.

Let me talk you through TAP4offers' latest "effort".

The poster is fairly clear about what to expect - although I initially thought that I'd have to stretch to the top of the carriage to scan the NFC tag!

Thankfully, that's not the case. Beside every exit were these combined NFC / QR / SMS stickers. The NFC tag and QR code each had a unique tracking URL, so the owner of the service (Gunars Vucens) can see which method is being used the most. Judging from the URL and the printed information, I would guess each train carriage has a unique code.

Once the code is scanned - this happens.

What - as the kids say - The Fuck? I've no idea how much it costs to do a deal with South West Trains - but someone has wasted their money!

This is the same mistake that Clear Channel made on their QR/NFC posters.

Why bother with this? Seriously? What's the point of installing all these codes? They've been there for months - disappointing everyone who interacts with them.

Despite the advertiser's promise of a relaunch, nothing seems to be happening with these codes.

Logo Problems

As well as the general uselessness of the destination, there is another flaw with the service.

Firstly, there's yet another NFC logo! Proxima's report to the GSMA already identified half a dozen common logos. GSMA NFC Logo, NFC Forum's N-Mark, ClearChannel's NFC Mark, etc. etc.

So, overall, a pretty pathetic effort.

If NFC is to overcome its significant obstacles - price, hardware requirements, lack of public awareness - the campaigns underpinning it must be better than this.

No One Must Know This Is A Sponsored Post

@edent — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:00:23 +0000

Media Discovery (New Web Ltd) is encouraging blogs to run paid for advertorials, without disclosing to their readership that the content is an advert. This appears to be in breach of the advertising industry's code of practice.

Anyone who has ever run a blog is probably familiar with these sorts of email - I get one or two a week.

Hi Terence,
I recently sent you an email about hosting an advertisement on your site. I hope you received it, if not it may have ended up in your junk folder.
I believe we offer a very attractive system of advertising. You would be paid a yearly-renewable fee for placing a text-based advertisement that is appropriate to the topic of your site.
Please get back to me if you are interested in placing an advertisement on Shkspr.mobi?
Kind Regards,
Jesse Morgan
jesse.morgan@mediadiscovery.com

I rarely reply to such spam, however, having heard of Media Discovery's shady practices in the past, I thought I'd respond and find out more.

This is what I got back:

After reviewing your website, we think that a new blog post would be the best and least intrusive option for you. We have two ways of doing this:
A) You are free to come up with the content of the article or blog post, but we do ask that it is in some way relevant to our client and is composed of roughly 300 words.
B) I can ask our copywriters to craft an article to fit your site.
To see an example, kindly visit: http://www.mycarreviews.co.uk/citroen-c4-review/. The advert can be found within the third paragraph - 'J.D. Power'.
We’ll pay you an annual upfront payment and we will endeavour to make sure that you are paid within two working days, using PayPal or Moneybookers. Working with a telecommunications, beauty, health, tourism or finance client would ensure you would get 130 EUR per year, while working with an online gaming client (poker, casino, bingo etc) would ensure you would get 140 EUR per year.
Please let me know if you're interested, so I can have your site assessed by our Technical Team. I can then send the advert details and client information.
Alternatively, if you have any more questions about this advert type, then please do let me know.
Thanks,
Jesse

This is what the "advert" looks like: The eagle-eyed among you will notice that this doesn't look like an advert. The site carries no mention of the fact this is a sponsored article. (I've no way of verifying whether JD Power paid for this advert, or even if the blog's author is working with Media Discovery.)

I queried this - surely it's not right that advertising should be displayed in such a manner. Their response?

Thank you for your message.
We prefer it if our adverts are not marked out as such. They tend to be more successful when they look as natural as possible.
Many thanks.

This is, as far as I can tell, an illegal practice.

There are various laws and regulations governing advertising in the UK. The Office of Fair Trading specifically calls out the following practice as illegal under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, the following is an offence:

Being honest about advertorials

Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion (advertorial) without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer.

Can A Blog Get In Trouble For This?

There are two potential risks for bloggers who don't acknowledge the providence of their sponsored content. Firstly is the issue of legal liability. I am not a lawyer - but I would be very wary of publishing content like this. Regulation 18 states:

Innocent publication of advertisement defence

18.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 committed by the publication of an advertisement it shall be a defence for a person to prove that—
he is a person whose business it is to publish or to arrange for the publication of advertisements;
he received the advertisement for publication in the ordinary course of business; and
he did not know and had no reason to suspect that its publication would amount to an offence under the regulation to which the proceedings relate.

I spoke to the ASA who confirmed that it was unlikely an individual publication would get in to trouble - they'd much rather go after the advertiser.

Secondly, major search engines - Google in particular - can completely remove you from their results if it suspects you have been spamming.

In the above JD Power example, the link doesn't use the nofollow attribute which further contributes to its spammy nature.

What Can Be Done

In the UK, the regulator is the Advertising Standards Authority. Unsurprisingly, they take a keen interest in the online space. After having a chat with their advisers, I have lodged a complaint with the ASA using their online form.

I don't fundamentally disagree with the notion of advertising on blogs - I use Amazon's affiliate scheme to earn a few coins, and I have occasionally run campaigns from ebuzzing. Crucially, I always explicitly say if a post is sponsored and who the sponsor is.

How can you trust a publication if they refuse to tell you where their interests lie?

If you're a blogger and have been approached by company trying to engage in deceptive practices, I strongly suggest you file a formal complaint against them with your local regulator.

Clear Channel's NFC Mistake

@edent — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:00:36 +0000

I've talked before about advertising hoardings with combined NFC & QR codes. It looks like Clear Channel - the advertising behemoth - is getting into the game.

Spotted all over London are these bus stops with built in advertising poster. Look on the right hand side, and you'll see the interactive element.

It's pretty well designed, although the disclaimer "standard network rates apply" seems a little redundant - and weirdly placed. The QR code is oddly rotated, but that's just my personal preference.

The QR code is large enough to scan easily in broad daylight. If the code was integrated with the poster, it would also been backlit which would have been helpful when it is dark. The NFC scanned easily - once I'd flipped my phone's settings on.

Using a call to action of "Tap" and "Scan" assumes that the users will know what to do - and how to get an app if they need it.

The QR and the NFC both go to unique URLs - helpful for Clear Channel to see from where the hits are coming.

But what happens when you scan the hybrid QR/NFC?

This abomination....

What The Juddering Fuck? Why on Earth would you deploy dozens of these interactive adverts and then not point them anywhere useful? Even if the campaigns aren't ready, couldn't Clear Channel point to their YouTube Channel, or their Twitter feed, or anything!

Some people are going to interact with this poster and come to the conclusion that there's nothing worthwhile to be gained by attempting to scan again.

Clear Channel are really shooting themselves in the foot by deploying this before their technology is ready.

Pottermore Reaches Out To Harry Potter Fan Sites

@edent — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 12:00:12 +0000

I've recently learned of the "Pottermore Affiliate" scheme. You may have already started seeing banners around the web directing you to visit Pottermore - the official Harry Potter shop - where you can buy eBooks and audiobooks. Click on one of the banners and the site owner will get a 4% commission on anything you buy. That works out to be £1.55 if you buy the complete collection of ebooks for £39.

What's interesting is the way they are reaching out to Harry Potter fan sites. For years there has been an uneasy relationship between The Official Harry Potter Rights Holders ™©® and the unofficial sites set up by fans.

On the one hand, there's no doubt the majority of these sites drive people to official HP sources where they can buy books and replica wands. On the other, there's no quality control, a concern that the sites may have a commercial motive, and that untrustworthy sites could damage the brand.

After a few tactical lawsuits, it now appears that unofficial sites will be able to sell official merchandise and books through an affiliate scheme.

According to the guide for affiliates (which has an excellent section for fan sites)

Harry Potter fan content and/or websites must be non-commercial and not-for-profit. Fan sites may, however, link through to the Pottermore Shop and receive a modest percentage revenue for any sales where the revenue is used for the sole purpose of supporting the Harry Potter fan site.
No profit should be made overall for any such sales.

So, if you're a hobbyist running a "OMG! I LUV RON WEASLEY!!" site, you may get a few quid in to cover your hosting. At 4% commission, you'd have to sell a lot of Chocolate Frogs in order to trip into the profit making side of things.

If you're one of the larger sites, your hosting costs are likely to be considerably higher - and the affiliate scheme may help bring those costs down.

It's an excellent move from the Pottermore team. It helps fan sites to get a little touch of the official magic as well as reducing their costs. Visitors are gently directed to the official pages where - theoretically - they can be assured of quality.

It's a far cry for Warner Brothers heavy handed attempt to shut down fan sites in 2000.

Is this the future of online fandom? Companies tolerating amateur players - and partially funding their operations - in order to promote themselves.

A smart move from the Harry Potter team; bring fans back in from the cold. I worry, however, on a meta-level what fans of fan sites will think? Does it cheapen the fan site experience to have it plastered with official adverts? Do readers think that a site can't be objective if they now have a vested interest in selling merchandise?

If I tell you that musician Steve Lawson is incredible and you should buy his music - do you trust me if you know I get a couple of quid every time someone buys one of his excellent CDs?

It's undoubtedly a good tactic for creative types to get their fans to be advertisers. But are recommendations, and fandom in general, cheapened when there's money involved?

QR and NFC Living In Harmony?

@edent — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:01:28 +0000

Can you spot anything interesting on this poster?

Yes, there in the corner - living in blissful harmony are a QR code and an NFC tag.

There's an excellent call-to-action which even works for people without either a QR reader or NFC scanner.

The destination is this mobile friendly landing page. Of course, you should still boycott Nestle due to their contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of infants around the world by aggressively marketing baby foods in breach of international marketing standards.. The NFC and QR have different URLs - which should allow the marketing team to see which performed better.

I've been harshly critical of NFC in the past - but this does show a future for both of them.

...And Now...

A few months later, and we can see a flaw in the plan. NFC requires close contact with the phone, so can't be placed on the poster behind the perspex. So it has been stuck on the poster frame.

Which, when the poster campaign moves on, leaves us with this unfortunate situation.

NFC, as I've said before, needs a call-to-action symbol. This project shows that a QR code could be the perfect way to do that. But, remember, whereas a QR code just needs black ink and white paper - and NFC tag requires a little more planning.

Facebook's Mobile Adverts - Real Stats

@edent — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:12:18 +0000

Facebook has been getting a lot of criticism for its lack of mobile revenue. A fact it tried to hide from its IPO. Much ink has been spilled, but is it really necessary for Facebook to worry? Here's a quick case study.

Facebook has, in its infinite wisdom, decided that I would be interested in adverts for cancer. Or, perhaps, AXA have decided that 30 something males are a prime market.

The creator of the advert was Equator's Fiona Dow who, judging from her bitly profile just loves posting about cancer.

As I have mentioned several times before, bitly links are a great way to (unintentionally) share your stats. If we look at the clickthrough stats for this advert, we can find some interesting nuggets.

Here's the biggie - referrers shows where people where when they clicked on the link:

In total, nearly half of all clicks came from the mobile site.

Perhaps this is why Facebook hasn't jumped into bed with any dedicated mobile advertiser? It would seem that users are equally willing to click on Facebook's "Sponsored Stories" on mobile as well as web.

(This assumes that AXA targetted both platforms equally).

The only fly in the ointment is, you guessed it, AXA don't have a mobile friendly site.

I've been banging on about mobile-friendly advertising for years - and still advertisers don't get it! Not everyone has an iPhone. Not everyone who has an iPhone is on WiFi or 3G. Not every one want to have to pinch and zoom. If the first impression you're giving your customers is that you don't care about their needs - don't expect them to stick around too long.

So based on this datum, Facebook users are willing to click on mobile ads - all it now requires is Facebook to show them at appropriate times and advertisers to create mobile-dedicated campaigns.

Ink is Cheap

@edent — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:44:56 +0000

I did something decidedly analogue yesterday; I withdrew cash from a machine.

I know, I know, I should have used my NFC enabled smartphone - or my chip & pin card. But it turns out most cab drivers prefer cash.

On the screen was one of those ghastly animated adverts. Rather than selling me a mortgage or loan, it was advertising a fast food chain. The ad concluded by telling me to download the app - available on Android, iPhone, Symbian, and BlackBerry.

I was about to snap a photo of the screen, when all of a sudden I noticed something much more interesting on the receipt.

This is why QR codes win again and again. Black ink is ridiculously cheap, and blank paper is in plentiful supply. No retooling is needed to create them, they work with every camera phone.

Can you imagine the cost and logistics involved in converting a cash point to use NFC? Given the achingly small number of NFC handsets what would be the point?

On the back of my cab receipt, I saw another QR code.

Neither campaign is without its faults, but they serve to illustrate how the open nature of QR allows megacorps and sole traders to tap into the same ecosystem.

QR wins because it's cheap to produce, easy to use, free (gratis and libre) and has wide consumer support.

Valkee's Website Was Misleading

@edent — Tue, 29 May 2012 11:23:04 +0000

Regular readers may know that I'm not a big fan of Valkee - the magic light you shine in your ears to improve your mood.

Back in September, I complained to the ASA about the Valkee website. I felt that it was making unfounded claims, was confusing testimonial with science, and was generally misleading.

In December, the ASA referred it to their counterparts in Finland for investigation.

Today, I received this back from them.

As you know, we previously referred your complaint about Valkee Ltd to our Finish counterparts.

I've now heard back from MEN, and in summary they state that the ad was considered to be misleading. The advertisers have been advised to amend the website and have been given information and guidance on how to stay in line with the Finish Code of Practice.

I do hope that this outcome is satisfactory to you, and finally I'd like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to raise your concerns with us.

Best regards,

[Redacted]
Cross-Border Complaints Executive

I'm still trying to find out if MEN have published anything specifying exactly which changes have been advised.

According to the ASA:

I don't think they operate in the same way as the ASA in terms of published adjudications, but the website is: http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi/en-GB/consumer-advice/consumer-rights/marketing-and-advertising/. Looking at this it appears MEN referred the complaint to the Consumer Ombudsman for action as it is them that responded to us with their findings.

For information, the response to us was simply that they found the marketing to be misleading and that they had advised the advertisers of their requirements.

Train Tickets With QR Codes

@edent — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:52:42 +0000

No, I'm not talking about Masabi's innovative technology, but of this rather odd bit of advertising found on the back of a train ticket. There's no specific call to action - but there's not much space to play with. Let's give it a scan...

sigh A non-mobile site. With an Adobe Flash plugin in the top right which won't work on any iPhones. Why on Earth do marketing companies insist on pointing phones to non-mobile sites. It really bemuses me. Stations rarely have good signal (too many people leads to local network congestion) and, besides, large sites are a right pig to use on a small screen.

Stats

I've blogged several times about using Bit.ly links in QR codes. With a little bit of hacking (adding at + character to the end of the URL) we can see how many people have been scanning the code.

I don't know how many of these tickets have been printed. That might be a really good conversion rate - but I doubt it. I only noticed the QR code because someone had dropped their ticket and it landed face-down. Realistically, how many people look at the back of their tickets?

The best campaign in the world would fail if it's not put in front of an audience.

Do Adverts Really Use 75% Of Your Phone's Battery?

@edent — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:32:53 +0000

No.

(N.B. I work for a mobile advertiser - but this is my personal blog. This post isn't written on their behalf. Naturally I'm biased.) (N.B. I'm in India and jetlagged to hell - this may not make any sense!)

Wild headlines abound - but very few people seem to have read the original Microsoft sponsored paper.

The 75% claim is based on...

one app,
running on the very first Android hardware (Magic & Passion),
not disclosed whether the phones were running Android 1.5 (what they shipped with) or an updated ROM,
based on the first thirty three seconds only of the app lifecycle,

There is no doubt that running adverts opens a 3G connection - and that takes energy. And, if your app is calling data every minute - that takes more energy.

But most apps aren't coded that way.

And, even if they were, most phones keep a data connection open anyway for push email.

The energy used by downloading, say, a dozen adverts over a 30 minute session of Angry Birds is dwarfed by the total energy used by the screen, and the sound, and the music playing through your bluetooth headphones, and the vibration of incoming text messages.

Now, a sucky tracking SDK which turns on GPS, makes constant polls over the network might drain your battery a bit. But that doesn't seem to be what these guys have found.

Profiling the apps' only at their startup - rather than the continual playing of a game seems disingenuous at best.

Ubiquitous QR Codes

@edent — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:22:36 +0000

How Popular Are QR Codes?

One common complaint I hear is that QR codes are just too obscure. I don't think that's true. Aside from continual use in newspapers and magazines, they're all over the city.

Here are a few examples that I snapped while walking around London.