Just when I thought social websites, such as Facebook, were attempting to provide a little more security by tweaking the adjustability of the privacy settings, I began to take note of the sponsored link ads that creep along the sides of my homepage and the pages of other unsuspecting users and wonder just how confidential my profile actually is.

Facebook knows my name, my sex, my educational background, my e-mail address and my face, literally. But just because I am a 21-year-old female does not mean I need to visit a website to meet a man, apparently of my dreams, or review a casino’s website with hopes to spend the wads of cash the typical college student has hidden under his or her dorm mattress. Should I take offense to the airbrushed images flashing on the screen promoting weight loss? Hmm, who knew simply taking a weight-loss supplement could make any girl centerfold worthy?

Is it ethical for a website to require such user information and then allow its users to be hounded with what advertisers deem relevant to our being based solely on keywords found scattered amongst our online identities? And it’s not just social networking websites. My e-mail accounts are being bombarded with sponsored links containing keywords evidently scouted out from my e-mails as well. Sure, we have the choice to sign up for such services, but should we not have to give consent for our online personalities to be analyzed and solicited?

I can accept search engines tracking my queries and on some level understand and appreciate the effort and help. Facebook and Gmail stalking my habits and statistics could be seen in some circles as abusing their rights to my personal information, and I don’t think I can get on board with it. I suggest a course of action be taken towards more privacy before many decide it may be time to defriend Facebook and put Gmail in the trash.

Leah Mitter is an intern with the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I was having lunch the other day with ERSP Program Analyst Bob Hilleman and our former ERSP colleague Tessa Barrera. Soon, the conversation turned to the subject of traditional television and print advertising and how these promotional vehicles (though still packing a powerful punch) will soon be considered the advertising models of the past. We discussed how new outlets such as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Second Life and Twitter have arisen as new outlets for marketers to explore. Yes, marketers are realizing that as technology advances so must marketing, and these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. However, perhaps looking at why traditional marketing campaigns succeeded can help guide the jump into exploring the new media.

Think back to the advertising campaigns that you remember: M&M’s “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands”; Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef?” and Campbell Soup’s “Mmm…Mmm good.” All catchy taglines tied to successful advertising campaigns that appeal to the consumer’s feelings of trust, quality and security. By building a recognizable brand, the advertising worked to reinforce and create the connection with the consumers by appealing to their emotional sense of quality, fairness and connection. What makes a successful brand and a successful advertisement is that emotional connection. Consumers have to invest themselves into the subject, the character or the product.

More and more, new technology is on the rise. YouTube or Vimeo features short, digestible clips. Twitter issues one-sentence updates. Tumblr is built for short and quick blogging. The focus is on content, quick, constantly updating, but never in-depth. This speed, this bite-size focus is being heralded as the wave of the future, but it doesn’t allow for the building of a brand. It’s focused on tiny bits of information ready now, not to be stored away but to create a temporary quick fix for a need of information. It’s exciting, it’s constantly moving, it’s cutting edge. Yet, it is also, as of now, fairly impersonal. Consumers are there for the speed of changing content, not for the emotional ties to others. Tubmlr is attempting to incorporate those two aspects—building on the social connections of a Facebook, but still on the speed of a Twitter. Yet still, even with the social networking tie-in, the speed of the information has not yet been harnessed to achieve emotional connections. (more…)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you haven’t seen it yet, there’s an interesting advertising dispute brewing between Quiznos and Subway sandwich shops. It seems Quiznos invited the public to submit homemade videos in a contest intended to target its rival, Subway. The contest rules stated that video submissions were meant to draw “a comparison between Quiznos and Subway with Quiznos being superior.”

One of the videos showed a Subway sandwich running to a Quiznos store to find more meat. Another showed two submarines looking like sandwiches, with the Subway submarine being destroyed because it did not have enough meat.

Subway subsequently sued Quiznos, alleging that several of the homemade videos made false claims and depicted its brand in a disparaging manner. In addition, Subway also objected to ads that Quiznos itself created, showing people on the street choosing Quiznos over Subway. The legal question here is because Quiznos did not create the submissions, so should it be held liable for user-generated content created on its behalf?

From a claim substantiation standpoint (assuming that the “more meat” claim is one of the false statements), I wouldn’t want to be the attorney representing Quiznos in this one. You see, knowledge is a dangerous thing. In my opinion, once an advertiser is made aware that claims are being disseminated in the marketplace without the prerequisite underlying support, the advertiser is responsible and must exercise a reasonable effort to remove the videos/ads from circulation. As Richard Leighton, a partner at Keller and Heckman who specializes in advertising and trademark law noted in a New York Times article: “It’s not like Quiznos said, ‘Do any interesting video you can.’ They provoked it, instigated it, so it may be that the consumers, in this case, are effectively their agents.” (more…)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites