Last Friday, federal “Do Not Track” legislation was introduced in the House which, if passed, would require the FTC to create standards for a method of allowing consumers and patients to opt-out of online data collection used for behavioral ad targeting. While this is the first bill of this Congress to call for “Do Not Track” regulation, the FTC has previously spoken out in favor of a consumer choice mechanism that places control of online behavioral advertising in the hands of consumers.

So what does all of this mean for pharma? To answer the question, you have to first understand a bit about how behavioral ad targeting works.

A Word About Behavioral Ad Targeting

Behavioral advertising allows for segmentation based on clicks, cookies, and user behavior in an attempt to serve ads that are most relevant to the user and the information or product for which he or she is searching. In short, it allows advertisers to more effectively communicate with specific audiences (eg, HCPs, patients, consumers, caregivers, and care partners) about a specific product, disease state, or topic that is relevant to the information in which they are interested. For example, a patient or caregiver who had previously researched diabetes information may later be served a banner ad for a diabetes support program, additional disease information, or even relevant product information when viewing another website (eg, WebMD, news websites, etc.) which employs behavioral ad targeting.

3 Key Reasons “Do Not Track” May Not Be A Good Idea

While in theory I agree with the idea of privacy and consumer/patient protection, has anyone thought about the negative implications of implementing such a universal “Do Not Track” mechanism?  Pharma marketers and industry take note. Below are just 3 implications you should take into consideration.

1. This type of ad targeting can benefit HCPs and consumers/patients, and decrease the incidence of off-label or potentially inappropriate advertising by providing a greater degree of assurance that the right information will be presented and served up to the right (and intended) audience.The “Do Not Track” feature must be easy to understand and enable by consumers.
2. Behavioral advertising is responsible for keeping most of the Internet services that we, including HCPs and patients, take for granted free of charge. If we over-regulate advertisers, we can expect to see fees charged for what are presently free services.
3. Increasing government regulation of the Internet will limit growth in the fastest-growing sector of our struggling economy, potentially slowing the expansion of online healthcare information and services, at a time when they are so desperately needed.

Why “Do Not Track” May Not Work

Internet users already have the ability to stop this type of behaviorally-targeted advertising if they choose (can you find the features built-in to your present browser? If not, chances are most patients and consumers can’t either). And all future versions of the major web browsers offer or have proposed a next generation variety of ways to block ad targeting. Microsoft’s IE 9 allows users to manually manage which websites are allowed to track their browsing behavior. Mozilla’s Firefox 4 includes a feature which, if enabled, adds information to HTTP requests, letting websites know not to track that user. Google’s Chrome offers a “Keep My Opt-Outs” browser extension which, once installed, relies heavily on self-regulating efforts of the companies responsible for the tracking.

Without a universally agreed upon and browser-wide adoption of the approach, “Do Not Track” progression and adoption will continue to face challenges and move slowly.

What Patients and Consumers Really Need

The real question we need to answer is what do patients and consumers really need? What items should the “Do Not Track” bill include to guarantee advertisers can continue to work effectively while ensuring consumer privacy? As a first step in answering this question, we offer 3 key strategies that can get all parties to the end goal.

1. A consortium should be assembled (think about when the W3 consortium, which was formed to provide some level of consistency to HTML and web standards) to create guidelines which are universal and consistent in terms of policy and functionality – across all browsers.
2. The “Do Not Track” feature must be easy to understand and enable by consumers.
3. A clear data collection privacy policy must be a part of websites/programs, and must radically simplifiy language to let consumers make truly informed decisions rather than further confuse them with techno-babble.

What other items should be included in this legislation? Share your thoughts in the comments below.