Ad-ID, a joint venture of the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies, said it named Nada Bradbury CEO,

Bradbury had been global head of partnerships at Nielsen, where she’d spent 25 years. In her new post, she’ll report to ANA CEO Bob Lioice and 4As CEO MArla Kaplowitz. The position was last held by Harold Geller.

“In our super-connected, ad-supported cross-media world, Ad-ID has become an essential resource for advertisers, agencies and publishers,” Liodice said.  “We are delighted to have Nada, an accomplished global media veteran, join us to lead Ad-ID at this pivotal moment for our industry.”

Added Kaplowitz: “Nada is the ideal leader to continue the evolution of Ad-ID to address unproductive industry behaviors such as ad frequency management, cross-platform measurement, transparency, and optimization leading to a better overall content experience for both brands and consumer.” 

Ad-ID was founded in 2002 to standardize how advertising assets are labled. Ad-ID serves more than 34,000 advertisers and most U.S. advertising agencies.

“I am delighted to join the Ad-ID Team,” Bradbury said.  “I look forward to growing Ad-ID by leveraging the influence of the ANA and The 4A’s while working with established Ad-ID partners and developing new ones. Our goal is to provide the industry with simplification, transparency, and accountability as ubiquitous component of ad identification in the complex and fragmented media ecosystem.” ■

Interactive Advertising Bureau CEO David Cohen has drawn pushback from Capitol Hill and the advertising community for some tough talk about privacy at IAB’s annual leadership conference last week, with a couple of major ad association’s taking part of the blame for the current problems and suggesting it was time for the industry to clean up its own messes and do better going forward.

Cohen told Next TV that his goal was to unite, not divide.

According to one attendee, talk on stage at the conference included: “I’m not going to talk about privacy. Because privacy is boring, it makes our eyes glaze over.”

IAB says that, if so, Cohen did not say it. But his speech was filled with red meat on the issue, according to a copy.

"Extremists are winning the battle for hearts and minds in Washington D.C. and beyond. We cannot let that happen," he said. "These extremists are political opportunists who’ve made it their mission to cripple the advertising industry and eliminate it from the American economy and culture."

And he named some Capitol Hill names. "Washington D.C. leaders including [Sen.] Amy Klobuchar  [D-Minn.]and [Sen.] Ted Cruz [R-Tex.] will throw our industry under their campaign buses, if we let them," he said.

Cohen also took aim at one of the biggest tech platform players. "We must all be in this together. If we can’t fix the rotting at our core, we won’t survive. While there are no shortage of extremists attacking our industry from the outside, there are some attacking it from the inside out. Most notably, Apple exemplifies the cynicism and hypocrisy that underpins the prevailing extremist view."

Online privacy is a big issue in D.C. and elsewhere. The Federal Trade Commission is looking to crack down on “surveillance advertising,“ while there are several efforts in Congress to pass legislation cracking down on data collection and targeted marketing — all efforts that IAB, representing Big Tech's biggest online platforms, has strongly opposed. Cohen doubled down on that opposition in his conference keynote by calling those behind the privacy efforts, which include some powerful legislators, radicals and extremists, according to Politico Pro.

Also: Bill Allows For ‘Turning Off’ Targeted Marketing

On Tuesday (January 31), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (the 4A’s) and the Association of National Advertisers tried to distance themselves from Cohen’s remarks.

“The 4A’s and ANA reject the acerbic tone, texture and prescriptions offered by the IAB at their recent ALM conference,” the statement read. “Our industry was built on a foundation of responsible marketing. While we, as an industry, may not always get it right, we do know when we must lead to restore balance — especially when we have created the conditions for our industry to be ‘out of balance.’ ”

ANA and the 4A’s, neither of which is a big fan of government regulation of the advertising marketplace, called Cohen’s speech a “tirade against the forces that disagree with our industry” and put some of the blame for the current ad issues on their own industry.

Also: IAB Calls Privacy Legislation Biggest Threat to Addressability

“Many of the problems that the IAB cited were because of an imbalanced industry that we all created and supported with our advertising investments,” the statement said. “Did we ever utter the issues of ‘brand safety’ or ‘digital ad fraud’ 10 years ago? Of course not. But it is time for our industry to clean up its messes and present a far more responsible approach to address the issues that are prevalent in our industry.”

IAB has said it supports national privacy legislation, just not the brand currently being pushed or what it labels “ill-considered regulatory regimes.” 

Cohen said in an emailed statement addressing the pushback that he was not out to put anyone down for working towards the shared goal of privacy protection.

“Rather than be divisive, the goal of my opening keynote was to rally the industry and instill a sense of urgency so that we can work together to build a healthy and sustainable ad-supported digital industry," he said. "It was also to accurately reflect the interests of our members which now include all sides of the digital ecosystem.

"We have deep respect for Congress and appreciate all the work going towards national privacy reform,“ he said. ”However, we need to recognize that there is a perception issue that we need to overcome. The negativity around the technology sector fueled by select viewpoints has the potential to adversely impact us all. The industry must all work collaboratively to ensure we get a rational and sound national policy on data use. We look forward to working with legislators and regulators as well as the ANA, 4A’s and others over the coming months to develop solutions that work for all constituents: consumers, regulators, and industry.” ■

The Association of National Advertisers says its members are increasingly cutting off business with Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine.

According to a survey conducted March 14, 71% of respondents that had been spending on media in Russia reported they are either suspending that business or cutting their media spend there. That‘s more than double the 31% who said they were doing so in a survey conducted not long after the Feb. 24 launch of the war.

Also: ANA Backs Russia Sanctions

And it is more than just spending. According to the survey, 64% said they are “ceasing or scaling back operations,” also more than double the 31% who said they were doing so in the previous survey.

In the February survey, half said they were supporting humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. In the March survey, 78.5% said they were doing so. Half the respondents said they had voice public support for Ukraine, compared to 42% in the earlier survey.

Also: European Union Bans Russia-Backed Media Outlets

“As the war in Ukraine continues to intensify, it’s clear that the resolve among the marketing community to band together to protest this inhumane invasion is stronger than ever,” ANA CEO Bob Liodice said.  “Every day marketers are not only voicing their concern, but also taking direct action by radically altering their presence in Russia. The ANA urges them to continue their humanitarian efforts in showing their support for the people of Ukraine.” ■

The Association of National Advertisers is looking to combat online hate speech, one of the issues that has Washington looking to regulate online platforms and that makes those platforms less attractive as an advertising vehicle.

ANA on Wednesday (March 16) published (in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Hispanic Ad) an #EngageResponsibly pledge in, which it says that almost 100 marketing agencies, media companies, social media outlets, trade groups and nongovernmental groups have signed on to.

The pledge is to do their part to "drastically reduce" online hate speech by leveraging the power of "big brands" and Big Tech.

That pledge "recommends" the following:

1. "Supporting consumers and communities by leveraging the voice of their brands via social media and other outlets to amplify #EngageResponsibly and drive society to large-scale action and education.

2. "Engaging customers and partners by distributing #EngageResponsibly educational materials and supporting content through small and midsize business networks, including franchisee and distributor channels, agency partners, and diverse-owned media companies.

3. "Involving employees and stakeholders in the initiative by using the online education content to strengthen their understanding of online hate speech’s real-life consequences and providing them with the tools to act.

4. "Demonstrating a true commitment to the most marginalized and vulnerable groups by reporting hate speech whenever and wherever it appears."

ANA said that over the next several months a "robust set of assets" will roll out in support of the campaign, including free tools to promote responsible media practices, speech to counter hate, and a way to report online hate speech, including a dedicated web site. ■

A quarter of the companies who advertise in Russia either suspended or reduced their media spending in that country immediately following its launch of an unprovoked attack on the independent country of Ukraine.

That is according to an informal survey conducted by the Association of National Advertisers of the 180 members who responded. A little less than one-quarter of ANA countries do businesses in Russia.

One-third of the respondents said they planned to either stop or scale back advertising there.

Also: NAB Urges Broadcasters to Drop Russian-Sponsored Programming

ANA, in releasing the survey results, urged all its members to support the sanctions being imposed by the U.S. and other nations and to “seriously consider taking proactive steps to demonstrate that their companies and brands are part of the global effort to end the crisis in Ukraine.”

Russia has reportedly been shutting down independent media outlets critical of the war — and is likely to pass a law that uses co-opts the “fake news” moniker to censor negative news — while framing the conflict in state-controlled media as Russia's response to a war against a country run by neo-Nazis (Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish) and forced on Russia by NATO.

Also: EU Bans Russian-Backed Outlets

ANA also said the following were some of the responding companies’ suggestions as to what role marketing companies should play in such a crisis:

“We have a responsibility to be mindful of our activities during times of crisis. If we are connected to consumers and culture, we need to be thinking through the context within which our messages are received. Marketing also has a responsibility to be a force for good in these times.

“Help shape the narrative and ensure that media channels are being used appropriately.

"Whenever possible provide transparency and reliable information.

“Be transparent and aware about funding and the supply chain connected to the crisis. Also, be aware of how consumers and society are being affected and perceiving the crisis.

“Use marketing to deliver real consumer engagement opportunities that give people a voice and a way to help.” ■

Advertisers, edge providers and legislators are giving the Federal Trade Commission an earful over a petition by Accountable Tech to ban so-called surveillance online advertising as anti-competitive “unfair competition.”

That includes claims by advertisers that granting the petition would imperil trillions of dollars in U.S. gross domestic product.

By “surveillance,” Accountable Tech means ads based on tracking and profiling data that allows the hyper-targeted ads that sponsors point out are part of the ad-based model of free online content.

In comments to the FTC about the petition, the Association of National Advertisers said banning data-driven targeted ads would “stifle” internet-based advertising, threatening “trillions of dollars” in economic activity. That is based on the fact that the Internet economy contributed $2.45 trillion of the U.S. $21.18 trillion GDP, said ANA.

A ban would mean “a swift decrease in the availability of accessible information for consumers, cripple the economy and disproportionately impact small and midsize businesses,” ANA told the FTC.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) called the ban petition “baseless,” and discounted it as “a self-interested stunt manufactured by competitors” seeking to “declare the commercial internet itself an unfair business practice." Accountable Tech does not identify its backers.

IAB CEO David Cohen said data use and customized ads predate the internet, and simply banning them "would be a devastating blow to jobs, economic growth and innovation.”

Taking the other side, Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told the FCC that they support the petition, branding such ads as “the internet’s Original Sin” and a “time bomb” along the lines of the subprime mortgage crisis. 

“The surveillance advertising business model is premised on the unseemly collection and hoarding of personal data to enable ad targeting,” they told the agency. “Companies collect huge amounts of data to maximize user engagement because it increases ad revenue. The FTC should evaluate the harms to society and individuals, as we believe they vastly outweigh the benefits.”

They were hardly alone in advocating for the FTC to step into the online advertising space.

“[S]urveillance on such a scale represents an unprecedented interference with the right to privacy that cannot be compatible with the companies’ responsibility to respect human rights,” said Amnesty International.

“[T]he benefits of surveillance advertising do not outweigh the harms, since relevant ads can be delivered to consumers in a much less privacy-intrusive manner through contextual advertising,” the Consumer Federation of America said.

“As noted in Accountable Tech’s petition, surveillance advertising causes serious harm to both the market and individuals,” Public Knowledge said. “The commission’s dual role as both a competition agency and a consumer-protection agency make it the ideal administrative body to promulgate rules to curb abusive practices by the online advertising ecosystem.”

Lawmakers Weigh In

The issue is also playing out on the legislative front.

A bill was introduced two weeks ago, the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act, that would ban the use of personal information to target most online advertising.

The bill was introduced by Eshoo and Booker along with Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). IAB said of the bill last week that the sponsors must not understand the degree to which the bill would “effectively eliminate internet advertising in the United States, jeopardizing an estimated 17 million jobs primarily at small- and medium-sized businesses.” ■

Veteran advertising advocate Dan Jaffe will retire at year’s end, the Association of National Advertisers said.

Jaffe has headed ANA’s government relations operations in Washington, D.C., for most of four decades, most recently as group executive VP. Succeeding him in that post is Christoper Oswald, who joined ANA in 2018 and heads up advocacy efforts on the Hill.

Jaffe joined ANA in 1985 and before that was a House and Senate staffer, serving as counsel to the Senate Commerce Committee and staff director of the Consumer Protection subcommittee.

Jaffe has advocated for advertiser rights on Capitol Hill, at the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and elsewhere, and has been a leading opponent of ad taxes.

“Dan has amassed an incredible array of accomplishments that would be the envy of any professional executive, which have added enormous value for ANA members and elevated the ANA’s reputation in the marketing ecosystem,” ANA CEO Bob Liodice said. “His many achievements have left an indelible mark on our entire industry, and the debt marketers owe him is enormous.”

“My heartfelt thanks go out to the tremendous government relations staff in Washington and especially to Bob Liodice for his constant support and encouragement,” Jaffe said. “Anyone in association government relations work knows that they can only succeed if they have the strong support of the association’s leadership, and Bob has always had our back. For that I am extremely grateful.”

Before joining ANA, Oswald was VP of advocacy for the Direct Marketing Association. He was also on the board of the Digital Advertising Alliance.

"Dan Jaffe is the unquestioned dean of all things Advertising in Washington," said Adonis Hoffman, founder and chairman of Business in the Public Interest, and former SVP and counsel at the American Association of Advertising Agencies. "His institutional knowledge of law, policy and regulation has guided and advanced the industry throughout mega changes in the market. With an encyclopedic command of precedent and case law, Dan has been the preeminent go-to man for the advertising industry. His stamp on public policy ranging from children's advertising to online privacy is indelible and his wise counsel will be missed by all.  I am proud to call him a friend and colleague and one of the classiest acts in Washington."

Against a backdrop of Nielsen issues with TV measurement and ongoing advertiser disaffection with the way all media are measured, the Association of National Advertisers has come out with some baseline requirements for measurement.

ANA‘s Media Leadership Growth Council and Cross Media Measurement initiative steering committee together issued the following to "clarify" what its members are looking for:

1. Given that their marketing decision affect billions of dollars worth of transactions, they want “a measurement system that is objective, independent, transparent, neutral, and third-party verified,” which means, given the technology and intelligence available, “a more robust measurement ecosystem that delivers on these aspirations.”

Also Read: Nielsen’s David Kenny Fights Back After Accreditation Loss

2. The Media Rating Council is “indispensable,” as is its third-party accreditation to "justify" the billions of ad dollars spent on paid media annually.

3. Also indispensable is cross-media measurement (CMM), with the ANA saying it is “imperative’ that CMM “becomes the paramount objective of the measurement community.”

4. ANA said the move to advance a focus on measurement (which the Nielsen issues have put a spotlight on), should be led “by a consortium of trade bodies that represent the various industry constituents — including those organizations that are small to medium-sized businesses." ANA said there has to be a commitment to "real change” and the resources needed to overcome past barriers to sound measurement.

5. New measurement standards must be “open to all,” regardless of the size of the media spend.

Yonah Levenson was named VP and group director of information services for Ad-ID, a joint venture of the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Association of National Advertisers.

Ad-ID is a 12-character code for identifying advertising assets across media platforms.

Levenson, previously manager of metadata strategy and taxonomy governance at WarnerMedia, will lead a team of data specialists to broaden Ad-ID's metadata and taxonomy to meet industry demand for information about advertising assets.

"Yonah's vast industry experience and data asset acumen signals Ad-ID's heightened commitment to data and information as we continue to evolve capabilities reflecting the expanding needs of the industry," said Marla Kaplowitz, CEO of the 4As.

Before WarnerMedia, Levenson was with HBO. Earlier she held management and analyst roles at Pearson Education, Data Conversion Laboratory, and HarperCollins Publishers.

"Ad-ID creates more value across the advertising industry by providing and applying enriched taxonomies across all assets and platforms," Levenson said. "I am honored to have the opportunity to help shape the future of this important service, and I look forward to leading a team of exceptional talent as we develop the next generation of metadata tools for U.S. advertisers."

Advertisers and marketers may need to relax payment terms, focus less on metrics and think beyond reach when trying to increase their use of diversity suppliers, but increasing that diversity is key to doing business going forward.

That is one of the takeaways from a new study by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), which found that two thirds (69%) of marketers said they have strategic plans in place to hire diverse suppliers of advertising and marketing services*.

"Marketers need to be open to doing business differently when working with some diverse suppliers," ANA said including hiring new people for their teams and investing in supplier relationships,

ANA said the racial reckoning of the past year has clearly had an impact, according to the study, released Tuesday (May 26), which found that 89% said the importance of supplier diversity has grown over that time. The impetus for the diversity focus was both the events of the past year, sparked by the death of George Floyd, and the importance of supplier diversity generally in a company's inclusion strategy.

“The devastating events of the past year have had a profound effect on all businesses, and the marketing industry has been no exception,” said ANA CEO Bob Liodice at the study's release. “But this report shows that at least one positive development has emerged—a growing number of marketers are realizing the importance and the value of diversifying their supplier base.”

According to the report, women-owned businesses have gotten the most business, followed by Hispanic-owned, small businesses, and Black-owned.

The study revealed the challenges to diversifying suppliers for marketing/ad products, including that the pool of diverse suppliers remains small. ANA recommended that trade associations, marketers and agencies all try to promote the development of diverse suppliers to enlarge that pool.

The March 2021 online study was based on responses from 112 client-side marketers, with in-depth qualitative follow-up interviews.

* A supplier diversity plans is defined as “a proactive business program which encourages the use of women-owned, ethnic/minority-owned, veteran-owned, LGBTQ-owned, disability-owned, and small businesses as suppliers.”

Advertisers are pushing back on a privacy bill currently in the Hawaii legislature.

The Association of National Advertisers has written the leadership of the legislature to oppose HI SB 1009.

Also Read: Maryland Reverses Veto of Digital Ad Tax

According to ANA, in a blog posted Wednesday (Feb. 17), the bill would impede consumer access to products and services, boost compliance costs for businesses hit hard by COVID-19 (which are usually passed on to consumers) and is "just another piece in the continuously evolving jigsaw puzzle of privacy regulation at the state level."

Also Read: Ad Group Offers Up Version of Privacy Bill

ANA has pushed for national privacy legislation as a way to avoid the compliance nightmare of a balkanized landscape of individual privacy laws by preempting them in favor of a national framework it argues "protects consumers and allows the data driven economy to thrive."

The Maryland General Assembly has overridden Governor Larry Hogan's veto of the Digital Advertising Gross Revenue Tax (HB 732), according to the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), which signals it will take the law to court.

Ad sales and services taxes are periodically introduced as states look for new revenue and ANA is always on the lookout to spread the alarm when that happens, but ANA has said this would be the first one that passed a legislature.

The law institutes a gross revenues tax on "certain" digital ad services, and presumes that digital ads are provided in the state under "certain" circumstances and require "certain" persons with "certain" annual gross revenues from digital ad services to pay the tax.  

Also Read: ANA Warns of D.C. Ad Tax

Of his veto, Hogan said at the time (back in May 2020) that the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic means it would be "unconscionable" to approve any new "tax hike" legislation. The bill would also boost the state's coffers, which have also been hit hard by the virus, which is likely why it secured enough votes to override the veto.  

The bill would levy a 10% tax on “annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the state.” The tax adjusts according to a company’s global annual gross revenue and could have applied to a lot of companies. 

“ANA believes this law will be found to be unconstitutional and violates the Internet Tax Fairness Act that bans discriminatory taxes on Internet digital communications," said Dan Jaffe, ANA Group executive VP of government relations, in a statement. "Enacting this law will slow job growth in Maryland, dampen consumer demand, discourage business investment, and ultimately cause consumers to pay far more for products and services. It will create a highly toxic marketplace for digital advertising and needs to be overturned in the courts."

Also Read: Advertisers Try to Help Providers Navigate CCPA

Jaffe said he anticipated "a successful challenge in the courts to this law," which he argued would be sufficiently costly for the state to "negate the legislature’s argument that this tax will provide funding for education," adding "we intend to continue to fight against this misguided bill."

“While aimed at large tech companies, taxes are always passed on to the customer. In this case, small businesses that have come to rely primarily on digital ads for effective, affordable advertising will see their prices increased at a time when small businesses are struggling to survive the worst economy in decades," said Connected Commerce Council (3C) President Jake Ward.

“Lawmakers always claim to support small businesses, but time and time again, they turn around and pass laws that hurt small businesses," said Ward. "Instead of passing short-sighted taxes, the government should help small businesses maximize digital advertising and other low-cost digital tools. Small businesses need training, education, and support to better use digital tools, not tax penalties for using them.”

The Association of National Advertisers has put out new guidance for service providers on compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. (CCPA)

That is the law that attempts to fill what its backers see as the consumer privacy void left by the FCC. It provides consumers with "the right to know, the right to delete, and the right to opt-out of the sale of personal information that businesses collect, and includes additional protections for minors."

The guidance is in the form of "nonbinding" principles and best practices, aimed at what ANA suggests is an ever-moving target given the "nearly constant modifications to CCPA regulations by the California Attorney General and the seemingly never-ending compliance finish line."

Also Read: Ad Agencies Team to Tackle Latest CCPA Twist

Back in October, the ad industry filed comments with California Attorney General Xavier Becerra on a third set of modifications to CCPA, which were followed by changes approved in a Nov. 3 ballot initiative.

ANA "strategic partners" include Twitter, Facebook and Google.

Ad agencies are pushing back hard on a California bill that could extend liability for defective products to advertising agencies.

According to the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and other ad associations, a California consumer protection product liability bill was amended this week to include provisions they said thwart the stated intent of the bill to exempt online advertising from liability exposure.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), the American Advertising Federation (AAF), ANA, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), and the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) said the bill would chill commercial speech and reduce the availability of digital content at a time when the economy "is already under significant strain." They did not mention the COVID-19 pandemic, but obviously that is the current major strain, as well as the reason availability of digital content in a work-and-study-and-play-from-home is even more important.

The bill, as amended, "could create the broadest expansion of strict liability requirements in U.S. history, radically depart from existing jurisprudence, and subject small businesses to crippling financial exposure,” said Dan Jaffe, group EVP of government relations for ANA.

They are principally concerned with an amendment adding the provision that the bill covers businesses “facilitating the placement of products into the stream of commerce," without defining what facilitating constitutes. They fear that could that it could apply to any business deriving a direct or indirect financial benefit from products that were deemed effective.

They are concerned about what was taken out as well as added. They says another amendment removed a provision "clarifying that fees received for advertising do not constitute a 'financial benefit from the sale of the defective product.'" Without that, ad dollars are clearly at risk from "defective" products.

“The most recent amendments impose draconian potential penalties on publishers," said IAB EVP for public policy, Dave Grimaldi. "To avoid potential liability, a publisher would either need to test and evaluate each product for defects prior to allowing advertising for the product or significantly limit advertising on its site. This would reduce resources for publishers to provide digital news, content, and online services.”

“The broad and undefined language in this amendment could expand the law’s scope beyond a merchant selling a good to cover a news organization or Mommy blogger than runs a single ad and a product reviewer who receives high traffic to an article reviewing a product that is later deemed to be defective,” said Alison Pepper, EVP of government relations for 4A’s.

As expected, the D.C. City Council has voted unanimously, according to the Association of National Advertisers, to excise a 3% tax from a budget bill.  

The council Tuesday (July 7) had voted tentatively to approve the portion of a massive budget bill that included a 3% sales tax on advertising services, which were defined as "the planning, creating, placing, or display of advertising in newspapers, magazines, billboards, broadcasting, and other media, including, without limitation, the providing of concept, writing, graphic design, mechanical art, photography, and production supervision.”  

But last week, after pushback by the Association of National Advertisers, broadcasters and others, including council members, the Council chairman Phil Mendelson switched gears and introduced amendments that would essentially kill the tax. 

ANA was celebrating Tuesday. It has been working to keep ad taxes of the books for over three decades. Ad sales and services taxes tend to surface as often cash-strapped localities look for new revenue sources, as was the case here. So far, none have made it into law. 

"At a time when small businesses are already navigating an extraordinarily tough economic landscape amid the global pandemic, this is an important step in protecting their ability to promote and sell their products in the District," said Dan Jaffe, ANA executive VP of government relations. "It will also see that these costs are not passed onto consumers. Today’s victory is a result of the wide-ranging efforts of the ad and business community to communicate their deep concerns on the counterproductive tax."

"IAB commends the DC Council for their unanimous repeal of the proposed 3% tax on advertising," said Alex Propes, VP at the Interactive Advertising Bureau. "In today’s economic climate, a tax on advertising would cause unbearable strain on the media and advertising industry. In turn, every small business across the District would be negatively impacted.

"As lawmakers across the U.S. seek to hasten the economic recovery from COVID-19, they should acknowledge the critical role that advertising plays in driving commerce and helping businesses, non-profits, and governments communicate with their customers and stakeholders."

The D.C. Council came right up to the edge of imposing a tax on advertising but it looks like the pushback from ad agencies, broadcasters and others has won the day.

The council two weeks ago had tentatively voted to approve the portion of a massive budget bill that included a sales tax on advertising services, which are defined as "the planning, creating, placing, or display of advertising in newspapers, magazines, billboards, broadcasting, and other media, including, without limitation, the providing of concept, writing, graphic design, mechanical art, photography, and production supervision.” 

Sales taxes on advertising services surface periodically when states and localities are looking for new sources of revenue, which they definitely are in the current economic tsunami of COVID-19. 

The National Association of Broadcasters Thursday (July 23) was celebrating the news that the council would instead consider amendments to a larger tax bill that "paves the way" for the removal of the ad tax. 

Related: ANA Raises Warning Over D.C. Ad Tax

The amendments find sufficient funds elsewhere to cover the $18.4 million the council was budgeting for the ad tax, which can now be eliminated, said Council chairman Phil Mendelson. "The amendments I am circulating today will reverse a policy choice that I now regret," said Mendelson. "I overestimated the effect my proposing this tax would have to discourage colleagues' desire to raise other taxes."

"ANA is very pleased and appreciative that the Council of the District of Columbia has backed away from a sweeping tax on advertising and data," said Dan Jaffe, ANA executive VP of government relations. "It demonstrated a recognition that the tax would severely hurt economic recovery in the District and be particularly damaging to small business and community media. This result was possible only because of the broad outpouring of concern directed to the Council from the whole ad community." 

National Association of Broadcasters president Gordon Smith was definitely declaring victory.

"The outpouring of opposition expressed by local media companies and citizens in D.C. and across the nation effectively defeated the tax, which would have placed an undue burden on small businesses and local media already struggling amidst the pandemic," he said. "This should serve as an example for other local governments that such misguided taxes on advertising are counterproductive in stimulating local economies and will continue to be met with fervent opposition."

The Association of National Advertisers has come up with an initial list of diverse advertising and marketing services suppliers. 

The list comprises more than 100 companies including agencies, media, production, promotion, and research and stems from ANA's May report, The Power of Supplier Diversity, which showed that three quarters of ANA members have strategic plans to hire diverse suppliers for their organizations, but only 40% had such plans for marketing and advertising services. At the time, ANA committed to compiling the list, which comprises companies "owned or run by Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities. 

“The ANA is resolute in its belief that supplier diversity offers many benefits to corporations,” said ANA CEO Bob Liodice. “It provides opportunities for business expansion as new consumer needs emerge based on shifting demographics. Supplier diversity drives competition between existing and potential suppliers while promoting innovation, as diverse vendors can offer new products, services, and solutions.” 

The May study cited the main value added of supplier diversity were "community empowerment and positive social impact."  

Liodice called the list "a living resource," and ANA said there are undoubtedly others and it will update the list in September. 

Those already on the list have been certified diverse by the National Minority Supplier Development Council;the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council, the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, Woman-Owned Small Business, and Minority Business Enterprise. 

ANA said it welcomes suggestions for additions to the list at diversesuppliers@ana.net.

The Association of National Advertisers has come up with an initial list of diverse advertising and marketing services suppliers. 

The list comprises more than 100 companies including agencies, media, production, promotion, and research and stems from ANA's May report, The Power of Supplier Diversity, which showed that three quarters of ANA members have strategic plans to hire diverse suppliers for their organizations, but only 40% had such plans for marketing and advertising services. At the time, ANA committed to compiling the list, which comprises companies "owned or run by Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities. 

“The ANA is resolute in its belief that supplier diversity offers many benefits to corporations,” said ANA CEO Bob Liodice. “It provides opportunities for business expansion as new consumer needs emerge based on shifting demographics. Supplier diversity drives competition between existing and potential suppliers while promoting innovation, as diverse vendors can offer new products, services, and solutions.” 

The May study cited the main value added of supplier diversity were "community empowerment and positive social impact."  

Liodice called the list "a living resource," and ANA said there are undoubtedly others and it will update the list in September. 

Those already on the list have been certified diverse by the National Minority Supplier Development Council;the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council, the National LGBT Chamber of Commerce, Woman-Owned Small Business, and Minority Business Enterprise. 

ANA said it welcomes suggestions for additions to the list at diversesuppliers@ana.net.

The Association of National Advertisers is urging the D.C. City Council not to pass a 3% tax on advertising services, which would affect both ad sales and creative, as well as the sale of personal online information including browser habits and consumer preferences. 

According to ANA, the council Tuesday (July 7) tentatively voted to approve the portion of a massive budget bill that includes a sales tax on advertising services, which are defined as "the planning, creating, placing, or display of advertising in newspapers, magazines, billboards, broadcasting, and other media, including, without limitation, the providing of concept, writing, graphic design, mechanical art, photography, and production supervision.” 

Sales taxes on advertising services surface periodically when states and localities are looking for new sources of revenue, which they definitely are in the current economic tsunami of COVID-19. 

“The Council is considering an extremely misguided tax that has failed everywhere it has been tried,” said ANA Group EVP Dan Jaffe. “Advertising taxes suppress consumer demand, slow job growth, and ultimately cause products and services to become more expensive for consumers. A tax on advertising is always counterproductive but would be even more damaging during the COVID pandemic and the accompanying severe economic downturn. Clearly, this tax could be backbreaking for small businesses and community publications.”  

The tax was proposed by Council president Phil Mendelson, who estimated it could raise $18 million. 

The odds are against passage if past is prologue, though there is no precedent for the current pandemic's economic hit on the country.  

ANA points out that over 100 ad taxes have been proposed since 1987, with none making it into law. 

Most recently, Maryland passed a digital ad tax over ANA's vociferous objection, but the bill was vetoed by Gov. Larry Hogan, preserving that perfect record. Hogan said that bill was misguided and would raise taxes at a time when many are out of work and struggling. 

Despite efforts by advertisers and agencies to delay implementation, California Wednesday (July 1) began enforcement of its California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the new data privacy law that gives the state's consumers more control over the collection and use of their online information, including opting out of collection without being discriminated against because of that decision. 

Related: CCPA Final Rules Submitted

The law has actually been in effect since Jan. 1, but the state had still been working on just how to enforce it. In fact, the final regulations have yet to be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law, but just as businesses have been subject to the law since January without specific rules of the road, enforcement will begin without official sign-off, either, Attorney General Xavier Becerra signaled. 

"The Attorney General plans to begin enforcement of the CCPA starting July 1, 2020," his office said in an email. "Businesses subject to CCPA were required to begin complying with the law on January 1, 2020. Proposed final regulations under the CCPA were submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law on June 1, 2020 and are currently pending approval. Our office is committed to enforcing the law starting July 1," Becerra said. 

The Association of National Advertisers had called for delaying implementation of the regs-citing their impact on journalism and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons.

Related: ANA Tells Hill That CCPA Rules Threaten Health of Journalism 

Under the law, consumers have a: 

Right to Know – "Consumers may request that a business tell them what specific personal information they have collected, shared or sold about them, and why it was collected, shared, or sold. 

Right to Delete — "Consumers may request that a business delete personal information that the business collected from the consumer, subject to some exceptions.

Right to Opt-Out — "If a business sells their personal information, consumers may request that it stop doing so.

Rights for Minors — "A business cannot sell the personal information of minors under the age of 16 without their permission and, for children under 13, without parental consent.

Right to Non-Discrimination — "A business may not discriminate against consumers who exercise their rights under the CCPA."

Smaller businesses and ones who do not make their money primarily from data collection are exempt. The law applies to businesses with gross annual revenue of $25 million that buy, collect or sell personal information of at least 50,000 people and get at least half their revenue from selling that information.

The Association of National Advertisers is going to wait to pass judgment on the impact on ANA members of President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to eliminate social media censorship of political speech, but ANA General Counsel Douglas Wood is making it clear he "abhors" the order. 

Related: Trump Issues Social Media Executive Order

Wood said in a statement released by ANA that, as a legal matter and a First Amendment matter, politicians are free to lie and websites are free to censor those constitutionally protected lies. "If a platform is following the rules it adopted in good faith, it is free to censor. They are private enterprises, not the government. 

But that freedom of liability from censoring protected speech comes from Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is the section the President wants Congress to eliminate and, in the interim, wants the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department, to clarify--and weaken--the section.  

Or, as Wood puts it, "[I]f the platforms continue to censor speech that the platforms deem misleading (or place tags on a post that cast doubt on its accuracy or refer users to other information) they will face the wrath of the DOJ, FTC, and God only knows whom else." He said that the "weaponizing" in the President's executive order is "an improper government intrusion on free speech." 

Related: Trump Social Media Order Gets Mixed Review

"So, if Facebook decides tomorrow that it wants to crack down on political lies – by Democrats or Republicans –it is free to do that," says Wood. "And properly so. Nor is it the government’s role to decide when those decisions are fair or discriminatory. That is not a standard of oversight authorized under the First Amendment. If it were, then free speech would change like the wind with every change in the Administration or shift in Congressional control." 

Wood said that while he may not agree with or like the policies of Facebook or Twitter or other platforms, and recognizes the threat those powerful players pose to the common good if they act irresponsibly, but said that if he has to choose between those and government arbitration of what should and shouldn't be said, it's "no contest." 

California attorney General Xavier Becerra has submitted the proposed regulations for implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act. 

That is the law that attempts to fill what its backers see as the consumer privacy void left by the FCC. It provides consumers with "the right to know, the right to delete, and the right to opt-out of the sale of personal information that businesses collect, and includes additional protections for minors."  

The regulations give business guidance on how to comply with the new data privacy regs and create procedures for compliance and accountability. 

The AG's office said the regs do the following:

1) "They explain how businesses are required to notify consumers of their rights under CCPA either at or before the point of data collection.

2) "They address how businesses should handle consumer requests about their data.

3) "They clarify how businesses can verify consumers’ identities as they receive those information-related requests.

4) "They explain how businesses can handle requests concerning information on behalf of children under age 16.

5) "They lay out what businesses need to do to avoid discriminating against customers who choose not to allow their data to be stored or sold."

The regs were submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which will have until sometime in September to determine whether they square with the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The law has already been in effect since Jan. 1, even though the implementing regs were not finished, and the regulations go into effect July 1, even though the California OAL will still be vetting them. 

Ad industry groups have suggested that is putting the cart before the horse to the detriment of businesses unsure of how to proceed given what could be a moving target. 

The Association of National Advertisers had called for delaying implementation of the regs-citing their impact on journalism and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons--but that does not appear to be happening. 

Related: ANA Tells Hill That CCPA Rules Threaten Health of Journalism 

“As our lives increasingly move online, our data privacy becomes more important than ever," said AG Becerra. "The California Consumer Privacy Act, which gives consumers choice and control over personal information in the marketplace, is game-changing and historic. Our regulations provide businesses and individuals with guidance on how to protect that choice and boost transparency, while continuing to unleash innovation. Businesses have had since January 1 to comply with the law, and we are committed to enforcing it starting July 1.”

The Association of National Advertisers is celebrating the veto Thursday (May 7) of a Maryland digital ad tax bill that passed the legislature but fell under the weight of the governor's veto and the downward economic pressure of a pandemic. 

ANA had pushed back hard on the legislation. 

The Maryland almost-law (HB 732) would have been a gross revenues tax on "certain" digital ad services, and would have presumed that digital ads are provided in the state under "certain" circumstances and require "certain" persons with "certain" annual gross revenues from digital ad services to pay the tax.  

But Republican Governor Larry Hogan said the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic means it would be "unconscionable" to approve any new "tax hike" legislation. The bill would have boosted the state's coffers, which have also been hit hard by the virus.  

He said the bill was misguided and would raise taxes at a time when many are out of work and struggling.  

Ad sales and services taxes are periodically introduced as states look for new revenue and ANA is always on the lookout to spread the alarm when that happens, but ANA said this would have been the first one that had passed a legislature. 

The Maryland bill would have levied a 10% tax on “annual gross revenues of a person derived from digital advertising services in the state.” The tax would have adjusted according to a company’s global annual gross revenue and could have applied to a lot of companies. The tax would also have extended to companies "that reasonably expect the person’s annual gross revenues derived from 10 digital advertising services to exceed a certain amount to complete." 

"The veto of this counterproductive proposal is an important victory for ANA and our members," said ANA. "It relieves small and large businesses of a major burden on their efforts to market their products and services, which in turn helps protect the almost 400,000 Marylanders whose jobs are supported by the sale of products and services generated by advertising – nearly 15 percent of the 2.6 million jobs in the state."

Advertisers are pushing back on parts of a COVID-19 related executive order issued this week by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. 

The provisions that ANA wants Whitmer to rescind prevent big box stores (over 50,000 square feet) that are remaining open for in-person sales during the pandemic shelter-at-home mandates from advertising any product but "groceries, medical supplies, or items that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and basic operation of residences." 

It also prevents the advertising of "a short-term vacation property except as necessary to assist in housing a health care professional or volunteer aiding in the response to the COVID-19 crisis." 

The Association of National Advertisers said that the order is well meaning but misguided.  

"This ban almost certainly violates the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution," said ANA executive VP of Government Relations Dan Jaffe. He said that the order has lots of problems. "For example, it singles out a segment of the retail industry without any explanation as to why only large retail outlets are included in the ban." 

He said the order is not backed up with any evidence that advertising for those stores is less safe than for smaller stores. "The order also is vague, because it is hard to identify what is and is not within the ban," he said. 

For example, could a large retailer not advertise fabric in stock, though that might be used to make face masks. He also points out that the governor has called for maintaining “communications and information technology, including news media” becuase they are essential. "But advertising is the life blood of these news and information organizations," he points out, "and this ban would undermine their capacities and limit the economic support for the programming they carry." 

Besides he said, even ads for the "innumerable activities important to everyday life" are important to supporting a damaged economy. 

The Association of National Advertisers has found yet another reason to push California to delay enforcement of its new privacy law, the California Consumer Protection Act. 

The latest spur was Governor Gavin Newsom's executive order extending the period for public review of the proposed new enforcement regime by 60 days, which means the enforcement rules--which would still have to be implemented via a rulemaking--could not even go into effect until just before, or potentially even after, the mandated enforcement date of July 1. 

The CCPA is already in effect, but just how it can and will be enforced is what has yet to be determined. 

Related: ANA Seeks CCPA Delay 

In a blog post, Association of National Advertisers executive Dan Jaffee cited the order, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, in calling once again for a little more time--until January 2021--before the enforcement mandate kicks in. 

"Enforcing last minute regulations without giving companies time to adapt their practices accordingly is not right," he wrote. "It is not fair for consumers who expect standard, legally compliant responses from business. It is not fair for businesses who deserve clarity in regard to their obligations under the CCPA." 

Consumer groups have called on California attorney general Xavier Becerra to reject industry efforts to delay enforcement.

The Association of National Advertisers has again asked the California attorney general to delay implementation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) until January of next year, this time based on a new set of modifications to the law plus the argument that "COVID-19 has substantially encumbered businesses’ ability to operationalize the draft rules implementing the CCPA prior to July 1, 2020. 

Enforcement of the bill is currently scheduled to begin on that July date. 

ANA and other ad associations have previously asked for a delay, first citing the complexity of compliance with a moving target, more recently citing the combination of that moving target and the coronavirus. 

The office of Attorney General Xavier Becerra sought comment March 11 on the second set of modifications to the bill. 

Related: Consumer Reports Says CCPA Enforcement Must Proceed

ANA provided that comment this week, again combining the new complexity of the modifications with the ongoing challenge of COVID-19. 

Among the drafts modifications is one they say would turn an opt-out data collection regime (by requiring adherence to global browser privacy controls) into an opt-in one, subverting the authority of the legislature's opt-out approach and rendering the law unconstitutional. 

ANA is also concerned about the impact of the language prohibiting small businesses from using opt out methods "designed with the purpose or has the substantial effect of subverting or impairing a consumer’s decision to opt out.” It says that working will "[increase] the likelihood that businesses could be punished for effects of opt-out mechanisms they do not intend or reasonably expect." 

Those and other issues are things ANA argues need a resolution that won't be achieveable amidst the current crisis. 

"[W]e believe that because of the very limited time for companies to come into compliance with the rulemaking effort before the CA AG’s enforcement authority is launched and the virtually unprecedented disruption caused by the current global COVID-19 pandemic it would be appropriate to forbear from enforcement until January 2, 2021," ANA said in its comments. "During these extraordinarily turbulent times, we ask that your office provide the business community the ability to focus its resources on addressing the global health and economic challenges facing all of us." 

Almost three dozen trade associations including the Association of National Advertisers, American Advertising Federation and the Association of Magazine Media, are invoking the coronavirus pandemic in asking California to delay enforcement of a new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), until Jan. 2, 2021. 

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect Jan. 1, but the state has yet to finalize rules to enforce it, rules that have to be in place by mid year.  

Some of the same groups, including ANA and the IAB, argued for a similar delay back in January, citing the "extraordinary complexity of the law and the wide range of open issues to be clarified" as the reason for seeking a similar six-month delay from July 1, 2020. 

In a letter to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra Thursday (March 19) , they said that "given current events and the presently unfinished status of the regulations implementing the CCPA, businesses will not have the operational capacity or time to bring their systems into compliance with the final regulatory requirements." 

They argue that coming up with "innovative business procedures" to comply with the new law and enforcement regime is a formidable task, and too tall an order when many of those workers are at home and all are "doing their best to manage their personal and professional lives in the face of uncertain times." 

They say they support privacy--though many including ANA were not fan of how the bill tries to secure it--but want the extra time to "understand and effectively operationalize" the new rules. 

ANA has also argued that the law as approved could damage the California economy, an economy that, like all state economies, faces tough times ahead without that added issue.

The media industry is pushing back hard on a proposed Maryland digital ad tax they call the "most serious" threat to commercial advertising in the past several years. 

Groups ranging from the major ad associations to NCTA-The Internet & Television Association to the Motion Picture Association, have written state legislators to spell out their principle concerns, which include that 1) since it would tax digital and not non-digital ads, it is a discriminatory tax disallowed by the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PIFTA); 2) that the measure raises First Amendment issues because it singles out commercial speech for a "punitive" tax, and that 3) "advertising service providers could be expected to pass the tax onto their customers, burdening Maryland residents and businesses who are consumers of advertising services within a digital interface." 

That comes as the Maryland House of Delegates’ Ways and Means Committee is holding a hearing on the bill.  

Related: ANA Fires Warning Shot Over ANA Digital Ad Tax 

The object of their disaffection is a gross revenues tax on "certain" digital ad services, that would presume that digital ads are provided in the state under "certain" circumstances and require "certain" persons with "certain" annual gross revenues from digital ad services to pay the tax," according to the Association of National Advertisers. 

Ad sales and services taxes are periodically introduced as states look for new revenue and ANA is always on the lookout to spread the alarm when that happens.   

The letter, to Anne Kaiser, chair of the Maryland House Ways & Means Committee, and Alonzo T. Washington, vice chair, is reprinted below: 

Dear Delegate Kaiser and Delegate Washington: 

We write to you to express our strong opposition to the proposed digital advertising tax on the gross revenues of businesses operating in Maryland under the provisions of H.B. 695. Advertising, including the rapidly growing segment of digital advertising, is a powerful engine that helps drive the economy of the State of Maryland. 

Advertising expenditures account for $101.5 billion of sales in Maryland. That represents 14.6 percent of the $693.1 billion in total economic output for the State. These results are based on economic research for the media and advertising industries that applied an economic model developed by the 1980 Nobel Laureate for Economic Science, Dr. Lawrence R. Klein. The research further shows that sales of products and services driven by advertising help support 393,667 jobs – nearly 15 percent of the 2.6 million jobs in the State. 

The proposed tax on digital advertising would represent one of the most serious threats to commercial advertising in the United States in several decades. If Maryland were to enact this tax on advertising, it would become the first state or locality in the United States to impose a targeted, punitive tax on the gross revenue derived from digital advertising services. 

Because Maryland would tax digital advertising but not tax non-digital advertising, the proposed levy would constitute a “discriminatory tax” prohibited by the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). While we understand the importance of securing more funding for the State’s education programs, the adoption of an arbitrary threshold of global annual gross revenues would tend to tax larger global advertising service providers at a higher tax rate than their domestic counterparts. This would be constitutionally suspect under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The proposal also would raise serious First Amendment concerns because it singles out digital commercial speech for a punitive tax. 

Although the anticipated revenues from the tax may seem popular initially, the real burden of the new tax would fall on Maryland residents and Maryland businesses who are consumers of advertising services within a digital interface. 

Advertising service providers can be expected to pass the tax onto their customers, including Maryland brick and mortar businesses that seek to reach new customers online. A study by Deloitte Tax of the digital advertising tax adopted in France confirms this projected outcome. It found that 55 percent of that tax burden would be passed on to consumers who would pay higher prices for every good and service they use, online or offline. It is important to note that France has suspended its digital tax through the end of this year.  

While we respect and support your goal to identify and direct substantial new financial resources toward the education of Maryland’s children, we believe your proposed digital advertising tax will impose a massive long-term burden on the present and future taxpayers of the State. We strongly urge you to reject H.B. 695. 

Respectfully submitted, 

American Advertising Federation (AAF)

American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s)

Association of National Advertisers (ANA)

CompTIA

Consumer Brands Association

Council on State Taxation (COST)

Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)

Internet Coalition

Maryland Chamber of Commerce

Maryland Retailers Association

MDDC Press Association

Motion Picture Association - America

MPA –The Association of Magazine Media

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association

The ADvertising Coalition

Even as the California Attorney General was asking Congress to use the state's consumer privacy law as a template for federal privacy legislation, advertisers were trying to get the state to clarify/adjust that template so they can continue to place the targeted ads that support free online content. 

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect Jan. 1, but the state is seeking input on just how to enforce it. Rules to do that have to be in place by midyear. 

Related: Ad Groups Seek Delay of California Privacy Law 

In comments filed with the attorney general's office, according to a draft supplied to Multichannel News, the Association of National Advertisers said it was all about working to make the bill better, but a bill it clearly still has issues with the CCPA, which it calls a "novel, operationally complex, and, in many ways, confusing law" with "significant and detrimental impacts on consumers and businesses" if those shadows remain unaltered by future tweaks. 

But ANA says working to make the bill "better" is imperative, because the law as it stands could damage the California economy. 

"We and our members strongly support the responsible use of data and the underlying goal of enhancing consumer privacy that is inherent in the CCPA and its implementing regulations," ANA told the AG's office. "We are encouraged that the updated rules provide a degree of enhanced clarity surrounding some ambiguous provisions in the law. Nevertheless, the regulations remain significantly unclear in several areas of vital importance to both consumers and businesses."  

That "several" comprised at least 15 clarifications/asks, which it leant the gravitas of imposing roman numerals: 

I. "Provide Businesses a Reasonable Period of Time to Implement the New Regulations 

II. "Clarify Requirements Surrounding Loyalty Programs So Businesses May Continue to Offer Such Programs to Californians" 

III. "Clarify that Businesses May Choose to Honor User-Enabled Global Privacy Controls or Provide Consumers Another, Equally Effective Method for Opting Out of Personal Information Sale 

IV. "Update the Household Definition to Better Reflect Appropriate Business Practices

V. "Add a Provision Clarifying that Information Businesses Collect, Use, and Share for Fraud Prevention Purposes is Not Subject to Certain CCPA Rights

VI. "Enable Flexibility for Providing the CCPA-Required Notice at Collection toConsumers Through the Telephone and in Person

VII. "Remove New Duplicative and Unclear Transparency Requirements

VIII."Remove the Limitation on Service Providers’ Internal Use of Personal

IX. "Clarify the Requirement to Obtain Parental Consent for Minors “in addition to” Verifiable Parental Consent Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) 

X. "Remove the Requirement to “Permanently and Completely” Erase Personal Information

XI. "Remove the Requirement to Provide a General Toll-Free Contact Number to Receive Consumer CCPA Requests 

XII. "Clarify How Businesses Must Respond to CCPA Requests When They Maintain Personal Information In A Manner that Is Not Associated With An Identifiable Person 

XIII."Clarify and Alter the Disclosures Required of Businesses that Buy, Receive, Sell, or Share Personal Information of 10 Million or More Consumers

XIV. "Affirm that Required Notices May Be Provided in a Privacy Policy

XV. "Grant Online Businesses that Do Not Maintain Personally Identifying Information Flexibility to Provide Effective Opt Out Mechanisms" 

The Association of National Advertisers will acquire the Data & Marketing Association (formerly the Direct Marketing Association), forming a coalitionthat, thanks to other recent mergers within both organizations, will create a powerhouse lobbying organization with deep interests in privacy and data security as well as advertising taxes and other media issues.

The merger expected to be completed by July 1. Financial details were not disclosed, although published reports suggested a "fire sale" price as DMA has seen declining revenue and membership in recent years.

One topic that is not on the merged group's agenda right now is net neutrality. Although some ANA members have questioned the FCC's rollback of net neutrality rules, neither ANA nor DMA "has taken a stance on net neutrality," Daniel Jaffe, group executive vice president for government relations at ANA's Washington office, told Multichannel News.

ANA's members include Comcast Cable, Charter Communications, Cox Communications, AT&T, Verizon, the National Football League, Time Warner and many other media and telecommunications organizations. DMA's members include Google, Facebook and Twitter. eBay is among the companies that are members of both organizations.

Jaffe added that the ANA-DMA combination will "substantially increase the reach of both groups" in areas involving privacy and data security.

"We have always believed that the Federal Trade Commission should have the primary jurisdiction over privacy," Jaffe said, citing a major policy concern of both groups.

The merger, announced May 31, will create the largest advertising/marketing trade group in the U.S. Its combined membership will include 2,000 corporations representing 20,000 brands and engaging 150,000 industry professionals, including major national advertisers, ad agencies, media operators, law firms. ad tech firms and technical consultancies.

ANA CEO Bob Liodice, who has headed the organization since 2003, will remain as the merged group's top officer. DMA will become an ANA division to be headed by DMA CEO Tom Benton. The combined leadership team will "focus on identifying and implementing data-driven initiatives to advance the industry and drive growth," the companies said.

Among the benefits of the merger that Liodice and Benton cited is "advancing the development of new technology platforms to energize brand and business building efforts in the marketing ecosystem."

Their emphasis on that topic underscores the growing significance of digital, targeted advertising in the overall marketing environment.

The ANA-DMA alliance is the latest step in the ongoing integration (some may say fight for survival) of specialized lobbying entities in the marketing category.

ANA, founded in 1910, has in recent years acquired the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), the Business Marketing Association (exclusively B2B members) and the Brand Activation Association.

DMA, established in 1917, has changed its name several times in recent decades, reflecting the shift toward digital marketing. In the 1970s it was known as the Direct Mail and Marketing Association, changing its name to Direct Marketing Association 1n 1983 and then to Data + Marketing Association in late 2016.

WASHINGTON — Internet service providers that have been sparring with congressional Democrats over an opt-in broadband privacy regime now have a Republican to contend with. But the consequences of a new bill backed by House Communications Subcommittee chair Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would have a bigger impact on edge providers and advertisers.

In trying to prevent the FCC from applying that opt-in to ISPs, one of the bigger arguments providers have made is that those opt-in rules didn’t apply both to them and to edge providers such as Facebook or Google, which have a dominant share of the targeted advertising that relies on such data.

In the Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly [BROWSER] Act, Blackburn has proposed to change that, retaining the FCC’s extension of “sensitive” information that requires opt-in consent for sharing beyond financial and health and children’s data to include web browsing, while moving enforcement of all broadband privacy under the Federal Trade Commission.

Related: Rep. Blackburn Defends Broadband Privacy Bill

ISPs have been quiet on the bill — NCTA-The Internet & Television Association said it was still vetting the measure at press time and would have no comment — but groups representing advertisers and edge providers certainly have not been.

The Association of National Advertisers is no fan of Blackburn’s BROWSER Act, sponsored by the Republican House Communications Subcommittee.

Among other things, the ANA says Blackburn’s bill repeats the “fatal mistake” of overbroad classification of sensitive information (it does not say “of web browsing,” which they feel is key), and what the industry trade group calls a “vague and confusing” opt-in regime that would “bombard consumers with annoying consent notices.”

If FCC chair Ajit Pai succeeds in rolling back classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, the Federal Trade Commission will again have enforcement authority over both edge providers and ISPs. Blackburn’s bill could beat the rollback to the punch, designating the FTC as the sole enforcer of online privacy.

Edge providers don’t want either the FCC or the FTC to start requiring them to get opt-in permission to share and monetize browser histories.

The Internet Association, whose largest members are Google, Amazon and Facebook, said the bill “has the potential to upend the consumer experience online and stifle innovation.”

Blackburn has fired back at her critics. “I thought the Internet Association would be more supportive of protecting consumers,” she told The Hill. Edge providers have, however, made clear their opposition to extending regulations to their neck of the ’net, arguing that ISPs have a unique gatekeeper position.

“I think if you ask the American people if they’re OK with having less control over their online privacy so companies can sell their data, they’d say no,” she said.

Input continued to pour in following President Donald Trump's signing Monday (April 4) of a resolution nullifying the FCC's broadband privacy rules after Hill Republicans approved it on close, politically divided, votes in both Houses of Congress.

Privacy groups promised to fight on while advertisers said the fight was over "innocuous" info that didn't warrant "barrage" of opt-in notices.

"By vetoing the repeal of the broadband privacy rules President Trump could have sent a powerful message that he heard Americans' demands to have a real say over how their personal information is used and shared for commercial proses, and was willing to stand up for them," said the Consumer Federation of America.

But given that the President added his imprimatur, what now? "This fight is not over," vowed CFA. "The Consumer Federation of America and the other organizations with which we work will continue to push for real privacy protections for Americans."

The National Hispanic Media Coalition was similarly displeased and similarly ready to continue the fight.

"With the stroke of his pen, President Trump quietly sealed the fate of FCC regulations aimed to protect the private information and web browsing histories of Americans across the country," said Carmen Scurato, director of policy and legal affairs. "Latinos value their private information and will not soon forget a President who failed them, especially in light of all the public concerns he has for his own privacy. The act was a clear gift to Internet Service Providers at the expense of the American people. But the American people were not quiet during this process and left one resounding message: we will continue to stand together to preserve and protect the open internet."

Michael Copps, former FCC chairman and now a special adviser to Common Cause, saw it as a handover of consumer rights to big business by the President.

"Privacy goes the way of populism as Trump rolls over again for big business," he said. "Despite a campaign filled with rhetoric about the plight of forgotten Americans, Trump has once again come down on the side of corporate profiteering at the expense of Americans who don't sit on corporate boards and can't afford a $200,000 membership at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach. Trump has flip-flipped on his own campaign promises and handed over Americans' right to privacy to those with the deepest pockets."

Looking at it from an entirely different angle was the Association of National Advertisers, which had pushed the FCC to reconsider the rules and Congress to repeal them.

“This rule would have required vast amounts of innocuous information to be treated suddenly as highly sensitive and needing opt-in consent from consumers," ANA said in a statement. "This is an important major step to help assure a level playing field for privacy regulation for all businesses, and to see to it that consumers will not be bombarded with incessant opt-in notices. ANA also is pleased that the leadership of the FCC and FTC have committed to working cooperatively to return primary regulatory authority over privacy issues to the Federal Trade Commission, which is where we think it should rightfully belong due to the FTC’s long history of oversight and expertise in the privacy arena.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), a longtime advocate for privacy online, particularly of children, and a frequent critic of media companies, said the rule rollback "will give giant internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T an open invitation to more easily collect, share, and sell your personal information without your consent."

“All Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, and I believe that right extends to the internet,” said Franken, ranking member of the Senate Privacy Subcommittee. “Your digital footprint—the sites you browse, the apps you use, and the sensitive data you provide to websites—deserves to be protected. President Trump has made a grave mistake by signing this disastrous legislation, which will deepen the pockets of big internet conglomerates like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T by allowing them to more easily broker your private information. This law is as anti-consumer as it gets—it gives broadband providers free rein to collect, share, and auction off your data to the highest bidder without your consent. Your privacy is under threat, and I plan to fight back. We cannot allow corporate profits to outweigh consumer privacy rights.”

Advertisers representing a quarter trillion dollars in advertising and marketing spending want so-called "walled garden" digital ad platforms to allow for independent audits by the Media Rating Council, which was established by Congress to monitor ratings services.

The Association of National Advertisers Friday called on edge-provider powerhouses including Amazon, Foursquare, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, and Twitter to "embrace transparency" and "break down" those walled gardens.

That comes after Facebook and YouTube announced they would allow for independent MRC audits and after ANA polled its members and found that 89% say the development is either very or moderately positive.

"In an era of concerns about transparency in the advertising supply chain, independent audits of the large digital enterprises by the MRC are very positive developments. Furthermore, it’s clear from the ANA survey that there is overwhelming support from client-side marketers for independent audits by the Media Rating Council," ANA said Friday (March 17).


Among the reasons members cited for wanting those walls to come down:

• “The more transparency we have from vendors on data and performance, the greater advertisers

can trust the platform.”

• “So metrics can be validated by a third party and aren’t only self-reported.”

• “Can compare within the wall to outside it.”

• “To develop holistic plans that cross multiple platforms, it’s critical that we have some level of consistency in metrics.”

Ad campaigns from Comcast and Univision were honored at the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) Multicultural Excellence Awards in Los Angeles at the group's annual diversity conference.

The awards go to client side marketers as well as their media partners and agencies. Comcast and agency Burrell Communications in the print category, and Univision and ts agency Blanco Lorenz in the business-to-business category were among were a dozen Grand Prize winners this year.

“My congratulations go out to all the winners of this year’s competition for their outstanding work and their overall contributions to multicultural advertising and marketing,” said ANA president Bob Liodice in a statement. “Their work is an inspiration for our entire industry and serves as an example to other marketers and agencies who are striving to excel in the all-important multicultural arena.”

A portion of the entry fees for the awards goes to sponsor scholarships for multicultural students in advertising and marketing.

Stay tuned for this important message: Advertisers, more than 700 of them, oppose the FCC's set-top box proposal in its current form.

One of MVPDs' big concerns is once third parties get access to their content and data, it will be re-monetized, including new ads placed on top or around that content and data, without their permission.

But advertisers, who theoretically would have a new platform for their ads, are no less concerned than MVPDs at the prospect, if an FCC filing by the Association of National Advertiser is any indication.

The ANA told the FCC that the proposal would have "significant and undesirable" consequences, including jeopardizing advertising's contributions to the economy, which equates to some $3.4 trillion to the GDP and $25 billion annually for MVPDs. The ANA said the proposal threatens the rights and obligations of protected material, and interferes with free expression. In short, it does not serve the public interest.

The organization also noted it was not against navigation device proposals per se, but about ensuring, whatever device is used, that ad interests are protected.

The FCC proposal, the ANA said, does not do that. Instead, it has potential draconian effects including less content, fewer distributors of programming, higher consumer costs and less innovation.