President-elect Barack Obama has already been recognized as one of the most Web-savvy chief executives our country has seen. This weekend, he solidified that position by doing a public address on YouTube on Saturday. There is also speculation that he his use of e-mail and smartphone will be ended with significant adjustments. Up until now, presidents have largely avoided using e-mail while in office because of the security threat as well as the digital paper trail that it creates for a world leader.

However, more interesting to marketers than the channels he is using is the online policy that he supports. Obama is outspoken in his support for net neutrality. While the debate between ISPs looking to block content in order to control usage and protect users and content providers pushing for accessibility and high speed access rages - Obama is clear in his desire to open up access to the Web.  According to Reuters we may see legislation to this effect as early as January when the president-elect takes office.

Forever 21, the teen-focused (or wanna-be-a-teen-focused) clothing chain, has revealed that the credit card numbers accessed in a massive data breach in January of this year actually dated all the way back to 2003 in some cases.

According to Evan Schuman’s StorefrontBacktalk, “the almost 100,000 credit and debit cards accessed from the chain in a breach included transactions from 2003 through 2005, which was stored on a corporate data center, apparently in violation of PCI rules.”

Other stores involved in the same data breach (TJ Maxx and Sports Authority among them) had data stolen via “wardriving,” ie, the thieves hacked into point of sale data through stores’ unprotected wireless Internet. Forever 21, on the other hand, reported that their data was taken directly from a corporate data center.

Also weird: all the data from 2003-2005 seems to have come from a single store in Fresno, CA.

This makes me curious about whether it was really the same hackers — why would they take one tactic with nearly a dozen other stores, and this with another? Any experts out there care to venture a guess on this?

The news today that Target has settled a class-action lawsuit from the National Federation of the Blind comes as a victory not only for the vision impaired, but for others who have difficulty accessing the Web due to mobility issues.  A California court has mandated that Target use specific technology and site design elements to make its e-commerce site more accessible.

Target will establish a $6 million settlement fund from which litigants in the California lawsuit can make claims. In addition, Target and the federation also have agreed to a three-year relationship during which the National Federation of the Blind will perform accessibility testing of Target.com.

Accessibility standards for the disabled have been set by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, World Wide Web Consortium and the Americans with Disabilities Act. While some may raise legal questions about which organizations should be mandated to meet these standards, clearly marketers who don’t pursue accessibility for the broadest range of shoppers risk disenfranchising many, many more.

I did something last night that I have never done before: I bought a swimsuit online.

I’d been contemplating getting a new suit for a while, but the situation became urgent when I agreed to go to the beach with my boyfriend’s extended family for Labor Day weekend. I realized that if I was going to avoid mortifying Grandma (a Catholic Sister, seriously), I might want to look into a modest one-piece suit.

I went online, thinking it would be the easiest and fastest way, and I was surprised to find, on a pretty well-known catalog site, a few trouble-spots that were really a turn-off. These details may seem minor, but when you’re working with people like me, who generally abhor Internet shopping, it really helps to keep these basics in mind:

1.) I want to buy a product, not a person. A majority of the swimwear sites I looked at featured buxom models gallivanting in the suits — which is fine. What’s not fine is that they didn’t feature in-depth shots of the suits on their own (front, back, close-up). It’s nice to see that the products are wearable, and that people seem to have an awesome time with them, but I really need to see the nitty-gritty too, like: Is it cut in a way that will fit me (not of the buxom model variety)? and Does it have weird details that are covered up by a model’s arm?

2.) I need to know my information is safe. Most sites are great at this, asking for that special code on the back of your credit card, displaying messages about security, etc. But, again, on this big catalog site, there was nothing. I simply keyed in my billing address and my credit card info, and the transaction was done before I knew what hit me. A little scary.

3.) Be as clear as possible when communicating to shoppers. I received an e-mail confirmation with an “Order Number,” and was told I could track my purchase on the site. I clicked the link, and it asked for my “Customer Number” — which is not the same as my order number, and which I can’t seem to find anywhere. This problem is almost certainly a case of user error, but, all the same, I feel like it could have been avoided if some extra steps had been taken by the vendor.

So I’m stuck, waiting on a suit that I am not able to track, that may not come on time and may not look at all like I thought, and I’m worrying that my credit card information is going to end up in the wrong hands.

To DMNews readers who shop online, I’m curious: Is this something that happens often? How can online retailers improve the experience?

Earlier this week, the FCC announced that it would be reviewing rules on how TV shows inform viewers of in-show advertising practices. IE: that Gossip Girl episode that was pretty much an hour-long (and delightfully drama-filled!) Victoria’s Secret commercial may be the sort of thing that comes with a disclaimer in the future.
The Washington Post quoted FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin explaining, “We want to make sure consumers understand and are aware that they are being advertised to. We ask how we should update our rules to reflect current trends in the industry.”
In a way, he’s right: it’s probably better to be safe than sorry when it comes to transparency.
On the other hand, I’m a little bit offended that they feel the need to warn us of these things. How many people really don’t think that Victoria’s Secret paid to be mentioned 9 bajillion times during a much-talked-about primetime show? And if they don’t realize it, is it really hurting them?
If a marketer is clever enough to organically integrate their product into a show, kudos to them: I think it makes the show more believable because, yes, real people do shop at chain stores and drink Coca-Cola and eat at McDonald’s…though maybe not the people on Gossip Girl. If you’re getting your brand name out there without annoying consumers and maybe even adding to their favorite shows, I would call that great marketing, and not a threat.

This week’s AOTA conference was a meeting of minds for online marketers who specialize in security and online trust. As consumers get more tools in their hands to create and communicate on the Web, so too do the bad guys.

And the main consensus at the show is that there are a lot of bad guys out there. But still more good guys, which is where the industry meetings come in. The industry is doing a lot to work together to police these issues. And while it is a dangerous world, technology can help. Michael Barrett, chief information security officer at PayPal, equated these products to the seat belt. They don’t save every life, but they sure do help a lot.

One of the big issue that has really been discussed at this show is consumer education. If consumers knew that the IRS does not send e-mail, then they wouldn’t be opening e-mails from spammers dressed up in sheep’s clothing. (Especially those people excited about getting their stimulus checks). But the industry is starting to get involved. MySpace, Craigslist, eBay and PayPal are all actively trying to educate consumers in a move to build trust and safety online. Be it through technology, education and working with law enforcement, the Internet can still be a very safe place.

Yesterday, while reading about a promotion Dockers is doing, I saw a familiar company name: Livemercial. Being that I recently covered the online ad firm’s acquisition of RecruiTV, I was interested to see what the company was up to.

The Levi Strauss-owned brand had launched a user-generated video contest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The contest prompted viewers to create and submit their own “livemercials” for Dockers brand pants. Viewers can watch the Mixercast-powered videos and vote for their favorite on NBC’s site. Wait. Mixercast? What about Livemercial?

The company, which has its own streaming video platform, actually has nothing to do with the promotion. And thus, it filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against NBC Universal, Levi Strauss, Draftfcb and Mixercast. Since then, the contest has been dubbed the “Make Your Own Dockers Commercial Contest.”

According to Online Media Daily, a Livemercial lawyer said the company may be willing to settle out of court. Time will tell whether this case will ever actually make it in front of a judge. Regardless, the winning entry of the video contest will air on June 13 on the Tonight Show.

As serendipity would have it, the day after writing this post about the need for more industry people to speak up in defense of direct mail, I attended ALC’s For Brokers Only luncheon (a delightful event with fantastic food, great company and a worryingly close encounter with the sparkliest ballroom dancers I ever saw) and heard Donn Rappaport, CEO of ALC as well as this year’s DMA chairman, talk about this very subject.

During his speech, Rappaport revealed that the DMA has corralled a bunch of “celebrity” spokespeople – high-profile retail CEOs and the like – to help educate consumers why a do-not-mail bill will be harmful, and to put some of the environment facts and figures into perspective. This is a vital effort, as proved in our DMNews/Pitney Bowes survey on Direct Mail and the Environment (pdf) last December, which revealed that 48.4% of the consumers we polled thought that advertising mail accounted for 53% of total municipal waste. (If I were the type to use exclamation points, I would have added one there. It’s a shocking figure.)

More details of the DMA’s campaigns will be forthcoming. But it’s refreshing to hear the likes of Rappaport acknowledge that perhaps the DMA hasn’t been as proactive as it could be on this matter, and that its leadership cannot do this alone.

A worthy Des Moines Register op-ed on why banning “junk mail” will be bad for consumers can be found here, flagged up by the Direct Marketing Association in today’s 3-D e-mail blast.

I’m not sure if this article was something retired postmaster Jane Littrel simply wrote through real concern for the issue, or if it was also part of an orchestrated effort by pro-mail parties – either way, the DM industry needs more of these concerned parties to help consumers understand the big picture of what would happen if advertising mail were to be restricted or curtailed altogether.

While the DMA’s John Greco has been busy of late, having letters published in outlets from Advertising Age (sub req’d.) to The Wall Street Journal recently, the subjects he is covering range from green marketing to Internet sales tax to, yes the do-not-mail legislation. As admirable as his efforts are, his voice alone is going to stretch thin if unamplified. Op-eds like Littrel’s help at the local, grassroots level. Let us know if you see other examples.

The Federal Trade Commission yesterday announced the latest developments in its Project FAL$E HOPE$, a federal and state law enforcement sweep targeting bogus business opportunities and work-at-home scams.
In addition to new and developing cases of law enforcement actions by the FTC, the report holds as new education materials for advertising sales staff on screening ads. Essentially these guidelines follow the adage: ‘Anything that looks too good to be true, probably is.’
A document called, “Ads for Business Opportunities: How to Detect Deception,