By Reed Albergotti
Online retailers and publishers are pushing back against
Facebook Inc.'s efforts to track users across the Internet, fearing
that the data it vacuums up to target ads will give the social
network too much of an edge.
Web traffic experts say there is less data flowing from some
sites to Facebook, suggesting they have been reprogrammed to hold
back information.
Facebook has long kept track of the websites its users visit
when they aren't on the social network. Three months ago, it began
using the data to build more detailed user profiles, allowing
advertisers to target people with more personalized marketing
pitches.
That has rankled some retailers, advertisers and Internet
publishers, which worry that the wider use of browsing history will
hand Facebook, and potentially their own rivals, more information
about existing and prospective customers.
In response, some businesses appear to have changed their sites
to send less data to Facebook; others say they are considering such
moves.
The change "freaked everyone out and rightly so," says Vivek
Vaidya, co-founder and chief technology officer at Krux Digital
Inc., which helps large online media companies manage their data.
Mr. Vaidya said he has spoken to several media clients and "all of
them, to some degree, have expressed concern about this."
The concern underscores the love-hate relationship between
website owners and Facebook. Publishers, for instance, like it when
their content is shared among Facebook's 1.3 billion users, as they
hope to win new readers. And online retailers have had success
combining their data with the social network's to track customers
online.
But both groups are wary of Facebook's huge store of data. While
other websites keep track of individuals who stop by, noting them
by their computers, the difference is that Facebook has real
names--allowing it to do more with the information that accumulates
about a person's browsing and shopping habits. Facebook, meanwhile,
has grown into an advertising juggernaut, with expected revenue of
$12.2 billion this year, putting it in direct competition with
publishers for ad dollars.
Facebook says it hasn't yet begun using data from other sites.
When it does, it will let publishers opt out of the system, a
spokesman said, though doing so might reduce how much of their
content is seen by other Facebook users.
Publishers and advertisers that want users to share content on
Facebook install a small bit of Facebook code, called a pixel, on
their sites; the pixel is often associated with Facebook's "Like"
and "Share" buttons. Many websites have installed the code,
allowing the social network to record a significant amount of
Internet activity.
Facebook places another bit of code, known as a cookie, on its
users' computers. When a user visits other websites that have
Facebook's code, Facebook can recognize the cookie, building a
record of how the user surfs the Web.
Facebook also can track users on their phones. Some mobile app
publishers, aiming to optimize their advertising on the social
network, let Facebook know the unique hardware identifiers of their
app users. Facebook can match the IDs to those of its own mobile
users.
(In order to access Facebook, all users are required to agree to
the company's terms of service, which allow for such data to be
collected.)
Daniel Cotlar is chief marketing officer for Blinds.com, a large
online retailer of window blinds and a Facebook advertiser. He
fears that Facebook will identify visitors to Blinds.com as
interested in home furnishings, and then help his competitors
advertise to them.
Mr. Cotlar said he is considering removing Facebook's trackers
from Blinds.com. "We haven't ripped it down yet, but we're talking
about it," he said.
A spokesman for Facebook said its profiles of users won't rely
too heavily on any one website, such as Blinds.com. The spokesman
said advertisers can opt out of allowing their data to be used in
ad targeting--but they won't be able to target users based on data
gathered from other sites.
Some publishers and retailers appear to have curbed how much
data they are sending to Facebook, according to Ghostery, a maker
of privacy software. Ghostery's software recognizes Facebook's
pixel code.
Ghostery says that across the Web, Facebook's pixels are sending
data back to Facebook as often as ever. But Ghostery says that
since the spring, it has seen Facebook's code less often on certain
well-known sites, including those of the New York Times Co., AirBnb
Inc., Williams-Sonoma Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Ghostery executives said those companies appear to have modified
the pixels on their sites. Chief Executive Scott Meyer said
Ghostery doesn't know why the companies modified the pixels, but
they may have wanted to send less data to Facebook.
Those companies declined to comment or didn't respond to
requests for comment.
A Facebook spokesman counters that some website operators may
have modified the pixels to speed the response of their sites.
John Strabley, director of strategy for Quaero, a firm that
helps companies like ESPN and MSNBC manage the customer data they
gather online, said many of his clients would rather not share data
with Facebook--but they don't want to miss out on the potential
traffic from readers who share their content on the social
network.
Mr. Strabley thinks sharing data with Facebook might help the
social network win advertising dollars that would otherwise go to
publishers.
Advertisers that want to reach sports fans, for example, may
choose targeted Facebook ads over ads on Sports Illustrated's
website.
Moreover, Facebook ads can be more cost-effective because they
allow advertisers to target specific demographic groups in narrow
geographic locations.
Online publishers are "sharing their entire audience back to
Facebook and what are they getting for it?" asks Mr. Strabley. "I
can pretty much guarantee that the value publishers are getting
from that is not worth it," he said.
Mr. Strabley wouldn't name the clients he said were
concerned.
Sports Illustrated, MSNBC and ESPN all declined to comment.
Marketers will spend more on digital ads than either newspapers
or magazines this year, according to eMarketer, in part because
advertisers can target digital ads to smaller subsections of
potential customers.
To be sure, many other companies, including Google Inc., track
the browsing histories of Internet users to help target
advertising. But advertisers say sending information to Google
doesn't scare them as much as sending information to Facebook,
mainly because Facebook knows users' real identities.
Google has to infer users' interests from Web browsing, which
can be misleading.
A Facebook spokesman said the company's personal data is
"better" than Google's, but Google's is similarly detailed.
Google declined to comment.
Write to Reed Albergotti at reed.albergotti@wsj.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires