Late in 2004, BURST! Media, Inc. ran a banner intended to educate consumers about spyware. Why is it in the interests of an ad network to do this?

In November of last year, BURST! Media, Inc. spokesman George Simpson let me know that the ad network was running a PSA banner and related web page for its publishers about spyware. At first, I was not sure if the banner was intended to be consumer facing or just for publishers, so I asked George to clarify. As an unintended result of my question, BURST! then decided to create a consumer-facing banner and page. In George's words, I made my own story.

Here's the banner:

It links to this page on the BURST! site.

I interviewed BURST! CEO Jarvis Coffin and George Simpson about the strategy behind the banner and web page.

Jarvis Coffin

iMedia: What can you tell me about where the banner is running, with what frequency, and where it leads if somebody clicks?

I know (to my amusement/bemusement) that it was my question to George that prompted you to adapt the spyware memo you sent to BURST!'s publisher clients about spyware into a consumer-facing banner, but I'm not sure why you did it. How will consumers benefit? How does this consumer benefit in turn benefit BURST!?

Simpson: BURST! has long provided its publishers with information and ideas to help them better understand and profit from the changing Internet advertising landscape -- everything from monthly polling data to workups like you saw on spyware. Jarvis is very sensitive to the end-user experience and works hard with sites to assure that it is a good one as far as advertising is concerned. BURST! after all has an enormous audience that can be/is being monetized to the benefit of both BURST and its publishers. So it is important to keep that audience excited and loyal. While an ad network can't impact content (with the exception of setting the bar pretty high for a series of standards that encourage the best possible content) it can affect the advertising experience.

I think the point of reaching out to the consumer is underscored by AOL's newest campaign that reassures users and promises them a good/better experience at AOL. In the same sense, I think Jarvis wants the BURST! end users to be assured and reassured that they are being looked out for. Of course, nothing can happen without the concurrence of the publishers, but I think they will agree that a better-educated consumer is a better customer.

Coffin: We share a vested interest in the integrity of the internet marketplace. Spyware, in my opinion, subtracts from that integrity. We have the reach and resources to help educate consumers so that they can be part of the solution in creating a commercial environment that everyone can live with. The industry has a role to play in creating standards, and we all talk about that regularly; the consumers can help reinforce those standards if they are conscious participants. In the end, we benefit.

More directly, though, our publishers hate spyware. They react strongly if we bring them business that might result in drive-by downloads, or other suspicious activity, which still happens -- albeit rarely these days -- despite our continuous efforts to vet advertising for ingredients that may result in, shall we say, automatic functionality. The spyware memo, the banners, are, therefore, a clear indication of our commitment to what our publishers care about. The more they recognize this commitment to them, the more I believe we benefit.

iMedia: Most adware/behavorial marketing companies (Claria, TACODA, WhenU) are at some pains to make the distinction between adware and spyware, and in an early version of the banner I saw that distinction elided. In the version currently on the site, the distinction is made more clear. But I'm still curious about the original: Was there a particular reason for the conflation of adware and spyware? From the publisher's perspective, is there no difference between the two?

Simpson: You are correct that adware/spyware companies are taking great pains to escape being lumped together. However, as you know, WhenU and Claria both download programs onto user computers (most often without their full knowledge of what has been downloaded and how it will work) that enables ad units that otherwise would not work on the user's computer (such as the hated pop-ups and take over pages).

iMedia: George, I'm confident that Claria and WhenU would dispute your contention that they download software without giving the end-user plenty of warning and opportunity to opt-out. Adware and behavioral marketing are two different executions of the same targeting goal of serving up ads that are relevant to an end-user's interests.

Simpson: You cannot (and must not) lump "adware/behavioral marketing companies" together. The distinction is simple. TACODA for example downloads nothing on the user's computer in order to track user navigation. Publishers working with TACODA deploy their usual cookies to track users -- not TACODA.

[Editor's note: George Simpson is also a spokesman for TACODA.]

iMedia: The preview version of the BURST! landing page that I saw referred readers to 2-Spyware.com for general information about spyware.

In a 2-Spyware.com article about spyware [http://www.2-spyware.com/intro.php], the author talks about spyware and adware interchangeably (with the exception of one brief gloss in the first question). I was surprised by this since what the adware companies are doing (using software to track behavior in order to serve relevant ads) seems different than the often-criminal endeavors of pure spyware purveyors (credit card theft, identity theft, et cetera).

In the words of one of the resources quoted in the article, "Lots of so called spyware programs don't collect specific information about you, but only report general demographics, and therefore are not stealing your name, credit card, or other personal information. But these capabilities do exist. Do not wrongly accuse all Adware programs, as proper Adware is a serious revenue model for many software companies that allows you to get products for free, and used correctly does not pose a significant privacy threat."

That's the distinction that I did not see in the early version of the BURST! PSA. I'm curious why it wasn't there. Or, in more detail, why from the BURST! ad network perspective it's a distinction without a difference.

Coffin: From my understanding of the lexicon, Adware and Spyware are both desktop applications, meaning they are both downloaded onto a computer. They are resident locally, which is why, perhaps, we lump them together and refer to them interchangeably. But they are different. Adware is presumably permission based. Spyware is not. Adware offers some value to the user. Spyware does not.
 
On balance, publishers don't like either Adware or Spyware because they derive no benefit themselves from the advertising that runs through those desktop ad solutions. Publishers create the content, which attracts the end-users only to have the user's attention co-opted by the desktop ad unit, historically a pop-up ad. It's media hijacking if you are a publisher. Some would argue -- and have tried -- it's copyright infringement.
 
I believe media and content benefit from strong competition, so I am not willing to give publishers a pass on desktop applications entirely. Ultimately, it's up to the end user. But, personally, as an end-user, I am still waiting for a compelling desktop utility that brings me value worth my time and (advertising) attention, so I have none loaded on my computer.
 
But, you might want to check out http://www.skinkers.com/. I saw these guys at AD:TECH. Here, possibly, is a desktop solution that raises the bar on the value of desktop technology to both publishers and end-users. (Disclaimer: A good friend of mine has been hired in the US to run the business here.) If so, there can be no doubt that advertising targeted to registered desktop users can produce dramatic results for advertisers. And if the publisher and the user win, then everyone wins.