- From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:56:13 +0200
- To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 26-10-2012 22:33, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > 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 > Fair enough. Tell me, does the measurement work the same for CPM, CPC, CPA? If not, what are the differences? What interests me is whether privacy friendly alternatives are possible. For example, using a degraded identifier for DNT:1 users?
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 20:56:46 UTC