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

RE: Frequency Capping

From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:41:30 -0400
To: "'Chris Mejia'" <chris.mejia@iab.net>, "'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: <01b101cd5fc7$150a2750$3f1e75f0$@otalliance.org>
Can you help us understand where your 30% number comes from?   It has taken
16 months since launch for IE 9 to capture 19% of the desktop based on users
(and this does not reflect mobile users where effectively IE is nonexistent)


While I do not disagree IE will have an impact, being realistic it is much
smaller than being suggested.   Based on market competition, I doubt IE 10
adoption will surpass IE 9.  .  (data source


Description: cid:image004.png@01CD4FBE.784D6110





From: Chris Mejia [mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:13 PM
To: Tamir Israel
Cc: Grimmelmann, James; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List; Mike Zaneis;
Brendan Riordan-Butterworth
Subject: Re: Frequency Capping


Hi Tamir,


Thanks for your reply--I appreciate the friendly nature of our back and
forth based on reaching a mutual understanding of positions. It's only
through this kind of friendly exchange that it might be possible for this
group to reach any sort of consensus, so I sincerely applaud you


I wish I could agree with this assertion:


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;


With Microsoft already shipping IE10 with DNT:1 defaulted to "on", there
will soon be 30+ percent of users broadcasting the DNT:1 signal.  30% may
not be ubiquitous in its own right, but if you factor in say one of two more
large 'trusted agents' defaulting to DNT:1 OR encouraging DNT:1, I think we
might reach ubiquity fairly quickly.  If the W3C has the power to stop
companies like MSFT from shipping this way, I'd love to see that happen
(unfortunately I don't think it's a likely outcome). Further to my point,
what happens when the UI of a trusted agent (say a Norton and/or Symantec)
asks users the question, "Do you want to be tracked?" without any other
context offered (this case is supported by most advocates on this forum)?
Naturally, people will opt to answer that context-lacking question "no" and
DNT:1 will be broadcast.  Unfortunately, controlling the ubiquity of DNT:1
signals being sent may now be well out of reach of the W3C's prevue in the
US, as it would be a voluntary spec here.  Some companies will encourage the
setting of DNT:1, others will not discourage it and I think we are at
ubiquity (or close to it).  This gets back to my original point when joining
the working group: without a clear definition and understanding of DNT:1 to
the user (what it means to the user AND to publishers), any mechanism
relying on the signal as a user-set-intention is fundamentally flawed.


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





On 7/11/12 5:29 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:


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:


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


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).







(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 00:42:14 UTC

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