- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 16:15:16 -0400
- To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- CC: "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>
Chris -- I personally found your explanation very useful so thank you. On 7/11/2012 3:27 PM, Chris Mejia wrote: > Advertisers have plenty of > reasonable business reasons to require f-capping in their contracts: i.e. > a) not annoy consumers with overdelivery when such annoyance leads to > negative advertiser brand association, and b) not needlessly waste ad > impressions and money on serving ads over and over again to users who have > opted out of the value exchange in the first place. It's not clear to me that selecting a DNT-1 means opting out of the value exchange. The very fact that you need to F-cap those who have chosen to send a DNT-1 seems to imply that these impressions remain valuable, at least to some extent (or, I imagine, no ad would be served at all and we need not worry about annoying users with repeated exposures or maximizing ROI). Best, Tamir
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2012 20:15:54 UTC