- From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:42:37 -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: <026d01cd5fcf$9ebbf700$dc33e500$@otalliance.org>
Good discussion and vantage point. Knowing IE 10 will not be supported on earlier versions of Windows then Windows 7, I suggest relooking at the base that CAN install IE 10 as the baseline. Second it does reflect time spent online nor Microsoft's chance of winning the smart phone or tablet wars any time soon. Add to the fact in the EU users are presented a browser choice on first run, (unless this has changed), I will bet dinner in Seattle that IE will not surpass 20% on all web users (time spent) within 18 months of launch worldwide. In any case, IE will have an impact, not unlike Safari blocking 3P cookies and other trends and innovation. From: Chris Mejia [mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:22 PM To: Craig Spiezle; 'Tamir Israel' Cc: 'Grimmelmann, James'; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List; Mike Zaneis; Brendan Riordan-Butterworth Subject: Re: Frequency Capping First, I give MSFT the benefit of any market doubts- I don't think they are in the game to lose- or at least not lose more market share than they have already. IE 10 represents a major upgrade (as compared with the most recent previous versions), as it's tightly coupled with the long anticipated Windows 8. What's unique about Windows 8 is that its a SINGLE OS that's designed to work across multiple devices: personal computers, phones, tablets, and smart televisions. Accordingly, IE 10 will be installed with installations of Windows 8, on ALL those devices that run Windows 8 (as opposed to previous versions of IE that were largely only installed on PCs). >From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8): According to the Windows Design Team, Windows 8 has been "reimagined from the chipset to the user experience," <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#cite_note-5> [6] whereas Windows 7 was intended to be a more focused, incremental upgrade to the Windows line. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#cite_note-6> [7] Windows 8 features a new user interface based on Microsoft's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language)> Metro design language, similar to that in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone> Windows Phone. The new interface is designed to better suit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen> touchscreen input, along with traditional mouse and keyboard input. A version of Windows 8, called <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT> Windows RT, also adds support for the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture> ARM processor architecture in addition to the previously supported x86 microprocessors from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel> Intel, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices> AMD and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Technologies> VIA. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#cite_note-7> [8] 30% (+/-) is a number that many have predicted, based on Microsoft's current installed base of IE- it's a forward looking number (see graphic below or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCo unter).svg). Loyal IE users will eventually upgrade to IE 10, especially as MSFT will eventually stop supporting previous versions. My educated bet is that MSFT will continue at or around 30% of the browser market, so long as browsers are even relevant for accessing content. Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter).svg.png Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB | chris.mejia@iab.net |w 212-380-4711 | c 347-949-8279 | Skype christopheramejia | AIM oskibearchris | Twitter @oskibearchris | LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrismejia From: Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:41:30 -0400 To: Chris Mejia - IAB <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 - IAB <mike@iab.net>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth - IAB <brendan@iab.net> Subject: RE: Frequency Capping 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 http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0http://mark etshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0 Description: cid:image004.png@01CD4FBE.784D6110 Thanks 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 sportsmanship. 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: 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
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image002.png
- image/png attachment: image003.png
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 01:43:28 UTC