- From: Don Marti <
>
- To: Doc Searls <
>
- Cc: ProjectVRM list <
>
- Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Targeted Advertising Considered Meh: Jason Kint on DNT
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:54:02 -0700
begin Doc Searls quotation of Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:34:52AM +0100:
>
Good catch, as usual. Responses inline below...
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Don Marti
>
> <
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> More good info from Jason Kint (read the whole thing)
>
>
>
> Behavioral Advertising Might Not Be As Crucial As You Think
>
>
>
> http://adage.com/article/datadriven-marketing/behavioral-advertising-crucial/291858/
>
>
>
> "Considering the 50% of impressions classified as
>
> OBA are sold at rock-bottom prices, do publishers
>
> of all sizes really understand how little this
>
> matters to them?"
>
>
>
> "The report suggests publishers typically only
>
> sell 50% of their ads direct at high prices but the
>
> other 50% -- or as much as 60% for small websites
>
> according to the study -- sell for those rock-bottom
>
> $.77 CPMs if they sell at all. The real value
>
> of those ads is tremendously lower when measured
>
> in revenue."
>
>
I like Jason Kint's "OBA: Online Behavioral Advertising." Good label. Says
>
what it is. But there are a lot of other things called OBA:
>
https://www.google.com/search?q=OBA.
>
>
Meanwhile, right next to Jason's piece in AdAge is (at least for me) is an
>
ad for "An Ad Tech Glossary: Must-Know Terms, If You’re Looking for An
>
Ad-Tech Partner": <http://adage.com/lookbook/topic/19>. It's by AdAge
>
itself. OBA isn't in there.
>
>
So here's the problem.
>
>
1) Advertising used to mean one thing: messages placed in media and
>
addressed to populations.
>
>
2) Direct marketing used to mean one thing: messages addressed to
>
individuals.
>
>
3) Direct response used to mean one thing: messages wanting a response.
>
>
Or close enough. Whether or not one finds fuzz at the edges of those
>
categories, they were pretty much self-explanatory and well understood both
>
within the industries producing them and by those receiving the messages as
>
well. The provenance and purpose of each was clear.
>
>
But that was before the Net came along. Now advertising means all that
>
stuff and provenance is unclear. If the medium is online and personal (your
>
computer, your phone, your view of a website, your app), there is no easy
>
way to tell what an ad is doing in front of your nose or how it got there.
>
Take a screen shot of an ad and ask the publisher exactly how it got there,
>
and they probably won't be able to tell you, because adtech has become a
>
three-dimensional shell game for everybody other than those billing for its
>
particulars.
The people who understand the "adtech ecosystem" best
are the fraud perpetrators, and from what I can tell,
the good ones make their retirement money quickly and
quit. And of course it's always changing...
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/38496.asp#singleview
>
Worse, the new arcana within advertising — ad exchange, real time bidding
>
(RTB), programmatic (direct, reserved, non-reserved, premium...), data
>
(first, second and third party... never called "personal"), view-through
>
rate (VTR), in-stream, out-of-stream, hashing, behavioral targeting,
>
beacon, cookie, data ID, data-management platform (DMP), demand side
>
platform (DSP), supply side platform (SSP) and so on (and there are many
>
more) — are all Greek to everybody outside the business, and to many
>
insiders as well. All those disciplines are battlefields of their own, and
>
new ones show up constantly, all looking for a slice of the ever-growing
>
advertising pie.
>
>
Though they are called advertising, the business models of Google,
>
Facebook, Twitter and smaller players in various Lumascapes
>
<http://www.lumapartners.com/resource-center/lumascapes-2/>) are not
>
descended from Madison Avenue (category 1 above), but rather from the
>
direct marketing and direct response businesses (categories 2 and 3), which
>
have always had the same rough metrics and methods as spam, and rationalize
>
waste and negative externalities the same ways. (All of which reduce to
>
"they don't matter" and "we don't care.")
>
>
That system is best visualized by IBM's "Big Datastillery," in which human
>
beings are represented as beakers on a conveyor belt
>
<http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/infographic/big-datastillery-strategies-accelerate-return-digital-data>:
Big Data is optimized for selling Marketing to its host
company, not for selling the company's product to
customers.
>
So we need a new distinction here: between advertising that's based on
>
surveillance, and advertising that isn't.
>
>
I like OBA as a way to label surveillance-based advertising.
>
("Programmatic" doesn't do it, because it includes everything that's
>
programmable. And adtech doesn't do it, because it includes ads that aren't
>
surveillance-based.) But perhaps there's a better term.
>
>
> Firefox tracking protection needs to launch with some
>
> publishers and publisher organizations on stage and
>
> quoted in the press release. The usual suspects at
>
> IAB are going to flip out, and the sooner the story
>
> can be explained as users+brands+pubs vs. adtech as
>
> usual, instead of being twisted into privacy freaks
>
> vs. adtech+brands+pubs, the better.
>
>
Yes, this is critical. We need a line in the sand between users+brands+pubs
>
and OBA.
>
>
If that line materializes, Mozilla/Firefox will clearly stands on the side
>
of the former, because they work for and represent you and me — the users.
>
>
It should also be easy for everybody else working for users to stand on the
>
human side as well. I suggest that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and others who
>
sell direct to individuals will gather on our side of the line as well.
>
>
So who's best to draw that line? Analysts? AdAge? The IAB? (It's not out of
>
the question. Randall Rothenberg & friends might be ready for it.) One of
>
the big Madison Avenue agencies that isn't too compromised already?
>
Mozilla? The EFF? Customer Commons? PDEC?
>
>
I think it's a combination of the above.
Digital Content Next is going to be important here.
http://digitalcontentnext.org/about/overview/
>
Let's do it.
IMHO we need to start a new "brand advertising online"
organization (with content, ad agency, and tech
members) The new organization would stand for:
* memorable, effective ad creative
* brand reputation/signaling
It needs to be explictly a business organization,
not an advocacy or user group.
>
Doc
>
>
> begin Don Marti quotation of Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 10:52:26AM -0700:
>
>>
>
>> Read the whole thing...
>
>>
>
>> Debunked: Five Excuses for Dismissing Do Not Track
>
>>
>
>> http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/5-excuses-dismissing-track-debunked/297992/
>
>>
>
>> Excuse No. 3: "DNT will destroy the web since much
>
>> of the free content is funded by online behavioral
>
>> advertising reliant on consumer data collection."
>
>>
>
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. As the
>
>> leader of an association comprised of approximately
>
>> sixty great media brands producing much of
>
>> the quality digital content out there today,
>
>> constraints on collecting third-party data across
>
>> the web will be immaterial to what funds this type
>
>> of content. And, in fact, this is the case for most
>
>> content producers whether small or large.
>
>>
>
>> I'm not sure how he gets "immaterial" -- data
>
>> collection is what poweres data leakage from
>
>> his member companies (high value sites) to lower
>
>> value sites. Digital Content Next members should
>
>> do _better_ with less tracking.
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> Don Marti
>
>> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Don Marti
>
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>
>
>
--
Don Marti
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.