W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Frequency Capping

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:08:06 +0000
To: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
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>
Message-ID: <CC235D16.1FC4B%chris.mejia@iab.net>
Thanks Tamir.  I stand corrected--consumers who elect to express DNT:1 MAY
not have completely opted out of the value exchange, you're right.
However, their relative value to the value exchange certainly goes down.
To further explain, when users see un-targeted (randomly placed) ads that
are not based on their general interests, they are likely to ignore those
ads.  In ignoring those misplaced ads, it's a double-whammy on industry:
we pay to serve ads that the consumer will never engage with, nor buy
their products/services.  Obviously this decreases the relative value of
that consumer engagement and lowers the overall revenue the publisher may
charge an advertiser in connection with the serving of the advertiser's
ads to that non-targeted consumer.  In this case, f-capping would be even
more important from a cost-savings perspective; the more non-relevant ads
I serve a consumer, the more cost associated-- f-capping limits delivery
and thus limits costs.  Also, it's probably not a stretch to assume that
many advertisers may not want to serve their ads at all to consumers who
are expressing DNT:1.  Enter the digital divide once again: anti-targeting
may lead to a situation where the only ads being served to 'lower-value'
DNT:1 users are the ones everyone would rather avoid (annoying content ads
that are served only on a CPA basis).  Premium content ads are generally
very expensive to produce and serve (premium rich media ads cost more to
serve), so my educated guess is that advertisers wont want to take a
chance on where they will spend money serving these ads.  So imagine that
premium advertisers contractually obligate their publishers to set
f-capping at 0/24 for DNT:1 users (this means that the premium ad would
never be shown to the DNT:1 user).  To play the end game, if DNT:1 signals
were ubiquitous on the Web, the overall value of "free access" publishing
would go down and I believe there would be a rapid proliferation of
payment gateways in response (the money to pay for content and innovation
has to come from somewhere). Once again, enter the new digital divide
(where the 'haves' pay for access and the 'have nots" are denied access,
based on financial ability to pay), courtesy of this working group, IF we
don't get it right.

Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB



On 7/11/12 1:15 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:

>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 21:08:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:52 UTC