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

Re: Frequency Capping

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:29:06 -0400
Message-ID: <4FFDF022.5010602@cippic.ca>
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>
OK Chris, I agree. I think my point was that DNT-1 is less a rejection 
of the value exchange than, say, AdBlock or a similar plugin.

I understand that targeted impressions are worth more and I've heard 
they generate more click-through.

I simply meant to say that DNT-1 a.) still allows impressions; and b.) 
still allows contextual targeting (by site, etc.), so its value is not '0'.

Two quick side notes:
I am not remotely convinced this spec is going to lead to ubiquitous 
DNT-1, and I don't think this working group is currently considering 
anything that might make this the case; and

Also, I am no longer saying there is no value to F-capping for DNT-1s. 
It makes sense to me that at least some types of advertisers would want 
to just reach 'everyone' so would purchase, say, 10 million impressions 
hoping to reach 5-10 million people (whether targeted or not). On this 
scale, there is a definite risk of a DNT-1 user seeing the same 
advertisement more than once, and also there is a benefit to maximizing 
the ad campaign's reach, as desired, so some form of frequency capping 
would seem to have value.

On 7/11/2012 5:08 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:
> 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 21:29:47 UTC

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