More stuff that comes across the MTLB newswire... No, not sunglass virals, but really cool stuff like standards for social ads. Sorry, what? You know, standards! Aka, rules created in private by organizations you don’t pay much attention to? *cough, cough, IAB*
Why do I care about this stuff? Why do I sort through this massive document so you don’t have to? BECAUSE I’M LOOKING OUT FOR THE LITTLE GUY. I have to since this thing is full of overly complicated industry-speak and social media algorithms. The kind advertisers can use to justify how they’ll intrude in your life even further, except that it misses one thing:
People don’t want ads.*
Show me the poll that says yes they do, and I’ll run it for a year right at the top of the page. Although this doc focuses on people sharing ads among their social networks and friends, it still comes down to that basic point that none of the endless studies, surveys and charts on consumer behavior ever ask.
It’s always framed in the context of “If you were given free content in exchange for [insert awesome perk here], would you watch limited commercials?” I’m just saying, start asking and you’ll get a more accurate portrait of user sentiment.
These standards don’t necessarily focus on what matters. By their very nature, social networks are fluid, and assigning a fixed set of guidelines based on the changing dynamics of the online space won’t have the effect they intended.
Now, that may be a separate topic for some, but it’s all connected. While “I agree” has been the norm for joining online communities for some time, the standards in this case assume users will opt-in just because they clicked a given ad. Basically, I put my picture in one of those upload your image deals, advertisers then have the right to use that info across my network as well as have access to my profile info. Why?
(There’s an added bonus for agencies too. When brands take this and throw it back in their face later: “According to article 9, sub-section III, this ad doesn’t meet established social guidelines.”)
It does address the opt-in control a user has, but there’s something wrong about standards that tell advertisers the only thing they need to worry about is letting users know when their profile info has been accessed—after the fact.
I never had to enter my email to watch X-Files.
Brands never had the right to access your info with TV print or radio, but somehow because you’re online, now they do? Sure you can always choose when not to click an ad, but just because you do, doesn’t mean you then forfeit the right to who sees your info.
Yes, people love free, so they’ll probably not care about sharing personal bits if they can get something out of the deal.** But people are also lazy, so they don’t read the fine print and see that by giving their info out, a third party lives vicariously through their inbox with offers for shit they can’t use.
Most people are overwhelmed by having to sort through a full page of disclaimers, and they’re also tired of relinquishing privacy rights just because they clicked something. What it all comes down to is that in the minds of advertisers, because you clicked, you consented, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Nice standards.
*Relax. I mean “ads” in the classic sense of selling me on something. There’s a lot of cool brandfotainment out there that’s changing how consumers view brands.
**The Mardi Gras Theory™.
No comments:
Post a Comment