Much ado about nothing
Nov 5th, 2007 by Mark
Most newspapers are losing larges portions of readers to the net everyday. The net is absorbing loads of content, and with it comes “eyeballs” — as we used to say — and clicks. Eyeballs and clicks are money. Unfortunately many see this as an opportunity to make themselves feel better by treating us as children.
Don’t track me, bro!
The ‘do not track’ insanity is moving ahead like a “Casey Jones” guided train . So-called “consumer advocates” — nothing more than anti-business forces in most cases — are attempting to apply a failed metaphor once again.
The idea that the net is like the ‘real world’ is laughable, yet they persist in their short-sighted desperation to usurp more power from those to whom it belongs — that’s you btw.
Consumer protection advocates are pushing hard for the adoption of a “Do Not Track” list that would make it harder for online advertisers to monitor the surfing habits of Web users. The measure is designed to protect the privacy of consumers who don’t want marketers to keep tabs on the sites they visit and then deliver ads based on what those sites say about a person’s interests.
First, the list assumes only one point of track-ability. See the problem yet? With a phone, the list is tied to number. On the internet, you can have a different IP address every hour depending on your habits and ISP, or how many computers you use.
and the downside is what
Let’s think now: home computer, laptop, cell phone — forgot about that one didn’t you –, ’smart’ devices — refrigerator, toaster, car, pda, etc… –, and who knows what in the future. Implants anyone? Can I get a ‘do not track’ list for my laser finger and PDA brain implant?
This alone points out the absurdity of the ‘do not track list’. Then there is this
… a Do Not Track list could actually increase the volume of online ads, according to Web advertising companies.
This is a bit misguided as well. The article points to ad networks — Google adwords, textads, Microsoft’s network of ad serving, etc… — as having to serve more ads to make up for revenue loss. While I agree this is true, I don’t think it’s as extreme as they make out to be.
The reason for the potential ad increase is related to a key difference between telemarketing and online advertising. When individual consumers add their names to the Do Not Call Registry, they stop receiving sales phone calls altogether. Web surfers who join the proposed Do Not Track list, however, would still see online ads, just not ads targeted specifically to them. Ad networks argue that, because targeting increases ad prices, each ad seen by those on the list would be cheaper than ads seen by people not on the list. Thus, a Web site probably would have to show more ads to compensate for the loss of revenue from targeted ads.
The problem with this is that most ads are not driven by user tracking. Most ads on the largest sites, however are.
Most ads are contextual. Google’s ads are the number one ad source on the net, they are contextual. Beyond that affiliates ads are close behind, again context driven. [note: this is my opinion based upon experience].
So who would this hurt?
Ad Networks — Well the ad networks would be hurt of course, as they would not be able to charge the higher prices for these premium adserves. If they did have to serve more ads, then you have higher bandwidth costs. Plus you then have to sell more ads, that means more commissions, more design fees for companies who may cut back. On and on it goes. Net out they make less money, not that less money is being spent; it’s just not going to ad networks.
Publishers — you know them as sites –, however only the largest in my opinion.
And the sites most likely to be flooded with ads as a result of a Do Not Track list are also some of the most popular. Top news sites and social networks, such as Facebook and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace, where users supply a broad array of content, do not have the clear product association of, say, an autos site. They rely heavily on advertising networks or search providers such as Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) to supply the additional targeting needed to raise the price of their advertising inventory.
They may see a down swing in revenues, however I don’t think it would be that substantial and it can be offset by targeting ads just as publishers have done for years.
Software developers — Yes the ones who rely on programs that install and track your web browsing and pays them commissions. This of course means that all those nasty web trackers go out of business.
Well maybe, and not immediately. Some are not within the reach of U.S. law, although you know the “consumer advocates” who vote for Dems will suddenly want aggressive enforcement offshore of our laws. Still that would take years.
Messenger Users — Anyone who uses a free messenger service. More ads, maybe even inappropriate ads.
So who in the end would be hurt? Many say the people that leech off of society would be the losers. I say lots of people. Some good, some bad, some just trying to make living doing what they enjoy.
Mostly it’s us. We will pay for the bandwidth, the stupid flash ads competing against animated gifs competing against java ads, competing against javascript moving our windows ads … We lose.
Unintended Consequences
And what of Alexa? How will they go about tracking? Will they be exempt? It is indirectly used for advertising.
What about those toolbars, such at Stumbleupon, Google, Yahoo? Will they now be outlawed?
What of Firefox? They made 30 million — I believe that’s the number — from the search box in the browser in 2006 I believe.
What of affiliates? Will they lose out now as well? Will the ads have to be removed that track your affiliate number?
Oh come on you really think these nanny-staters are going to stop at merely stopping advertisers from tracking you directly?
How much money will this cost? Will John Murtha give up his precious earmarks to pay for this? I doubt it. It has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is you and me.
Most importantly, will you have a choice to opt-in, or is your freedom to be handed over to some mindless drone — bureaucrat — toiling away in the Ministry of Privacy?
This is what happens when people intoxicated by power, and devoid of common sense start getting a little traction. Sadly we are now listening to those who believe we are too stupid to protect ourselves, and believing them. Not good.
Do we need privacy laws? Yes. Do we need this one? No. Thank you, no.