Depending on who you ask, the proposed DNT list is either a massive mistake or a step in the right direction. Find out the pros and cons of an idea that could radically alter the marketing landscape.

Behavioral targeting has long been part of the online ad industry, with BT firms eager to use data harvested on the web to aide advertisers in their quest to serve up the perfect ad: the right message, to the right consumer at precisely the right time.

But a slew of acquisitions (AOL buying Tacoda, Yahoo! buying BlueLithium and Google's purchase of DoubleClick, which still faces some regulatory hurdles) have propelled BT into the public spotlight, and not all the press is good news.

In November, IAB president Randall Rothenberg told attendees at ad:tech that looming legislation in the form of a proposed Do-Not-Track (DNT) list posed one of the greatest immediate threats to interactive advertising. A week later, Rothenberg addressed the Federal Trade Commission, where he presented the IAB's objections to a DNT list. At the same meeting, The Center for Digital Democracy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group made the case for a DNT list, arguing for a proposal that would put online marketers under rules similar to those that govern telemarketers.

To further flesh out both sides of the issue, iMedia asked the IAB's Mike Zaneis, VP of public policy, and Lee Tien, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (one of the groups backing the proposed DNT list), to participate in a Q&A.

Editor's note: Because the IAB and EFF represent different sides of the issue, the exact same questions were not asked of both sides. However, both were given the same opportunity to weigh in on the various components of the proposed DNT list.

What is it and does it change the game?
 
iMedia: There's a perception that a DNT list would work much like a Do-Not-Call list (something telemarketers have been dealing with for a while). But wouldn't such a list be an entirely different proposition online?

Zaneis: Yes, DNT resembles Do-Not-Call in name only. First, we are not sure if DNT would work from a technical standpoint. The challenge of having the federal government create, from scratch, a universal software platform that would serve as judge and jury for which websites American's are allowed to view is very daunting. Such a program would have to be universally executable on every computer system and consumer-friendly enough that even computer novices could easily download and install the software. The cyber security concerns alone would outweigh any perceived consumer benefits.

From the consumer perspective, DNC has been a smashing success. In contrast, DNT would actually create numerous consumer concerns. First, any proposal that would literally block off thousands of websites, content and services to consumers is a failure. It's doubtful that the general public would understand the immense consequences of actually signing up for such a list. Second, research shows that consumers actually prefer more relevant ads, a preference that would be eliminated by DNT. Lastly, the decrease in relevant ads and overall ad delivery would undermine creativity and innovation online. The end result would be fewer free websites, content and services for consumers -- clearly a result that is anti-consumer. 

iMedia: The issue of the Do-Not-Track list highlights a broader issue of an ad-supported internet. Are consumers who are vehemently anti-advertising on the web being realistic?

Tien: Advertising for years hasn't needed to track specific individuals' activities. I'm no business expert, of course, but I've yet to see any plausible case that internet advertising can't work without tracking. Somehow other media have been able to manage.
 
What about moving toward ads with greater relevance?

iMedia: One of the arguments that marketers make in favor of tracking is that consumers will actually benefit in the form of better and more relevant ads. Are marketers missing something?

Tien: Tracking may have benefits, but it definitely has privacy costs. The furor over Facebook is proof that companies can have a very, very misguided view of their consumers.

Whatever benefits there might be, consumers ought to be able to decide whether they're worth -- with good information about what marketers are doing -- the cost of their privacy. How much information are they recording? What other information are they using? Are they sharing it with others? And so on.

If companies track but hide what they're doing, that's a sign that they're not confident about making their case. It seems like a pretty self-serving argument.

iMedia: One of the arguments against such a list (and in favor of BT) is that consumers will actually benefit. Is that message actually reaching consumers, or is it being overwhelmed by fears of Big Brother?

Zaneis: A recent Booze Allen survey showed that a majority of Americans would actually be willing to pay to have more relevant ads online. We are not hearing such fears from our customers/consumers. Any group claiming that an overwhelming fear of Big Brother exists among consumers online has their head in the sand. The ad-supported internet is alive and well. For the second straight year, Cyber Monday sales surpassed Black Friday. Internet advertising is projected to surpass $20 billion this year, a 25 percent increase from 2006.

Next page >>