Consumer websites sign up subscribers by offering access to free guides
Daily deal websites ask for email addresses for access
Website owners have been told they must decide how they are going to comply with a change in the law concerning cookies.
The new law requires a user’s consent to place cookies on their device and comes into force on 26th May 2011. The enforcer is the Information Commissioner’s Office. It has issued guidance.
As this is a change in the law, the ICO’s guidance carries more weight than its advice on good and bad website practices which is often ignored.
Collecting email addresses for access to websites for example is deemed bad practice by the ICO but is standard practice across sales websites. The ICO cannot take enforcement action against bad practice but will have a statutory duty to enforce changes in the law.
The techniques that websites already use to collect email addresses could now be used to gain user’s informed consent to placing cookies on their machines before giving them access to websites.
Website owners, how are you planning to ask users for consent?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I suspect, as usual, website owners won’t be doing much. It’s really hard to police the internet. Just look at the latest news on twitter and the superinjuctions.
However, tackling the search engines might be the way forward if you’re going to do any policing. They’re starting to look at that sort of thing in the US:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/revised-net-censorship-bill-requires-search-engines-to-block-sites-too.ars
Wired has a good article here:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-05/11/cookies-regulations?page=all
Thanks for links. The arguments made by Wired/Telegraph were put by many unsuccessfully to the government during the consultation stage http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8050.aspx
(moneysupermarket’s submission is included)
The problem is that not all consumers agree behavioural advertising is more useful as Wired claims – not least this comment from the Telegraph website:
“This tracking is a bit scary – I recently looked at a particular camera, and now almost every page I visit has an advert for it. With me this is completely counter-productive – nagging just alienates me, so I’ll not be buying a Canon Powershot SX any time soon.”
I’m waiting to see what sites like the BBC and government sites do. Sites already ask for email addresses to give access. Showing them something they want and are familiar with greyed out and that to access that they have to accept cookies that do x,y and z might work, it does for collecting email addresses.
Samantha, I agree with most of your points however I don’t agree that it’s counterproductive to show you multiple ads on different sites. If there’s one thing for sure – all this is being tracked effectively.
Whilst bombarding you with camera ads may not work, it certainly works on other people. It’s so easy to do analysis, A/B testing etc. to see what works. I’m sure the guys and gals at the ad agency are well aware of this and they know what works.
Barry.
Calm down dear! I agree with Barry. He seems to have covered most of what I was gonna say. Keep the good work up Barry!
Come on IV get a grip, at least trawl the web, IV has the feel of a dying species, that would be wrong????
http://www.seobook.com/local-ppc-campaign-set#comments
A new insurance offering I noted:
The Landmark Ledge Fund Ad : )
http://thefinaledition.com/article/supreme-court-overturns-theory-of-evolution-5-4.html
A Must Read:
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#overview
This has come about to protect consumers, however eventually it will just irritate them, because if they visit a site that involves filling in a large number of forms like http://www.carinsurancefirst.co.uk/dial-direct.html and they navigate away from the page, cookies allow sites to remember their details. If they do not use cookies it will require the filling in of forms all over again. That doesn’t make for a smooth user experience.