Privacy concerns continue to plague consumers’ minds. As savvy as we have become about making purchases offline, the average Internet user is still not aware of how surfing and downloading activities are tracked online. Privacy groups are raising the red flags, calling for a do-not-track list at the October FTC town hall meeting and marketers are responding to public backlash on aggressive tracking. AOL’s program to inform its users when and how they can opt out of behavioral targeting and Facebook’s apology over its Beacon program are just a couple of examples.

As a consumer who often purchases online and has several social networking profiles, I must admit I do pick and choose where to leave my information. I sometimes choose to re-enter my credit card information, rather than have the site save it for me. I also do not want to show the type of music I like to my whole entourage on Facebook. Yet, I do like it when Amazon recognizes me when I come back to the site in a frantic mode to buy something I should have ordered three days ago. I also appreciate that they have kept both my work and home addresses on file.

Not all tracking is bad – in fact, most of the time, it makes life easier for online consumers. Customization and relevant messaging are made possible with behavioral tracking. To many, the Internet is an amorphous, intangible space. The notion of being tracked down online should not be like sitting behind two-way mirrors. Marketers’ challenge is in educating consumers without closing the door to meaningful content delivery. Consumers will need to understand the basic benefits of behavioral tracking and be in control of their information. Those companies who deliver quality service and maintain authentic and meaningful relations with their customers will be granted access to their information.

A new study being completed by UC Davis may show that eating "local" could actually harm the environment. How could that be, you ask?

Sure, local foods usually are fresher. And it's good to support farmers, especially neighbors and local ones. But there's a reason that large, industrialized modern U.S. farms provide more food at lower cost than farmers anywhere else in the world ... it's called "efficiency." And it turns out that's one of the advantages of large, modern U.S. farms ... they're very efficient in shipping and delivering our food to grocery stores, restaurants and other places where we consumers buy it every day. This efficiency lowers the "carbon footprint" of these foods being shipped to grocery stores and restaurants, compared to the small, local farmers who drive their pick-up trucks, SUV's and other less efficient vehicles to stores, restaurants, farmer markets, etc. ... each with just a small load of produce, fruits and vegetables or eggs.

While it's easy to support small, local farmers .... remember that "big" doesn't mean "bad" when it comes to farming. Sometimes it actually means "better."

Activists have been deluging city councils recently, demanding that they ban bottled water in the cities. Activists say that these bottles are bad for the environment, that they use too much energy to make and fill our overtaxed landfills. To the activists' delight, city councils are rolling over to the activists' demands. Dozens of city councils have adopted bans of bottle water in municipal buildings and meetings.
The problem with this approach is this: without bottled water, consumers drink canned soft drinks, bottled fruit juices, or bottled sports drinks. 70% of the beverages that consumers drink come in packages. Shouldn't these city councils ban all packaged beverages then? Come to think of it, shouldn't they also ban all packaged food? Of course not. So why single out bottled water, which is actually healthier than many of its competitors?

Don't city council members believe that their constituents can make educated, informed decisions about their own food and beverage purchases?

A recent New York Times article on embedded giving (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16giving.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), explores Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) announcement of plans to introduce federal legislation this week to better regulate this fast-growing fund-raising practice, which involves building a gift to charity into everyday purchases. This fundraising tactic is often abused -- some programs fail to disclose what part of a transaction will go to charity, others fail to name the charity that will benefit (or even notify them!), and often, consumers have no way of knowing if their money actually went to charity and how much was raised overall. Menendez is exploring measures to address all of these issues.

This legislation would be an important national step toward helping consumers have a better understanding of how their dollars are being used – and ensuring that charity is not being used solely as a sales/marketing/PR tactic. (For example, when a company positions itself as a leader in the struggle to eradicate breast cancer while actually engaging in practices that may be contributing to rising rates of the disease, it’s knownn as “pinkwashing.”)

Some nonprofits do have in-house legal counsel who can deal with companies who use their names without permission – but if they don’t know about it beforehand, all they can do is issue a cease-and-desist and consider further legal action, they can’t put the horse back in the barn after a company has publicly claimed an association with them and their mission. New Jersey’s new (2006) regulations could be a model for federal legislation; they require all embedded giving programs to provide the state with copies of the contract between the charity and the retailer at least 10 days before they start; retailers and manufacturers involved in the program must also report the amount raised; and the charities involved must report how much was actually given to them.