I think the advertisers have asked too much though, as in: advertising hasn't ended in newspapers, magazines, billboards, TV, etc just because of a lack of tracking.
The best the advertiser gets through those mediums are estimates based on numbers printed, foot fall or passers by for a location, ratings figured guestimated by TV stations, etc.
Those may be third party normalised estimations... but there isn't any tracking.
I know part of the argument is that it has to be that way because they can't track, and yet on the internet they can track. But the tracking is now so pervasive and constant that far more than just advertising impressions and conversions are tracked. To the extent that almost all online activity is now observed by the major advertising platforms and advertising companies (which includes Google and Facebook, as that is where their money comes from).
I strongly believe that the pendulum has swung too far, and that the user should be protected from such a level of intrusive behaviour. I think that advertising has got away with things it shouldn't have done, and that it needs to be corrected.
It doesn't preclude some basic tracking by myself and the methods audited by a third party, but denies them (the advertising platforms) the ability to intrusively track users of this platform.
That's what I'm aiming at, not for no advertising or no tracking, but a very balanced and controlled amount of tracking serving advertisers who value the market offered to them.
The very basic question remains: If I can offer you access to a community of people who are already highly targeted (e.g. fixed gear cyclists in London), then would you accept less intrusive tracking as part of the deal? And would you accept performance based payment structures in which you'd only pay for the conversions and not just for impressions or clicks?
I think the advertisers have asked too much though, as in: advertising hasn't ended in newspapers, magazines, billboards, TV, etc just because of a lack of tracking.
The best the advertiser gets through those mediums are estimates based on numbers printed, foot fall or passers by for a location, ratings figured guestimated by TV stations, etc.
Those may be third party normalised estimations... but there isn't any tracking.
I know part of the argument is that it has to be that way because they can't track, and yet on the internet they can track. But the tracking is now so pervasive and constant that far more than just advertising impressions and conversions are tracked. To the extent that almost all online activity is now observed by the major advertising platforms and advertising companies (which includes Google and Facebook, as that is where their money comes from).
I strongly believe that the pendulum has swung too far, and that the user should be protected from such a level of intrusive behaviour. I think that advertising has got away with things it shouldn't have done, and that it needs to be corrected.
It doesn't preclude some basic tracking by myself and the methods audited by a third party, but denies them (the advertising platforms) the ability to intrusively track users of this platform.
That's what I'm aiming at, not for no advertising or no tracking, but a very balanced and controlled amount of tracking serving advertisers who value the market offered to them.
The very basic question remains: If I can offer you access to a community of people who are already highly targeted (e.g. fixed gear cyclists in London), then would you accept less intrusive tracking as part of the deal? And would you accept performance based payment structures in which you'd only pay for the conversions and not just for impressions or clicks?