An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
1–10 of 48 posts
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#2Even a 1% success rate is considered phenomenal in the advertising world, and as annoying as the ads became, it is true that tracking and targeting increased the value of ad impressions significantly when they were first introduced. The same is true of annoyances: popups, audio, and such: they simply worked.
But the people are speaking out. They don't want to be tracked by marketers, and they have been putting considerable effort into blocking the tracking efforts. Some estimates claim that as many as half the browsers on the Web now have some form of ad-blocking installed, and while the actual numbers probably aren't THAT high, it's not unreasonable to think that maybe one-quarter, or even one-third, of people may be blocking ads because of the annoying and tracking behaviors that advertisers have come to rely on.
When one takes this into consideration, surely it must be the case that annoying and tracking are now hurting advertising revenue far more than they help. It is, perhaps, time for advertisers to buck that trend: a return to the mass-marketing model that built media empires as recently as fifteen years ago. Or perhaps it is time to turn to a new kind of targeting: rather than going after individual users, target the sites themselves, directing advertisements to users based on the common interests that drive them to the places they go.
Imagine an advertiser that used such a model or something like it, and in return, pledged not to track or annoy the people who see its ads: a sort of "DuckDuckGo of advertising." Would you whitelist that advertiser in your ad-blocker? I would, and I doubt that I'm alone. I don't block ads just to stick it to the advertising agencies; I block them to make the Web usable and safe. Many people do. I wonder if a business model could be built on those people. Maybe even one that, on account of its wider viewer base, could eclipse the current tracking/annoyance models.
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#3Safari already does this in desktop and mobile browsers - what's the big deal?
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#4Even a 1% success rate is considered phenomenal in the advertising world, and as annoying as the ads became, it is true that tracking and targeting increased the value of ad impressions significantly when they were first introduced. The same is true of annoyances: popups, audio, and such: they simply worked. But the people are speaking out. They don't want to be tracked by marketers, and they have been putting consid…
The unfortunate truth is that tracking and individual targeting improves CTR. Advertisers pay for clicks. Until someone comes up with a more profitable metric, they're not going to stop tracking.
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#5Safari already does this in desktop and mobile browsers - what's the big deal?
The big deal is that Safari desktop has no users, and people are still struggling to monetize ads on mobile where Safari has users.
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#6We need an open letter to mozilla in which we support their decision to block all third party cookies.
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#7It doesn't speak well that the first item of their FAQ is patently false.
> Q. What is Mozilla doing that is causing concern?
> A. On February 25, 2013, Mozilla announced intentions to block all third-party cookies by default in upcoming releases of its Firefox browser. Only first-party cookies would be allowed.
No, they are not blocking all third-party cookies by default. They are blocking all third-party cookies from non-visited sites. google.com can track, doubleclick.net likely can't.
There is an interesting discussion to be had about tracking, cookie policy, defaults, etc., but making false representations about what is actually being proposed is not a good way to have that discussion.
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#8Even a 1% success rate is considered phenomenal in the advertising world, and as annoying as the ads became, it is true that tracking and targeting increased the value of ad impressions significantly when they were first introduced. The same is true of annoyances: popups, audio, and such: they simply worked. But the people are speaking out. They don't want to be tracked by marketers, and they have been putting consid…
The unfortunate truth is that tracking and individual targeting improves CTR. Advertisers pay for clicks. Until someone comes up with a more profitable metric, they're not going to stop tracking.
Certainly those behaviors improve CTR, but they do so at the cost of a shrinking viewer base: drastically shrinking, in fact, and it's about to shrink even more. Is the current point in the market still at a point where the improvement in CTR outweighs the decrease in audience?
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#9It seems to me that this letter seems to care about everyone ("ad-supported small businesses", "advertisers", "website owners", "Ad networks", "small publishers") except for the one who matters the most: The User.
I'm not going to say what Mozilla should or shouldn't do in this case. They know better, and more importantly, they are free to do what they want. I just want to point out to IAB, whoever they are, that if they want to make an appealing argument, maybe put the user forward?
Re: An Open Letter To Mozilla Corporation
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The unfortunate truth is that tracking and individual targeting improves CTR. Advertisers pay for clicks. Until someone comes up with a more profitable metric, they're not going to stop tracking.
Certainly those behaviors improve CTR, but they do so at the cost of a shrinking viewer base: drastically shrinking, in fact, and it's about to shrink even more. Is the current point in the market still at a point where the improvement in CTR outweighs the decrease in audience?
If you can put numbers to that argument, then advertisers will stop tracking tomorrow. There's nothing malicious going on, just business.