Europe should adopt US behavioural advertising icon, and quick

OPINION: When US trade bodies announced a badge scheme forbehavioural advertising this week it looked like a good way to helpweb users navigate a difficult new area and a good way to relax theregulators.

While UK and EU bodies say they are looking at introducing ithere, they should hurry if they want to avoid more stringentBrussels-imposed regulation. The scheme looks simple and effective.Advertisers and media owners should jump on it, fast.

The launch of the US scheme was accompanied by new(27-page PDF).

More than 2,600 US adults were told that information about theirvisits to websites may be used by advertisers to decide whichonline advertisements they see. Almost half of respondents (46%)expressed discomfort with that practice. (Curiously, this was farfewer than in the (27-page PDF) on the subject, which suggestedthat 84% of US adults object to behavioural advertising when askedslightly different questions).

When told that websites would explain how their informationwould be used and give them a choice not to receive customised ads,the number of respondents expressing discomfort fell to 30%,according to the new study.

There is nothing inherently sneaky or bad about behaviouraladvertising except, perhaps, that users haven't been told about ituntil now. That secrecy is corrosive. Addressing the use ofbehavioural advertising in a privacy policy is not enough, yet thathas been the industry's approach until now. Few people read thesepolicies, but does anyone at all read the privacy policy of a sitewhen they don't even realise that they're sharing information?That's why I've argued before that .

The new study concluded that the right solution was an icon anda short phrase placed next to the ad, like so:

When the icon and phrase are clicked, consumers get informationabout the ad and the opportunity to opt out of behaviouraladvertising in future. It's a pragmatic, fair and usable way tomake behavioural advertising transparent.

One of the US trade bodies behind the move is the InteractiveAdvertising Bureau, which represents site owners and advertisingagencies. Its UK head of regulatory affairs Nick Stringer andEuropean IAB vice president Kimon Zorbas have told us that theywill be working with their members to extend the scheme to the UKand Europe.

It is vital for the future of behavioural advertising that theywork quickly. If they don't, regulators will intervene and mayover-react. That would be harmful to the publishing and advertisingindustries and potentially harmful to consumers because a regimethat upsets the advertising ecosystem could force more sites tocharge for their content.

Not all invasions of privacy are equal yet there is reason tofear a disproportionate response from Brussels, following recent. Compared to controversies like the UK's or, this week, the introduction of, the potential harm causedby behavioural advertising is mild. A recent incident illustratesthis.

A woman had used the Marks and Spencer (M&S) website to lookfor Champagne. She was shocked to see weeks later that ads forChampagne were appearing on a website for pre-teen girls being usedby her five-year-old daughter.

The ad was published through a retargeting system, shown to thatcomputer because it had previously been used to look for thoseproducts.

The woman , which alerted M&S. The companyacted quickly to remove all alcohol ads from its retargetingcampaign.

This is an example of an unwanted consequence of usingbehavioural tracking to decide which ads should be sent to whichcomputers. But it is also an example of a company acting quickly,transparently and responsibly to solve a problem that didappear.

Advertising a product for adults on sites aimed at children isnot an inevitable consequence of behavioural advertising. Thisincident was merely a mistake and the harm caused by such isolatedincidents will be negligible. The greatest potential harm that Ican see in behavioural advertising is in discriminatory pricing.But that , which is the subject of an investigationby the Office of Fair Trading, so it may be that new rules are notnecessary.

Companies should learn from M&S and realise that problemsdealt with in a mature and open manner rarely escalate. They shouldadopt that same responsible attitude pre-emptively to theirbehavioural ads and urge the IAB in the UK and Europe to movequickly on a labelling system.

By, editor of OUT-LAW.COM. The views expressedare Struan's and do not necessarily represent those of PinsentMasons. You can follow Struan at.