• Skip to main content

Joe Manna

Content authored by Joe Manna

Uncategorized

Thoughts on the Proposed ‘Do Not Track’ Legislation

Joe Manna · December 23, 2010 ·

I’ve been reading a lot about the so-called “Do Not Track” initiative the FTC is undertaking in an effort to combat aggressive targeted advertising on people. Coming from the stance of consumer advocacy, I think this is a small win for consumers, but a major loss to publishers and advertising networks. I wanted to share my views on this delicate, but meaningful issue as it pertains to online privacy, the FTC and ad targeting.

Before I get into the merits of behavioral advertising, I want to recall back why exactly what the FTC is concerned about the state of behavioral advertising.

This recent controversy started when a very smart, but somewhat untrustworthy data collection firm was revealed to have collected Pentagon-sized chunks of data on people. This data could correlate to their web history, authenticated websites, and the unique identifiers on certain websites like Facebook, demographics, interests, political affiliations, health conditions and so on. Rapleaf, meet Wall Street Journal; Wall Street Journal, meet Rapleaf.

Yikes! No one wants to have all their data housed indefinitely for a private corporation to maliciously target for their gain. Bad move on Rapleaf. The silver lining here is that Rapleaf helped expose (with the WSJ’s great assistance) how much behavior ad-tracking has gone in the past few years.  And don’t get me wrong, there are many other companies that lurk in the shadows. Rapleaf is just one company that has done remarkably well at storing this data and commoditizing it for others.

Behavioral advertising is inherently politically divisive. Let’s also remember that issue is now (or soon will be) in the hands of our highly-productive senators. Every decision is a foreshadow on how it will be used against them in upcoming political races, so any way they can come down on the big-bad corporations “hurting the interwebs,” they’ll pass legislation like this without a blink. A vote for restrictions on the internet could be viewed as anti-enterprise, anti-business. A vote against it could be viewed as pro-business, pro-anarchy on the web.

Targeted ads fund quality content, distribution and commerce across the web. What most people don’t understand is how the advertiser-publisher relationship works. Ads are not necessarily endorsements from the publisher. Often, they are blank ad “spots” on their site and an advertising network fills it in with what they think it should be. These advertisers work with publishers to fund the innovation and creativity put on the web. After all, ingesting and transcoding 24 hours of video per minute isn’t free. And neither is writing. Endlessly.

Alas, a little humility. Remember that little AOL Penguin attempted to teach newbies about behavioral advertising? I commented about this in a previous blog entry on consumer privacy, which features Jules Polonetsky’s animated answer to privacy. I bet he’s hibernating in the winter now. And by hibernating, I mean that microsite is gone – 404’d – and probably for good reason.

My point of view has shifted as did the advertising industry in recent years.

I admit that my jaded and somewhat flippant views on privacy and targeting weren’t quite right when I wrote up this post in 2008 in response AOL’s approach to explain behavioral targeting to their users. I’d like the opportunity to share an updated, refined view. It may change later, but currently this is what I believe.

Opt-out does not protect consumers and unilaterally does not empower companies to truly respect and honor people’s privacy preferences. Between the average web user and the big-bad corporation, there substantial plausible deniability over how user’s data is handled and who has access to it. In laymen’s terms, many companies contract with other big companies to do stuff for them – like run their website or their ads, for instance. A publisher might contract with an advertising company. That advertising company might be in bed with many other sister advertising companies. In essence, one’s data is in the hands of an incestuous, aggressive advertising company. Opting out doesn’t work because fundamentally, a user would opt in to not be tracked. Confusing enough?

Browser-based protection limits permission-based tracking. Say a consumer wishes to opt in for a “personalized web experience” … how would these software-based protections inhibit a user? I’m certainly not the first to want this, but there is much data that suggests that users desire a truly personal, relevant experience. Hopefully there can be some universal API’s that browser companies will agree to so publishers can selectively provide “personalized experiences” for their users.

The issue is not about the data being tracked; it’s the limitless retention of it. Most web users don’t mind a relevant online experience provided their online profile and demographic has time expiration to it. The problem with virtually all data collection companies, their cookies are “lifetime” and aren’t even typical browser cookies. They use Flash and other plugin’s cookies. Creepy, I know. But, assuming this data is purged monthly (along with annual audits from the feds), I think everyone is safe from harassing, intrusive advertisements.

Example: Say you purchased a book on Amazon on, I don’t know… Entrepreneurship. Would it be true that you would generally be okay with ads from Chase Bank for opening a small business loan? I’d say yes. It’s better than shitty CPA offers that don’t relate to me. Maybe you’d be interested in another book that other customers have purchased after they purchased that book? Possibly – this is where the issue becomes fuzzy.  And after about a few weeks, the data all this is based on expires and no longer is it associating you with that purchase for the purpose of advertising.

Self-regulation doesn’t work. No company would dare let go of the data they worked so hard to build. It’s like the Library of Congress setting fire to books because people criticize the titles they have. However, some oversight on data sharing, data retention and overall improprieties ought to be monitored by regulatory groups, like the FTC.

Failure to not step forward and act transparent with data collection and retention policies will result in having no voice in the discussion. Right now, that’s what’s happening with Microsoft’s and Mozilla’s commitment to voluntarily build these “stealth” browsing devices into their browsers. Isn’t it people’s jobs in these advertising networks to lobby and discuss this stuff with the public? I’ve yet to read one honest argument from them.

I agree with BusinessWeek’s contributor, Ben Kunz on the cause and effect of outlawing targeted advertising:

The FTC proposal would stop all [targeted advertising]. Trouble is, while the commission may have consumers’ best interests at heart (or be motivated by desire to toss a feel-good political football in a transition election year), the idea has two huge problems:

1. It won’t stop online ads. While Do Not Call lists kept telemarketers at bay, you’ll still see tons of banners and videos everywhere online. They’ll simply be less relevant.

2. Do Not Track will send billions of dollars to the big online publishers, hurting the little sites you might find most interesting.

What type of advertising will we see if targeting advertising is dead? Contextual and blind. Contextual ads are the ones that Google’s AdWords are famous for – providing tailored ads that match the content the visitor is viewing. Blind advertising are those annoying-as-hell “You’re the 1,000,000th Visitor” type of ads. Those prey on users looking for a gimmick and as such performance of those ads decreases. A very real possibility is that some websites would eventually slip on their revenue and, well, we’ve all heard of pets.com, right?

What is the solution? Aside from user education, the next feasible step is an ultimatum to the industry from the FTC. Advertising networks ought to relax their data retention just a bit and volunteer to purge records after a limited period. The FTC can put a squeeze on those US-based firms by simply proposing sensible practices and requesting they comply within six months with a veiled “or else” kind of threat.

So you don’t want to be tracked by ads? Here are four steps: Use Tor, Use Adblock Plus, Use Firefox and wipe temporary data frequently with CCleaner. Done.

I’m too tired to write more on this … privacy is a complex issue. Thoughts?

[Image credit: spcbrass]

The post Thoughts on the Proposed 'Do Not Track' Legislation appeared first on Joe Manna.

Customer Service Starts with Listening

Joe Manna · December 15, 2010 ·

I see a lot of reports and discussion in the space of customer service, specifically how companies can improve their customer service. I want to show a very simple example of how simple it is to wow users in your business.

Yesterday, I discovered a bug in Plancast. This service is something I’ve been using since BlogWorld Expo and it’s a nifty way to follow the events your friends are planning to attend. It’s like Facebook Events on crack, but very simple and easy to use – and free.

This bug was very minor and relatively innocuous to the average user, but working for a software company myself, I wanted to inform them of this so they can fix it. Developers can’t catch every bug and this one looked like it was only a simple oversight.

I submitted a simple message to them  to inform them of this bug in the interest of making the service better. To my surprise, minutes later, I received a response from Peter Sauer to acknowledge my feedback and commit to fixing it. Awesome.

This is a screenshot of Plancast Email Support

The lesson here is that you can have kick-ass customer service without a huge infrastructure. As long as someone who is passionate about the brand and the users is on the other side, there’s a good chance you’ll do it well. No complex social CRM, no complex ticketing software, no complex systems – just a channel to listen and the commitment to respond to people’s feedback.

Well done, Plancast! With service like this, your startup is bound to grow. If you want, you can follow my plans on Plancast – I’ll work at leveraging it even more in the future.

Sidenote: Notice how I completely plugged Plancast without any means or interest in doing so. Good customer service pays off when you do it naturally and organically within your organization. It earns you fans and advocates without even meaning to. If you want to be blogged about favorably, give rockstar service. It’s that simple.

The post Customer Service Starts with Listening appeared first on Joe Manna.

Wikileaks: Silence Is Not Safety

Joe Manna · December 9, 2010 ·

I’m a bit perturbed by the fact that a controversial news source, Wikileaks, was taken offline without any semblance of support from the corporate-funded media. They are profiting from the discoveries, risks and efforts put in by this organization. Normally, I don’t expect the media to have any view on the news they push out, but this would be an exception. The fact a source can be silenced on the web should be a wake up call to any news organization and journalist.

Whether you support Wikileaks or not, here are a handful of key points I want to make that I feel are valid:

  • Secrecy does not translate into security. As evident in Cablegate, these secrets amount to gossip between the worlds diplomats. Transparency and honest discussion is the solution to reduce the need for secrets.
  • The information Wikileaks distributes is not from their own prying – it is contributed from whistleblowers and others who give it to them to anonymize and share with others.
  • Assuming we have a ‘free press’, shutting them down or going after them like they are terrorists is not conducive to the journalistic process. Opening a channel for them to clear documents might be helpful; perhaps operating more transparently will neutralize these so-called leaks.
  • Companies who take an adverse action against Wikileaks (e.g., PayPal, MasterCard, etc.) when they are more or less operating within their policies show that when public sentiment is at stake, no one is safe from the court of public opinion.
  • Wikileaks ought to distribute less politically motivated content. More of a focus on corporate douchebaggery, exposing the frauds and cons of individuals might be a little helpful to win the support from people and potentially the sensational media.

It’s a travesty that a good number of folks are in favor of shutting down Wikileaks. No one has been harmed from this unauthorized disclosure of information. In fact, it holds everyone accountable – showing that our own government deceives the media about the number of deaths, innocent bystanders in war and perhaps the on-going affairs with diplomats.

You got to hand it to an organization that can produce more, valid and legitimate investigative journalism than the entire world’s media combined. That’s notable. Not quite Nobel Peace prize, but worthy of being considered in a celebratory light.

From what I can tell, the US media has been profiting from the information disclosed by Wikileaks. This isn’t bad – it’s mission accomplished – in terms of receiving validation that their information is accurate. However, when Wikileaks was targeted by adverse actions resulting in it going offline, I didn’t see one ounce of support for Wikileaks. Just neutral reporting that it went offline. Ok, fine, I give them credit for neutral reporting … but it would be nice to have them give back to the hand that feeds them.

“The Jester” isn’t a hacker; he’s a script kiddie out hustling for fame. Why isn’t anyone asking the bigger question of why is he controlling of millions of compromised machines (drones) in his botnet? That’s criminal.

With all this said, I’m not a “fan boi” for Wikileaks. With great information, comes great responsibility. This means they have a responsibility to protect the privacy of innocent people and go great lengths to redact any personally identifiable information before they publish something. Should the offending organization deny it – then move forward with uncovering more details. I can see how it’s offensive to release footage of people moments before imminent death. It’s disrespectful, but in this age of information, I can also see how it’s necessary to gain credibility.

The only good from all this controversy and attacks on Wikileaks is this. It makes them stronger. They will soon have a distributed DNS with distributed hosts much like The Pirate Bay. They will earn more avid supporters and they will become much more self-sufficient. So, in essence, this is good for Wikileaks – but I hope they get their act together to not post such sensitive documents that places any country in harms way.

We should not censor any organization that publishes information we don’t like. Not only is it unrealistic long-term, it goes against our values to support a free press.

The post Wikileaks: Silence Is Not Safety appeared first on Joe Manna.

Why Do Email Messages Go to Spam?

Joe Manna · July 1, 2010 ·

Email in Spam Folder: Why?Many small business owners often wonder why email messages go to spam instead of going to the inbox. In this post, I’ll explain how spam filters work so you understand them. This is a great reference for any marketer so they understand how spam filters function.

The goal of email marketing 2.0 is tailored in such a way to not worry about spam filters. We know that; however, it’s important to consider the levels of filters their recipients have so you see what you’re up against to get the message in the inbox.

We’re not alone. Every Email Service Provider (ESP) provider including Constant Contact, iContact and AWeber all face the challenge of getting their users’ messages to the inbox. While the ESP maintains the bulk of the responsibility in getting messages there, content of the emails are crucial to consistently have the message hit the inbox, not the spam folder.

Illustrated below, I explain the levels of spam filtering that take place with each message.

Email Spam Filters

The ISP filter checks for the major sources of Spam and reject offending messages. These often handle the 75% of work for anti-spam operations. This includes checking for Email Relays, IP Reputation, Authentication (Phishing), botnets and simply accepts or denies a senders from proceeding to send their email.  When mail is rejected here, a bounce is sent to the sender for later handling. (Infusionsoft automatically handles these for you.)

The Content Filter rests between the email recipient and their ISP. These handle about 20% of anti-spam operations. This will often check the email for content that doesn’t meet their standards, such as malicious attachments, spammy words and even the overall “fingerprint” of the email itself. When mail is rejected here, it’s silent and often the user doesn’t know. Some ISPs may bounce the message back with details, but not always.

Finally, the Personal Filter is the filter that happens when the recipient’s email software filters the messages on its criteria. These handle about 5% of anti-spam operations. Depending on the email service, the ISP may offer this through a web-based interface or in the case of Outlook, it’s running with the email client. These filters honor any request by the recipient. When mail is rejected here, it’s silent and often the user doesn’t know until they specifically look for the message. (Don’t believe me? Try syncing your Gmail account in Outlook and watch what lands in the “Junk Email” sub-folder. It’s a pretty liberal spam filter.)

What do you do with this information? That, I can’t tell you. It’s up to you.

Infusionsoft (along with any reputable ESP) has a good IP reputation and a Feedback Loop (FBL) established with ISPs so they can handle any complaints that come through. Infusionsoft also makes it easy to build standards-compliant emails, so that’s covered. We recommend users adhere to industry-leading best practices so you don’t get flagged as a spammer. Lastly, we drop spammers when we encounter them, preserving good deliverability for all the rest of our users.

If there’s one nugget of advice to takeaway from all this, it’s this:

Encourage recipients to add your email address to their address book. This is known as Whitelisting and often Whitelists supersede Content Filters to your recipients email inboxes. With Infusionsoft, you can ask people to add your email address to their address book, and many people will if they want to continue receiving your messages.

Now for a little disclosure. I used to work within the AOL Postmaster team. During my tenure there, I learned a lot about how they (specifically AOL/AIM/Netscape/CompuServe) filter their inbound email. No information from this article is proprietary or confidential — at least I hope not. AOL sets the standard when it comes to aggressive spam filtering, so I can only assume other top-tier ISPs follow suit.

 

This post Why Do Email Messages Go to Spam? was first published on the Big Ideas Blog.

Customize Your Unsubscribe Links in Infusionsoft

Joe Manna · June 30, 2010 ·

interstate exit Customize Your Unsubscribe Links in Infusionsoft Many people probably know at least someone who uses Infusionsoft and receives their email messages. I’d like to address one of the comments we hear from users about using the powerful unsubscribe feature effectively in their emails. This information is useful for existing Infusionsoft users as well as potential new users to the leader in email marketing 2.0.

When people unsubscribe from an email from our users, they often see this:

Default opt out Infusionsoft Customize Your Unsubscribe Links in Infusionsoft

One assumption is you can’t change this. You can!

Infusionsoft provides a very easy and cool feature where you can allow people to unsubscribe from a series of emails and update their contact information all in the same place.  These are known as Opt-Out & Update Links. Here’s what a customized that looks like for recipients:

Opt Out Update Link Infusionsoft Customize Your Unsubscribe Links in Infusionsoft

This makes it easy for subscribers to choose exactly what email marketing they wish to receive, what email address to use and even update their contact information. This also makes it easy so the Infusionsoft user can set-and-forget about their opt-out link and know that it’s giving their subscribers the best option possible to keep list fresh.

Another benefit from doing it this way is you can adjust your unsubscribe and opt-out message on the bottom of your emails so it empowers recipients to elect to remove themselves from one (or more) follow-up sequences without opting out from your database.  One example you might want to try is, “Unsubscribe or update your email delivery preferences.” Another idea might to say “Stop receiving these types of emails” link and provide an option to allow people to stop getting messages from a lead-generation piece.

If you need help setting this up, we have a great article in our Help Center that guides you on customizing opt-out links within Infusionsoft.

While this isn’t new by any means, I thought it was a good idea to clear up this confusion and show you how it’s done.  Thanks to Mari Smith and others for asking us about this on our Twitter. If you have any questions, to shoot us a Tweet or post a note on our Wall.

[Image credit: peggydavis66]

This post Customize Your Unsubscribe Links in Infusionsoft was first published on the Big Ideas Blog.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 56
  • Go to page 57
  • Go to page 58

Joe Manna

Copyright © 2023