Comments on: Ignoring the dangers of opt in advertising http://www.adotas.com/2009/07/shrugs-at-apocalyptic-opt-in-advertising-rules/ Where Interactive Advertising Begins Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:07:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Edward Barrera http://www.adotas.com/2009/07/shrugs-at-apocalyptic-opt-in-advertising-rules/#comment-778486 Edward Barrera Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:38:58 +0000 http://www.adotas.com/2009/07/shrugs-at-apocalyptic-opt-in-advertising-rules/#comment-778486 Russell, Thanks for the insight. I wonder though if it would be as seamless as you imagine or the effect it would have on burgeoning aggregating business. Who wins? The aggregators, who have a ton of links and summaries or the publisher who has created the original content? It will be interesting to watch. Russell,
Thanks for the insight. I wonder though if it would be as seamless as you imagine or the effect it would have on burgeoning aggregating business.

Who wins? The aggregators, who have a ton of links and summaries or the publisher who has created the original content?

It will be interesting to watch.

]]> By: Russell Glass http://www.adotas.com/2009/07/shrugs-at-apocalyptic-opt-in-advertising-rules/#comment-778485 Russell Glass Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:17:50 +0000 http://www.adotas.com/2009/07/shrugs-at-apocalyptic-opt-in-advertising-rules/#comment-778485 Ed, thanks. This is a fascinating topic right now, particularly at Bizo, a company that uses cookies for business professional targeting. However, I believe the doom-and-gloom is overstated. I think that the changes will have less of an effect than others believe -- and may even create a better, more open environment for targeting where consumers understand the explicit trade off they are making. For example, as a user I understand that when I type my keywords into Google, I'm allowing them to use those keywords to serve me ads based on that intent. In exchange, I get my search results for free. This value exchange is clear, and I believe the same exchange on publisher sites will simply become more explicit. As you say above, if networks are hurt by the changes, then publishers will be also -- probably even more significantly. This is the key. If publishers are going to lose much of the value they gain by providing free content in exchange for serving advertising, they will go to a "gated" model just like with paid content. With even draconian opt-in regulations, users will simply be required to click a terms of service ("I opt-in to targeting") before accessing the site's content. If the user doesn't want to opt in, then many publishers will probably send them to a payment form to access the content for a fee. The vast majority of users will simply accept the terms without even reading them. Take it a step further. If all publishers begin to require this "opt-in," cookies will be placed on the user's browser indicating that they have accepted the terms on site xyz.com and can go ahead to the content. This will require a browser to accept cookies. Then, if a user ever deletes their cookies, they will have to opt-in to all of those sites all over again. Thus, this requirement may actually lead to a BETTER environment for cookie targeting, where cookies aren't deleted nearly as frequently and the user trade-off is clear. Regardless of how this is implemented, I don't believe publishers will simply give up 50% of their revenues. They will likely just change the usage patterns of their sites to require users to "opt-in" to the targeting in exchange for free and valuable content, making the value exchange more explicit a la Google. And users that want to read the content will just opt-in to targeting with their eyes wide open. Russ Glass CEO Bizo, Inc. Ed, thanks. This is a fascinating topic right now, particularly at Bizo, a company that uses cookies for business professional targeting.

However, I believe the doom-and-gloom is overstated. I think that the changes will have less of an effect than others believe — and may even create a better, more open environment for targeting where consumers understand the explicit trade off they are making. For example, as a user I understand that when I type my keywords into Google, I’m allowing them to use those keywords to serve me ads based on that intent. In exchange, I get my search results for free. This value exchange is clear, and I believe the same exchange on publisher sites will simply become more explicit.

As you say above, if networks are hurt by the changes, then publishers will be also — probably even more significantly. This is the key. If publishers are going to lose much of the value they gain by providing free content in exchange for serving advertising, they will go to a “gated” model just like with paid content. With even draconian opt-in regulations, users will simply be required to click a terms of service (“I opt-in to targeting”) before accessing the site’s content. If the user doesn’t want to opt in, then many publishers will probably send them to a payment form to access the content for a fee. The vast majority of users will simply accept the terms without even reading them.

Take it a step further. If all publishers begin to require this “opt-in,” cookies will be placed on the user’s browser indicating that they have accepted the terms on site xyz.com and can go ahead to the content. This will require a browser to accept cookies. Then, if a user ever deletes their cookies, they will have to opt-in to all of those sites all over again. Thus, this requirement may actually lead to a BETTER environment for cookie targeting, where cookies aren’t deleted nearly as frequently and the user trade-off is clear.

Regardless of how this is implemented, I don’t believe publishers will simply give up 50% of their revenues. They will likely just change the usage patterns of their sites to require users to “opt-in” to the targeting in exchange for free and valuable content, making the value exchange more explicit a la Google.

And users that want to read the content will just opt-in to targeting with their eyes wide open.

Russ Glass
CEO
Bizo, Inc.

]]>