Amid little fanfare, the IAB and the AAAA released the final version of the updated "Terms and Conditions Version 3.0" at the end of last month. The document is the result of an overhaul process that dates back to April. The IAB and the AAAA asked for input after a draft version was released in mid-December, leaving a public comment period open until the end of January. So if you wanted to comment on this stuff, time is up.
In any case, one of the big questions the Terms and Conditions task force tackled was the notion of data ownership. The issue before them was that publishers have built up valuable data assets that can help stave off the decline in display ad CPMs, but the value of the data is bleeding away.
We've talked about this before in the context of agency-side audience networks. When an advertiser runs a campaign, it has the ability to mark users by setting ad-server cookies on them. Should the advertiser so choose, later campaigns can retarget those users. By way of example, if I buy 10 million impressions against first-time moms from iVillage, it is possible for me to seek out people who have been exposed to that campaign in subsequent campaigns on another site.
Forget the notion of whether or not I, as an advertiser, had a claim to that data asset of moms. The task force has made the decision on behalf of the industry, and the answer is that this asset belongs to the publisher.
Clearly this decision is made in the interest of the media business. If the v.3 Terms and Conditions are adopted across the industry, I think it will be healthy for the media business and will help keep digital CPMs from continuing to freefall. The right decision was made if your goal was to protect the business, in my opinion.
But was it the right decision?
In gleefully carving up the data pie, the task force granted ownership to either publishers or advertisers, apparently neglecting two other important stakeholder camps -- end users and the public domain.
Perhaps we ought to use an offline hypothetical in order to illustrate the problem. If I observe someone browsing through the large-screen televisions at Best Buy, who "owns" the notion that this person might be in market for a television? Does that fact belong exclusively to anyone? Should anyone who observes that behavior be able to leverage it for marketing purposes?
In this hypothetical example, the task force is coming down on the side of Best Buy being the exclusive owner of that data. But what if you wanted to argue that the consumer ultimately owns it, and that no one else has any business taking note of what someone might be in the market to buy? What if you think that browsing behavior is in the public domain, and that anyone who observes the behavior ought to be able to act on it?
It's too late. You missed the public comment period. If you support the Terms and Conditions as they're written now, and you don't use an addendum, you'll support publisher ownership of any data resulting from a campaign that wasn't expressly disclosed to an advertiser.
I'm not saying that advertisers ought to be the exclusive owners of observed data resulting from campaigns. I am saying that apparently two constituencies were neglected when the IAB and the AAAA decided the data ownership issue on behalf of the industry. Was it the right decision? Will government regulators think it's the right decision? Chime in with your comment.
Tom Hespos is the chairman and president of Underscore Marketing and blogs at Hespos.com.
On Twitter? Follow Tom at @THespos1 or @_MarketingLLC. Follow iMedia Connection at @iMediaTweet.
