Adware future in the Gatekeepers hands?
On Tuesday, America Online announced that it will include in it’s 9.0 version a feature allowing users to detect and delete “spyware” installed on their computer. Spyware is commonly defined as software installed on a computer that gathers information about the user’s actions and reports that data to a source for advertising or surveillance purposes. In it’s worst varieties, spyware can lead to the user’s identity theft. AOL is using anti-spyware software technology from Aluria Software of Lake Mary, FL
Other ISP’s such as Microsoft and Earthlink have also joined the anti-spyware crusade by allowing their users access to programs by companies such as Webroot which also block and delete installed spyware programs on their users’ computers.
The question for the direct marketing industry is how much does this affect us? A debate concerning Microsoft Explorer’s new anti-pop feature has sparked a fierce debate, and it seems that the anti-spyware measures being taken by the large ISP’s in an effort to stem falling subscriber numbers by adding more security features could do the same.
Not only are advertisers in the online industry affected by this, but some affiliates could also be affected by these anti-spyware programs. For instance, tracking cookies used by companies such as Advertising.com, BeFree, ValueClick and Commission Junction are detected by some of these spyware scanners.
As with email marketing, the question comes down to permission. If a user opts-in to allow software to be installed on their computer in order to use a certain program, what is the clear definition of how much permission they’ve given to a company to place ads? It is a very serious question for us to consider, as permission has become the line in the sand for DM online.
At the moment, there is no law on the books concerning spyware and clarifies its legality. There is a Federal Court battle being waged over WhenU.com’s placement of pops from ad-serving software installed on users’ computers. Certainly the ultimate outcome of this case will have an impact on future readings of the law concerning ad-serving software. Another major issue besides the affiliate question and permission is the idea that an entity can restrict access outside of the consumer and advertiser. This situation is similar to that of email marketing where ISP’s now routinely engage in filtering of mail from “junk mail.” Every ISP does this in some form and makes it a major selling point to users. Basic first amendment arguments are still up in the air concerning this practice by ISP’s, but they, Congress and the public at large seem content with the idea that ISP’s can filter mail and decide what is good and bad for their consumers. Similarly, AOL, Earthlink and MSN are deciding what is permissible for their users by incorporating this sort of software. Instead of allowing the user to decide if they want software installed on their computer to serve them advertisements when they perform a download, these companies are taking it on their own behalf to perform a measure of presumed security. Again, it seems that minds outside the direct marketing industry are deciding what is best for the consumer and eliminating communication that a marketer might otherwise have had with that consumer. Just as all senders of email do not want to have their commercial messages labeled as “junk mail” or “spam,” purveyors of so called “spyware” do not want to be labeled in one flock. Offline media does not incorporate such controls on what the consumer is exposed to, yet this happens within the online world.
The affiliate question, user permission and ISP decisions of what is permissible are three major issues that must be addressed by direct marketers online. The direct marketers best defense is providing value to its members. That is our only protection. Otherwise, we will continue to face a playing field that limits how we can approach the consumer and determines for us what is good and bad.
Prepared by Dave Paynter, [email protected]
