Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Rob,

To again be clear this has nothing specifically to do with targeted
advertising.  If we envision a world with only contextually targeted ads,
they still need to be counted.  A party still certifies that a million
impressions were "quality" i.e. went to people not robots.  This honestly
has absolutely zero to do with turning targeted advertising into a
permitted use. 

But to your last point - do we care if DNT:1 requested ads result in lower
value?  I am hoping that your comment was not really thought through,
because, yes, I would hope that absolutely everyone, given likely adoption
rates, hopes this is not the case.  We aren't actually rooting for
publishers to make less money are we?! Is success here measured in privacy
protection or commercial failure?

-Brooks 

-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 10/26/12 3:17 PM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

>
>On 26-10-2012 21:05, David Wainberg wrote:
>> The issue boils down to the value of the advertising. The ability to
>> measure and verify online advertising is a huge component of its value.
>
>Exactly, I just want to note that IMHO this discussion goes towards a
>permitted use for targeted advertising. Would it be a bad outcome if the
>value of a non targeted ad for DNT=1 users has a low value?
>
>Rob
>

Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 20:34:17 UTC