Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Rob,

So CPC is usually going to be under a 1st party exception because you are
1st party when you click (other than the redirection question).  CPA is a
conversation for another day.  It is likely not something that matters
visa vi MRC, but it is fair to say DNT is very, very hard on CPA.

With respect to privacy friendly alternatives - I am all for it.  I am
just looking to make sure everybody trusts the scales.  I don't really
care how they do it, just that we live in a world that has them.


-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 4:56 PM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

>
>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 21:15:15 UTC