Internet meetings are a pain in the behind. (Clearly online meeting software is controlled by the fossil fuel industry, and designed to be just flaky enough to make people drive to work instead.)
Here's a work in progress to get an MSIE VM running on Fedora. (Will edit as I check these steps a few times. Suggestions welcome.)
Download: Download virtual machines.
Untar the OVA
tar xvf IE10\ -\ Win8.ova
You should end up with a .vmdk file.
Convert the OVA to qcow2
qemu-img convert \ IE10\ -\ Win8-disk1.vmdk \ -O qcow2 msie.qcow2
Import the qcow2 file using virt-manager.
Select Browse, then Browse Local, then select the .qcow2 file.
That's it. Now looking at a virtual MS-Windows guest that I can use for those troublesome web conferences (and for testing web sites under MSIE. If you try the tracking test, it should take you to a protection page that prompts you to turn on the EasyPrivacy Tracking Protection List. That's a quick and easy way to speed up your web browsing experience on MSIE.)Posted Thu 22 Oct 2015 08:14:17 AM PDT
Users who recognize your brand will now see your advertisements displayed across thousands of websites, creating the impression of a large-scale advertising campaign, but for a fraction of the budget.
That's unrealistic. Users have figured out retargeting, and it's already motivating them to block ads.
As David Ogilvy once wrote,
The consumer is not
a moron, she is your wife. If retargeting is
something that you can explain in a blog post,
users who see it every day already have it figured out.
Users still aren't morons.
Following a user around the Internet with an ad creates the impression of following a user around the Internet with an ad. And that's about it.
Too often, adtech overcomplicates the technical side, but oversimplifies the human side. People who participate in markets are good applied behavioral economists, because they have to be. That goes for buyers as well as sellers.
The adtech scene assumes that we're in some kind of controlled experiment, where adtech people are the experimenters and users are the subjects. In fact, we're all market participants, everyone is an active player, and ignoring or blocking potentially deceptive information like retargeting is a reasonable move.Posted Sun 18 Oct 2015 07:00:50 AM PDT
News from California: Big month for conservation: Californians cut water use by 31% in July.
Governor Brown said to cut back by 25%, and people did 31%.
Why? We were watering and maintaining lawns because we were expected to, because everyone else was doing it. As soon as we had a good excuse to cut back, a lot of us did, even if we overshot the 25% target.
Today, advertising on the web has its own version of lawn care. Ad people have the opportunity to collect excess data. Everyone is stuck watering the data lawn and running the data mower. So the ad-supported web is getting mixed up with surveillance marketing, failing to build any new brands, and getting less and less valuable for everyone.
Clearly, the optimum amount of data to collect is not "as much as possible". If an advertiser is able to collect enough data to target an ad too specifically, that ad loses its power to communicate the advertiser's intentions in the market, and becomes just like spam or a cold call. By enabling users to confidently reduce the amount of information they share, advertisers make their own signal stronger. (Good explanation of signaling and advertising from Eaon Pritchard.)
Where's a good reason to justify a shift to higher-value advertising? Everybody wants to get out of the race to collect more and more, less and less useful, data. So what's a good excuse to start?
Could a good news frenzy do it? No IT company is better at kicking off a news frenzy than Apple, and now Apple is doing Content Blocking. Doc Searls covers Content Blocking's interaction with Apple's own ad business, and adds:
It's a start, but unfortunately, Big Marketing tends to take Apple's guidance remarkably slowly. Steve Jobs wrote Thoughts on Flash in 2010, and today, more than five years later, battery-sucking Flash ads are still a thing.
So even if Apple clobbers adtech companies over the head with a "Thoughts on Tracking" piece, expect a lot of inertia. (People who can move fast are already moving out of adtech to other things.)
Bob Hoffman writes:
The era of creepy tracking, maddening pop-ups and auto-play, and horrible banners may be drawing to its rightful conclusion.
But things don't just happen on the Internet. Someone builds an alternative. It looks obvious later, but somebody had to take the first whack at it. Tracking protection is great, but someone has to build the tools, check that they don't break web sites, and spread the word to regular users.
So why just look at tracking protection and say, wow, won't it be cool if this catches on?
Individuals, sites, and brands can help make tracking protection happen..
And if you really think about it, tracking protection tools are just products that users install. If only there were some way to get the attention of a bunch of people at once to persuade them to try things.Posted Sat 29 Aug 2015 07:28:16 AM PDT
In case you missed these the first time.
Corey Weiner: The Real Victims of Ad Fraud Might Surprise You
Mark Duffy: Copyranter: Native advertising is killing ad creativity (via Digiday)
Michael Sebastian: Publishers Stare Down an 'Oh Sh*t' Mobile Moment
Sell! Sell!: Advertisers Are Like Prison Cafeteria Cooks
Hacker News: The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs
Alex Kantrowitz: Ad Tech's Rough Ride on Wall Street Continues With Latest IPO
Brendon Lynch: An update on Microsoft’s approach to Do Not Track
MediaPost | RTB Insider: How Agencies Can Win The Battle Against Ad-Tech Companies
Sell! Sell!: TellUsYourStoryItis
BOB HOFFMAN: Bob's Keynote To NAB Radio Show
Christian Sandvig: The Facebook “It’s Not Our Fault” Study
John Herrman: Notes on the Surrender at Menlo Park
Jason Kint, CEO—DCN: Bad Ads: Research Shows They May Cost More Than They’re Worth
BOB HOFFMAN: Take The Refrigerator Test
Jack Marshall: Major Advertisers Are Still Funding Online Piracy
Friedrich Geiger: Facebook Like Button Lands German Sites in Hot Water
Research Team—DCN: Content Pirates and Ad Hijackers Earn $200 million a Year
MediaPost | Online Media Daily: Useful Vs. Creepy: The Jury Is Still Out
Internal exile: Quantifying quislings
Frederic Lardinois: Chrome Now Automatically Pauses Flash Content That Isn’t ‘Central’ To A Web Page
Massimo: The Problem With Targeting
Mark Duffy: Copyranter: It’s time to kill Cannes
SamuelScott: The Alleged $7.5 Billion Fraud in Online Advertising
Reuters: Business News: Ad executives cautious about growth, gear up for contract battle
Eric Picard: Fixing online advertising's privacy woes
Mindi Chahal: Consumers are ‘dirtying’ databases with false details
Jason Cooper, Integral Ad Science: Mobile advertisers need a cookie-crumb trail to follow
The Tech Block: Google’s ad system has become too big to control
Alexander Hanff: Why CTO’s should enforce adblocking on their networks
David Barton: Should Parents Adblock to Protect Kids?
Ben Thompson: Why Web Pages Suck
Darren: The “oh shit” moment for the webPosted Sat 25 Jul 2015 07:14:40 AM PDT
Bob Hoffman wants to see broadcasters standing up against adtech. He writes,
They are being taken to the cleaners by hyper-motivated digital evangelists who understand what predatory thinking means.
Here's a screenshot of a radio station site.
The purple bar on the right is a Ghostery list of all the trackers that are data-leaking the KFOG audience to the "adtech ecosystem."
So if a media buyer wants to reach radio listeners in the Bay Area, he or she can buy a radio commercial on KFOG (good for KFOG), buy an ad or sponsorship on the KFOG site (also good for KFOG), or just leech off the data leakage and use adtech to reach the same listeners on another site entirely (not so good for KFOG).
The radio station builds an audience, and the third-party trackers leak it away.
At the same time, a radio station can't unilaterally drop all the third-party trackers from the site. Protecting the audience is hard. That's where a radio station can use a tracking protection plan. Get the audience protected, stop data leakage, get more advertisers coming to you instead of sneaking around.
On air, when someone interferes with your signal you can call the FCC. On the Internet, well, this is getting too long, so just call Bob.
Related: news sites and the tracking gamePosted Mon 29 Jun 2015 07:07:54 AM PDT
Random idea for how to make some cash from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Step 1: Buy a piece of real estate in a city with a severe NIMBY problem. (See How Strong Property Rights Promote Social Equality for more info.) Sell an ownership interest in the property to a foreign company.
Step 2: Get an architect to design a building for the site that is technically 100% legal, but that will provoke a severe NIMBY reaction. Something like "Section 8 housing for TaskRabbit workers and tech bus drivers." Put up posters and buy some newspaper ads, to get the local NIMBYs fired up.
Step 3: When the local government starts giving you grief about the building plans, don't even go to the City Council meeting. Take it straight to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, and get the US Federal government to pay the foreign company for its investment loss.
Buy back the foreign company's share of the property and repeat. Do this enough times and a vacant lot could be more profitable than a luxury condo development. (Sucks to be a person actually looking for an apartment, but hey, are we going to do Free Trade or what?)Posted Wed 24 Jun 2015 07:25:36 PM PDT
"Don, it looks like you lost weight," someone said to me last week.
That is true. Since December 2013 I have lost about 15% of my body weight.
Not a rapid decrease, but sustainable so far. I'm not at my ideal weight yet, but I have made some progress, including having to buy new pants.
The main change that I had to make was to get some kind of personal Hawthorne effect going. If I keep track of how much food I eat, and make rules for myself about when I eat food, then I'm more likely to eat the right amount.
Think of it as a kind of mindful consumption thing.
I have zero claim to be an expert on this subject. I just think of it like IT spending within a company. If my "inner CIO" is doing his job, the overall level of stuff coming in the door should be manageable, even as the users keep asking for more. Sometimes, some extra stuff will get in, over the CIO's objections, but in general, the IT department can handle it and things keep working.
So let's look at today's surveillance marketing news.
The new arrangement also covers 52 countries and will "focus on creating and delivering creative video content and driving impulse snack purchasing online," according to a statement issued on Tuesday.
Hold on a minute.
"impulse snack purchasing"
I'm not allowed to do impulse snack purchasing.
My inner CIO has a snack approval policy, and my inner impulsive cookie-eater has to fill out a form and wait.
So, if you want to sell me food, you have to come in the front door and pitch the mindful eating department. Or my inner CIO will set up the filters to block you.
If you want to rely on Facebook's power to manipulate emotions instead, and try to get around the CIO, you just lost your access.
David Ogilvy once
The customer is not a moron. She's your wife.
That's being generous. The customer is a little
of both. An inner moron and an inner non-moron who
comes home and yells,
What the hell did you eat
all those cookies for, you moron?
In an environment where advertisers are trying to "engage" my inner moron, information diet is a prerequisite for food diet. I don't have Facebook on my phone, and I have the web site as a mostly write-only medium (thanks to dlvr.it for gatewaying this blog). But Facebook does have an online behavioral advertising operation. In order to protect myself from that kind of thing, I have tracking protection turned on in my browser.
I'm fortunate. For me, the consequences of impulse buying are low. Yes, I like Oreo cookies, and no, I don't trust myself not to be manipulated into eating more Oreo cookies than are good for me. But it's not that big of a deal. I'm not being targeted for predatory lending or gambling. My inner CIO could have a lot worse problems.
(If anyone has a blog about mindful eating, I should probably read it to learn more about this stuff, so let me know where to find it, please.)Posted Tue 23 Jun 2015 07:50:55 PM PDT
Jason Kint writes, in "5 Ways Industry Leaders Need To Step Up",
Needless to say I found myself shaking my head at a recent publisher event where sites were discussing how they could block Facebook from tracking their users. How on earth did this become a responsibility of the publisher to hack together a short-term solution?
It's not all the publisher's responsibility, but it's a fact of the Internet that (1) stuff keeps getting broken, often on purpose, and (2) in order for things to keep working, everyone has to keep his or her own piece safe. If you want to run a mailing list or email newsletter, you have to understand the current state of spam filtering and work on deliverability. And if you want to be on the web, you have to think about protecting your users from the problem of third-party tracking.
Do the short-term solutions right, and they don't take too much effort individually, but they turn into continuous improvement. And nobody has to wait for big, slow-moving companies to change, or worse, cooperate.
So here are five, count'em, five, quick ways to step up and make a difference in the problems of tracking-based fraud, users seeing ads as untrustworthy and blocking them, and data leakage. Should take five minutes each on a basic site, longer if you have a big hairy professional CMS.
Provide tracking warnings in page footers, to let users know when a browser is misconfigured.
Replace stock social buttons with safe versions, to avoid leaking your site's data.
Put some bonus pages behind a reverse tracking wall, to give users an incentive to get protected.
It's not the responsibility of an individual site to fix the whole problem, but there are plenty of small tweaks that can help slow down data leaks, encourage users to adopt site-friendly alternatives to ad blocking, and otherwise push things in the right direction.Posted Tue 16 Jun 2015 05:46:30 PM PDT
Academics tend to put the conversation about the targeted advertising problem in terms of companies on one side, and users on the other. A good recent example is Turow et al:
New Annenberg survey results indicate that marketers are misrepresenting a large majority of Americans by claiming that Americans give out information about themselves as a tradeoff for benefits they receive. To the contrary, the survey reveals most Americans do not believe that ‘data for discounts’ is a square deal.
Our findings, instead, support a new explanation: a majority of Americans are resigned to giving up their data—and that is why many appear to be engaging in tradeoffs.
From that point of view, the privacy paradox has an almost-too-easy answer: privacy is hard. Most users aren't seeking privacy, for the same reason that they're not training for the World Series of Poker. They would prefer winning a large poker game to not winning, but they rationally expect that unless they get really good, poker playing will result in a net loss of time and money.
But the academic model that puts all businesses opposite all users is probably an oversimplification. Advertisers, agencies, publishers, and intermediaries all have different and competing interests. Businesses are not all on the same side.
In most cases, brand advertisers, high-reputation publishers, and users have a shared interest in signaling that tends to put them into an adversarial relationship with the surveillance marketing complex. The kinds of media that are good for direct response and behavioral techniques are terrible for signaling, and vice versa.
The natural dividing line is not between users and companies, but between Team Signal and Team Targeting. Team Signal includes users, legit publishers, and reputable brands—everyone who wins from honest signaling. Team Targeting is mostly adtech intermediaries, fraud hackers, low-reputation sites, and low-quality brands.
For the business members of Team Signal, the privacy poker game has a positive expected value. Which is why independent web sites can benefit by helping their users get started with tracking protection. Users, resigned or not, are not alone.
What about the agencies?
Required reading if you're into this stuff: Pitch Mania by Brian Jacobs.
Agency managers have been quick to herald this flood of pitches as proof positive that advertisers have finally recognised what they (the agencies) have been preaching for years. Their future-gazing is they say finally coming to pass. This they contend is the dawn of a new model, based around integration, joined-up thinking, big data analytics and the rest.
Are large advertisers really just looking to switch between brands of adtech/adfraud as usual? Or will an agency that wants to keep the prospective clients awake (instead of boring them with the same Big Data woo-woo as all the other agencies) do better with a tracking protection component to its pitch?Posted Sat 06 Jun 2015 08:48:16 AM PDT
Here's a screenshot of a recent story from The Nation. Click to see full size and check out the purple bar on the right.
Yes, Ghostery detects 54 trackers on a story about web tracking. Isn't that special?
But that's not the point.
First, go back to that story and read the whole thing. If your direct experience of adtech comes from inside Marketing, from the artisan-cheeseburger-eating point of view, you're not seeing the ads that the rest of the world sees. Not only do a lot of adtech and malware look the same to users, many of the real ads are deceptive. The ad blocking problem makes more sense when you see some of the actual hinky ads out there that are motivating people to block.
Second, The Nation is rational to let those 54 trackers raid its audience. Really, even though data leakage is a bigger problem for high-quality sites than ad blocking.
Henk Kox, Bas Straathof, and Gijsbert Zwart, at the CPB in the Netherlands, explain, in Targeted advertising, platform competition and privacy.
We find that more targeting increases competition and reduces the websites' profits, but yet in equilibrium websites choose maximum targeting as they cannot credibly commit to low targeting. [emphasis added] A privacy protection policy can be beneficial for both consumers and websites.
High-value content sites are participating in ad targeting systems, even though it would be in their interest to work more like the magazine business.
If websites could coordinate on targeting, proposition 1 suggests that they might want to agree to keep targeting to a minimum. However, we next show that individually, websites win by increasing the accuracy of targeting over that of their competitors, so that in the non- cooperative equilibrium, maximal targeting results.
An individual site can't become trustworthy in an untrustworthy medium.
So what can The Nation, or any other publisher in the same situation, do about the tracking problem? Regulation might work in the Netherlands, but in the USA, it would just be subject to regulatory capture by surveillance marketers. Sites need a workable fix, a way to turn users' state of creeped-out-itude into action.
Sites can help users get protected
That's where tracking alerts come in. A high-reputation site such as The Nation can help move users from more to less trackable without interfering with existing third-party services.
Start adding more detailed tracking warnings, in place of confusing opt-out language. Finally...
Put some stories behind a "reverse tracking wall" to reward users who get protected.
It's time to play "Adtech or Malware?"
For each of the following Fair Use news excerpts, can you figure out if it's from a story on recently discovered malware, or from a story on a new advertising technology? Answers at the end.
If "a person with a smartphone takes the metro, a/an (Adtech or malware?) application" uses accelerometer readings to trace the person, to infer where the (victim/consumer) gets on and oﬀ the train. They said that "metro trains run on tracks, making their motion patterns distinguishable from cars or buses running on ordinary roads."
It detects your actual address and uses it to scrape and gather all the data associated with where you live. The application is so powerful, say (adtech developers or malware researchers?) that it can know when you’re at home or away.
Once users enable the macro content, it creates a VBScript, a batch file and other files around the version of Windows victims are running, (security researcher or adtech analyst?) said. The files then download the (ad or malware?) payload and a “statistics image” from a public picture-hosting service. The (malware writer or ad agency?) can then see how many times the image was downloaded.
This looks like a real site (except for those weird empty scrollbar windows; not sure what's up with those...). It has very professional text content, not the normal randomly-scraped junk that often populates sites being used for Search Engine Poisoning attacks -- and that's because this network isn't doing SEP.
Scroll down for answers...
How did you do?
3-4 right: I salute your mad skillz. You are truly among the 31337. Just don't hack my site....please?
1-2 right: You're on the right track. Better take a quick tracking protection test just to help protect yourself from this stuff.
0 right: Shouldn't you be working on your Medium piece about how Big Data is transforming Marketing?Posted Tue 26 May 2015 06:57:36 PM PDT
Interested in the Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful material, and looking for next steps for making web ads work better for sites and brands? Sure you are.
New blog in progress: blog.aloodo.org. This is about small changes that site and brands can do to get better web ads. A few simple rules...
No calls for collective action. That's what the adtech people are trying to do on fraud, and it's not working.
No long-term projects. The "backlog" never gets done. Web sites have to work at the speed of
git push, not the speed of cheese tweets. Every to-do item on blog.aloodo.com will be as simple as adding a social button widget to a page template, or simpler.
No appeals to
privacy. Privacy is an important philosophical concept, which reasonable people disagree on, and which we do not have time for. We can fix obvious bugs without discovering the meaning of a complicated word.
No assumptions that users are changing. We ignore surveillance marketing people when they say that
Consumers want to connect and share with their beloved brands,and we need to ignore
Users are becoming concerned about PII and autonomyjust as much.
Work with norms and laws, don't change them. The niche for brogrammers doing creepy and/or illegal stuff in order to start a business is filled. More than filled.
Timothy B Lee: How to be better at PR
Mark Duffy: Copyranter: Digital is destroying all creativity
Tales of a Developer Advocate: Detecting injected content from third-parties on your site
Francis: The advert wars
Darren Herman: Mozilla’s mission in the context of digital advertising
Evan Soltas: The Rent Hypothesis
Jeff Kagan: Google Glass Should Stay Gone
Samuel Gibbs: Facebook 'tracks all visitors, breaching EU law'
Bruce Schneier: Survey of Americans' Privacy Habits Post-Snowden
Monica Chew: Two Short Stories about Tracking Protection
Mike Proulx: There Is No More Social Media -- Just Advertising
Maciej Zawadziński, ClearCode: How the U.N.’s new privacy move will shake up the adtech industry
BOB HOFFMAN: How Do You Untrain A Generation?
Todd Garland: Context is Everything: How to Counter AdBlock
Digg Top Stories: How Click Farms Have Inflated Social Media Currency
Media Briefing TheMediaBriefing Analysis: Who are the fraudsters costing the ad industry billions? (via blog.aloodo.org)
Gregory Raifman: How the Advertising Industry Can Get Rid of 'Bad Ads'
MediaPost | MediaDailyNews: Google Names Ad Networks Responsible For Ad Injectors
Google Security PR: New Research: The Ad Injection Economy
Don Marti: Why adtech fraud would make the worst heist movie ever (had to put one from the new blog in here, right?)Posted Sun 10 May 2015 08:07:31 AM PDT
auf Deutsch: Warum Werbeblocker nicht haben, um Content-Vermarktung zu tun (translated by Valeria Aleksandrova)
Sounds like checking into a hotel and getting this...
Feeding on guests by third-party insects in guest rooms is subject to their own policies, and we have no responsibility or liability in connection therewith. If you wish to opt out of feeding by third party insects, here is the card of a really lousy exterminator we know, who only gets some of them but that's your problem.
Ad blockers don't have to do content marketing, because publishers are doing it for them.
But there's a way for publishers to opt out of the whole tracking vs. blocking race to the bottom, and neither surveillance marketers nor conventional ad blockers have it. More: Ad blocking, bullshit and a point of orderPosted Sun 19 Apr 2015 06:49:00 AM PDT
More news from the ongoing malvertising outbreak.
Laurie Sullivan: Google DoubleClick Network Hit With More Malvertising.
These aren't skeevy ads on low-reputation pirate sites. These attacks are coming in on big-budget sites such as AOL's Huffington Post, and included in fake ads for real brands such as Hugo Boss. They're using A-list adtech companies. Read the articles. Nasty stuff. The ongoing web ad fraud problem is hitting users now, not just advertisers.
So far the response from the ad networks has been a few whacks at the problem accounts. So I can make the safest kind of prediction: someone made money doing something not very risky, not much has changed, so they'll do it again and others will copy them. Want to bet against me?
Users already trust web ads less than any other ad medium. Malvertising takes a form of advertising that's a bad deal for the user and makes it worse. (If sewer rats are coming out of the commode, users are going to put a brick on the lid. If the rats have rabies, make that two bricks.)
The more malvertising that comes along, the more that the "please turn off your ad blocker" message on web sites is going to look not just silly, but irresponsible or just plain scary. "Turn off your ad blocker" sounds like the web version of "If you can't open lottery-winner-wire-transfer.zip, turn off your antivirus."
Time to rewrite the "turn off your ad blocker" messages and talk about a sensible alternative. Instead of running a general ad blocker (and encouraging the "acceptable ads" racket) or running entirely unprotected, the hard part is just starting: how to educate users about third-party content protection that works for everyone: users, sites, and responsible advertisers.
Planet Debian: Joey Hess: a programmable alarm clock using systemd
Calvin Spealman: The Curl Pipe
James Gingell: Where Did Soul-Sucking Office-Speak Come From?
Joe Wein: Disclaimers by spammers
SMBlog -- Steve Bellovin's Blog: If it Doesn't Exist, it Can't be Abused
phobos: Partnering with Mozilla
The Tech Block: The tech worker shortage doesn’t really exist
Heidi Moore: The readers we can’t friend
Lary Wallace: Why Stoicism is one of the best mind-hacks ever devised
Steven Sinofsky: Why Remote Engineering Is So Difficult!?#@%
SysAdmin1138: Application firewalls for your phonePosted Sat 18 Apr 2015 07:57:06 AM PDT
Doc Searls writes:
We hold as self-evident that personal agency and independence matter utterly, that free customers are more valuable than captive ones, that personal data belongs more to persons themselves than to those gathering it, that conscious signaling of intent by individuals is more valuable than the inferential kind that can only be guessed at, that spying on people when they don’t know about it or like it is wrong, and so on.
I'm going to agree with Doc that these are all good and important principles.
But then I'm going to totally ignore them.
Yes, it is "self-evident" that it's important to behave as a decent human being in online interactions, and in marketing projects. (Complexity dilutes understanding of a system but not moral responsibility for participating in a system. Just because you don't understand how your marketing budget gets diverted to fraud does not mean that you aren't ultimately responsible when you end up funding malware and scams.) Thinking about user rights is important. 30 years ago, Richard Stallman released the GNU Manifesto, which got people thinking about the ethical aspects of software licensing, and we need that kind of work about information in markets, too.
But that's not what I'm on about here. Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful is just background reading for a marketing meeting. And I've been to enough marketing meetings to know that, no matter how rat-holed and digressed the discussion gets, Freedom is never on the agenda.
So I'm going to totally ignore the Freedom side of discussing the targeted ad problem. You don't have to worry about some marketing person clicking through to this site and saying, WTF is this freedom woo-woo? This site is all pure, unadulterated, 100% marketing-meeting-compatible business material, with some impressive-looking citations to Economics papers to give it some class.
Big Data proponents like to talk about "co-creating value," so let's apply that expression to advertising. The advertiser offers signal, and the reader offers attention. The value is in the exchange. Here's the point that we need to pick up on, and the point that ad blocker stats are shoving in our face until we get it. When one side's ability to offer value goes away—when a targeted ad ceases to carry signal and becomes just a windshield flyer—there's no incentive for the other side to participate in the exchange. Freedom or no freedom. Homo economicus himself would run a spam filter, or hang up on a cold call, or block targeted ads.
The big problem for web sites now is to get users onto a publisher-friendly tracking protection tool that facilitates advertising's exchange of value for value, before web advertising turns into a mess of crappy targeted ads vs. general filters, the way email spam has.Posted Mon 30 Mar 2015 07:33:29 AM PDT
Older stuff: archive