Aw: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis

["Graham Reginald Hill" < >]

Hi Linda

 

Welcome to ProjectVRM. 

 

I agree with your overall position. Like you I am a practicing marketer. I see a large number of my marketing colleagues taking more of a consumer-driven approach to marketing, particularly now they have granular digital content, contextual data about consumers and interaction design tools that they can use to design, prototype and implement marketing micro-interactions in the consumer experience. Much of my current work is in prototyping these marketing micro-interactions so that they create value for consumers and marketers alike.

 

Professional marketing organisations like the AMA, DMA, CIM and IAB will always lag behind their more advanced members. Their primary remit is to protect the interests of their members rather than to disseminate leading-edge practices, although they do that to some extend as well. Like any establishment organisation, they are inevitably somewhat reactionary in their behaviour due to this remit.

 

Marketing is changing rapidly . On the one hand content, data and interaction design tools allow marketers to start to design all aspects of the consumer experience, one interaction at a time for mutual gain. On the other hand, the same content and data and programmatic tools allow marketers to target consumers with very specific messages much more precisely than was the case even six months ago. And Google and Apple are starting to create 'dark pools' of customers that they will be more or less able to control access to, in the same way that Goldman Sacks and many others operate dark pools for financial asset trading. They already operate their own ad exchanges. The challenge for marketing is to manage its evolution so that consumers are not left behind in the rush to exploit data for one-sided marketer advantage. It is quite some challenge.

 

I don't agree with the tone and some of the content of T-Rob's 'interesting' post, but I will tackle that in a separate response.

 

There is no reason why you, as a marketer, should write with your head ducked and covered. I would encourage you to use all your marketing skills and tradecraft to press your point to those amongst the ProjectVRM membership who don't have the advantage of having ever been marketers.

 

Best regards from Edinburgh, Graham. 
 

-- 
Dr. Graham Hill

UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill

Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk

Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk

Associate
Ctrl-Shift
https://www.ctrl-shift.co.uk

 

 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. September 2014 um 16:02 Uhr
Von: "Linda Zimmer" < >
An: 
Cc: "Katherine Warman Kern" < >, "T.Rob" < >, "Don Marti" < >
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] The marketing/cybercrime symbiosis

This is my first post here. I'm a marketer, so I'm writing this with my head ducked and covered, but I need to risk jumping in to assure you some marketers (increasing in number) are acutely aware of marketing as a Big Problem.   I've been lurking around ProjectVRM for a long time, this list for a few months.  I'm listening and soaking up the smarts and solutions you all are working on and deeply thinking about how we marketers affect change.  

 

In my long experience, "the industry" i.e., the professional organizations, are laggers.  They aren't the leaders who shape marketers' practices, They respond to what members are doing or seeing or become concerned about.  They are "the defenders."  It is the big brands and more often the visible social media marketing influencers (some of whom are big brands CMOs) who drive the change - or at least the awareness of trends.  Everyone else rushes to follow - read FOLO.   

 

These are also the people who are likely to experiment and report out to the rest of the industry about their successes (because that visibility drives their own interests - sorry if that sounds cynical).  Thus, I'm hugely heartened to see the brands involved with Meeco, Respect Networks, etc. They are the ones who will influence marketing's thinking - and thus the advocacy activities of the IAB, DMA, etc.

 

While I'm no Big Visible Influencer, I'm good at marketing and hard working - and "marketing" this to my colleagues is becoming an obsession for me.

 

Take heart.  You are moving the needle.

 

Linda Zimmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sep 17, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Don Marti wrote:

 

The marketing industry as a whole can never address
the integrity issue, because there's always someone
who's willing to be a little creepier, a little
closer to the edge.  The question is how many of the
high-reputation brand advertisers will split off from
the bottom-feeders.

A little history... We had a good tool against email
spam: a broad "private right of action"
in state antispam laws such as Washington's CEMA (
http://www.dwt.com/advisories/9th_Circuit_Deals_Blow_to_Professional_CANSPAM_Complaint_Mills_08_10_2009/
).  The federal CAN-SPAM law, backed by the Direct
Marketing Association, pre-empted state antispam laws
and we lost private right of action.

Yes, the DMA sided with spammers over its own members
who send legit, opt-in marketing email.

The same thing is happening now with the IAB and the
creepy ads.  Existing organizations such as the DMA
and IAB have been captured by the intermediaries who
sit between advertisers and content creators.

There's a growing recognition from both "ends" that
the "middle" isn't working.  The question is how to
connect dissatisfied web publishers to dissatisfied
brand advertisers without the creepy stuff in the
middle.  Doc covers the problem here:

 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2014/09/16/giving-respect-to-brand-advertising/

Don



begin Katherine Warman Kern quotation of Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 06:49:33AM -0400:

 

T.Rob, I wish there were a way to convince the marketing industry to address the integrity issue. The huge volume of both intentionally malicious and unintentionally intrusive marketing makes it more and more difficult and expensive for an advertiser with integrity to stand out.

 

K-

Katherine Warman Kern

@comradity

 

On Sep 16, 2014, at 8:01 PM, "T.Rob" < > wrote:

 

Recently I posted to this list a claim that marketing has become the R&D lab for cybercrime.

 

1.      Users find ways to stay anonymous and block ads.

2.      Marketing devices new adtech to circumvent user controls.

3.      Cybercriminals ride the rails marketing builds.

4.      Rinse, repeat.

 

I asked whether marketing would ever voluntarily take responsibility for their role and whether there is a line that even Marketing won't cross.  In other words, will Marketing ever say "just because we can doesn't mean we should" and find a business model that does not support cybercrime.  To my surprise, it turns out I'd overlooked some significant activity in this area.  The OTA is saying the same thing, except they are saying it to Congress: http://iopt.us/1r6io96

 

"According to OTA research, malvertising increased by over 200% in 2013 to over 209,000 incidents, generating over 12.4 billion malicious ad impressions."

 

" In the absence of policy and traffic quality controls, organized crime has recognized malvertising as the “exploit of choice” because it offers the ability to be anonymous and remain undetected for days."

 

“Failure to address these threats suggests the needs for legislation not unlike State data breach laws, requiring mandatory notification, data sharing and remediation to those who have been harmed.”

 

 

Kind regards,

-- T.Rob

 

T.Robert Wyatt, Managing partner

IoPT Consulting, LLC

+1 704-443-TROB

https://ioptconsulting.com

https://twitter.com/tdotrob

 

--
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/