Who owns the data ?
Global event auditor BPA president and CEO Glenn Hansen discusses the need for standards in digital events , including data ownership
In June 2020 , BPA Worldwide published an open letter to the industry on the subject of data leakage in the digital advertising bidstream . At the time , this was in the early days of the Covid pandemic and digital events and exhibitions were just becoming du jour . Our writing at that time pertained to the digital eco-system and the processes of programmatic buying and selling . With the advent of the header bidder process , advertising inventory gets exposed to all interested parties simultaneously . To aid the buyers ’ evaluation process , the inventory that is available exposes user data to all those bidding on the ad space . It is designed to help advertisers reach their target audience with an efficient buying process . However , during the process some data platforms bid on advertising space with no intention of winning the bid . Rather , they are there to harvest web users ’ data and convert that information into products and services . The data harvester could then monetise this to the detriment of the media company originally offering the user an ad . Generally , media companies were not aware of their users ’ data being harvested in the bidstream . The signatories to our open letter worked with BPA to refresh IAB standard terms and conditions ( T & Cs ) to better address data ownership . This draft of the T & Cs is available for use if you are currently negotiating a contract . So , what of the exhibitions industry ? Clearly the Covid-19 crisis has disrupted exhibitors – both large and small – as much as the travel industry ( and a few others ). As a result , we witnessed a shift from face-to-face exhibiting opportunities to those that were virtual only . This shift was quick and without much industry oversight for those digital event platforms ( DEPs ) providing the technology . ( It was last reported to me that there are more than 300 such companies offering services to exhibitors today .) A number of exhibitors of digital events approached us – having utilised audited audience data from the face-toface events they attended – and asked whether new metrics would be used for attendance and demographic data such that digital events could be evaluated based on UFI ’ s prized ‘ approved status ’ as they had done for in-person events . This prompted some research on our part , and we found a general lack of standards pertaining to exhibitors across the DEPs . Terms were not commonly defined . Criteria necessary to meet a definition were not universal . There was no norm for the format of the data . We organised a tripartite Reporting
Glenn Hansen
Standards for Digital Events ( RSDE ) working group comprised of exhibitors , event organisers , data analysers , and DEPs to tackle the subject . Our project has three phases . First , to recommend digital event metrics to UFI for incorporation in its Auditing Rules for the Statistics of UFI Approved Events . Second , to establish digital event standards for a taxonomy , criteria , and data format , ‘ RSDE ’, as well as a compliance programme to check that DEP technology adheres to the standards . Accomplishing this enables organisers to comparison shop in comfort . Third , to offer standard terms and conditions for organisers to consider when establishing data ownership with a digital event platform . We came upon phase three after asking ourselves , “ Are the DEPs similar to bidstream data harvesters ?” When exhibitors evaluate digital events and their accompanying DEPs , are they considering whether organisers are paying attention to contracts ? Are they addressing who owns the data , how the data is stored , and for what the data can be used ? Some DEPs look to use data to create “ always open ” marketplaces rather than one-off events . Are these marketplaces owned by the event organiser from whom attendee data is being collected ? Is attendee data to be anonymised and shared across all event organisers using the same DEP ? And what data – if any – is owned or accessible by the exhibitor ? Our working group completed phase one in late March and UFI approved the amendments in June and have released refreshed audit rules for Approved Event status . We are currently reviewing our work with industry organisations such that phase two will be available for public comment mid-summer . Phase three is being undertaken and we expect release for public comment by summer ’ s end . I look forward to hearing thoughts from all perspectives on the matter .
September — 55