This decade’s most important marketing question: What data rights do advertisers possess?

Google’s efforts to reduce advertisers’ visibility by offering search terms raise important questions about data access during automation.

With Google’s latest decision to remove data information from advertisers’ search terms (some agencies reported 25-30% data loss), the explosion of frustration forced people to use language to argue. problems.

There appear to be three specific responses to this change:

1. Those who believe that advertisers own the data directly, or at least the data, are part of what they pay for and therefore have full rights to all data. They will probably be furious because they think their rights have been destroyed by decisions like these.

2. Those who believe that Google (or the platform) owns the data and that advertisers are simply playing within their chosen program. The recent revolution (or even this article!) Is likely to be ignored and they will believe that advertisers need to cooperate with the changes.

3. Somewhere in between. They may not be willing to get an opinion on who owns the data or not, but they also believe that advertisers have certain rights and that the platform alone cannot do what it wants without potential legal ramifications or oversight.

Why is the data ownership conversation so important to marketing?

While I’m not a data protection expert and you don’t really need to come to me for legal advice (this is the legal support you expected), I wanted to do at least some research on marketing and data ownership and market it. To share. Community.

What I found probably came as no surprise, so I think this is the most important conversation with digital marketing happening now and in the near future. It depends on the private conversation. This affects the conversation about data storage. This happens in the automation discussion. It is currently being marketed in almost every possible way. I think it’s no exaggeration to say that this is * the * conversation that will shape the digital marketing industry for decades to come.

I personally welcome conversations that promote things that help us use and store data more securely online. While I’m worried that lawmakers are making decisions that affect our industry, they don’t know how Facebook makes money. How can you properly legalize the advertising industry if you don’t understand the basic existence of the advertising industry … but I give up.

What is, in my opinion, the most important issue that will most affect marketers in the coming decades?

I think it says, “What is advertisers’ right to the marketing data we use in our decisions?” At first glance, this is not a complicated matter, but the more we mitigate its depth, the more we can identify future complications. Let’s take a look at the following.

Who owns the search term data, who keeps it, or who pays for it?

This is a question we started asking internally at ZATO because we disagree with the answer. And that’s what generated this post. The owner obviously pays for the data! I led the joke. Then a logical disagreement arose and I withdrew my firm stance.

Is the person who physically creates and stores the data the owner of the data? Who can determine exactly what to do with this data? It’s complicated and as far as I know (I haven’t read all the court rulings from the last decade), it can still be debated in some courts. Winning Tech writes about the Microsoft SCA case, which raises the question of whether the FBI (US) would have access to your data based on a court order if it were physically presented in Ireland. The decision? These are slippers. The physical location of the server seems to matter, but that’s not the only thing to consider … and surprisingly, the courts disagree with the result. It’s complicated.

Isn’t the person paying for the data the owner? This is not good? When buying a Big Mac, you decide which belly the Big Mac fits in.

But as far as data is concerned, so far it doesn’t appear that the owner of the data is the owner of the data (I’m not a lawyer). Of course, Facebook’s recent fine for increasing video views indicates that advertisers have certain data rights (albeit only “the right not to be misled”) and also shows how important this is. Accuracy of information in decision making, but it is not necessary to disclose such information to advertisers

That said, you are also putting the right person in the mix (CCPA and GDPR) and these things have gotten more complicated. Remember the person, yes, they will pass this information on for discussion by Google and advertisers. What property rights do you have?

This is how I personally (without a lawyer, here a personal opinion) believe the relationship between advertisers and data is. I think it’s more of a rent/owner situation.

If I trust my point of view, I am now the owner of the property, right? 

I pay for it! As we all know, of course not. I only pay for certain space rights.

I think this is probably what happens with data rights and property rights between Google and advertisers. Our advertisers are probably not the owners of the data (this is a conversation between Google, the data provider, and the Supreme Court), we only pay an access fee … like rent. We can store the data we get from platforms like Google, which is why we advertisers have some sort of ownership right. On the other hand, it gets even more complicated here. Does this mean that there are now two sets of ownership data based on these duplicates? I do not know. The smartest people are probably talking about immoral amounts now.

In short, advertisers accept few rights to Google. Of course, this doesn’t mean it’s legal or ethically correct, but it’s an important point for Google, as advertisers accept Google’s terms and conditions from the start and these terms don’t guarantee any rights other than impressions.

Interestingly, while researching this article, I accidentally discovered that Google is being used to justify some sort of paper report in an old version of the terms and conditions presented here. While printed data is only slightly cheaper than throwing a brown bear in Montana, it means that Google has accepted in the past that users have the right to access certain data.

Translate »