- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:29:06 -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>
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