- From: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:57:58 -0700
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>, "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: <CAOYJvnKKrH4LhWgj1k9uWqkx3UAyFesUpDNja4KaOJ3aK=rhVw@mail.gmail.com>
We understand that the advertising industry would be very unhappy if explicit non-consent from a consumer prevented frequency capping. >From privacy groups' perspective, there cannot be a Do Not Track standard that allows unique IDs for frequency capping of non-consenting users. Fortunately this is not an impasse, because there are many possible technical methods to do f-capping without ID cookies or other strong tracking measures. Such methods are the obvious (and as far as I can see, the only possible) compromise for f-capping. The job of this working group is to write some compromise language that says "you can do f-capping provided it is not achieved by tracking each user or small group of users". And the advertising industry groups can help by bringing a few of their members' key engineers to look at that language and spread the word: "yes, we can do that". On 11 July 2012 15:26, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> wrote: > I believe Chris Mejia entirely misunderstood my note yesterday, and the > thread has since careened into a conversation about the business > relationships and economic value associated with frequency capping. While > those topics appear to have been educational for some participants—please > continue!—that was not at all my aim. > > I want to have a software engineering discussion about how frequency > capping is currently implemented, and how it might be implemented in ways > that better protect consumer privacy. The CEO of AppNexus was kind enough > to give details of his company's implementation which, as he explained, > does not neatly integrate into a privacy-preserving approach. Leonid > Litvin from PulsePoint suggested that the algorithm I proposed—which is > compatible with a privacy-preserving approach—might work. Let's pick up > from there. > > Jonathan > > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Tamir Israel 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: > 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 > > > -- Peter
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 00:58:26 UTC