Do Not Track List Won't Make Advertisers Happy

from the resistance-is-futile dept

Just as Facebook is looking to launch its own behavioral advertising network, AOL and some privacy groups are pitching the idea of a "Do Not Track" list that would effectively let people opt-out of behavioral advertising tracking. It's a challenging issue to deal with. Advertisers, obviously, want more data and information about who is viewing their ads, as well as having the ability to better target those ads. At the same time, the theory is that people are much more receptive to highly targeted, relevant ads. The problem, though, is that many internet surfers have no idea how much information they're handing over and how it's being used (and many would argue that the more relevant ads aren't actually appearing). If they knew how much data was being collected, however, many would probably be quite upset. The purpose of the Do Not Track list would be to give them back some control. Advertisers, of course, won't like this idea at all, as they often feel it's their divine right to have as much information as possible. They'll also complain that without this data, advertisements will actually be less relevant and less useful -- which might actually be true. In the end, though, it seems like while a "Do Not Track" may get lots of publicity, but how many people will actually sign up? Certainly I'd expect techies who are more concerned about this kind of thing to sign up -- but the average consumer? Unlike the "Do Not Call" list, most people don't even realize that they're being tracked, and so are much less likely to have the incentive to opt out of being tracked.

Filed Under: advertising, behavioral targeting, do not track
Companies: aol


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Bah who needs one, 2 Nov 2007 @ 3:04pm

    I do hope you all realize that the same blocking tools that let you block ads can be used to block tracking bugs. I often go to a site and systematically block every single element it loads from elsewhere. I go to www.foo.com and it's loading banners from doubleclick.com, a 1x1 gif from some stat tracking site, a script from google-analytics, and so forth. Block everything not from foo.com and you suddenly have a much cleaner and more readable page, and none of those ad networks can even track you in the future at that or other sites. The foo.com server admin would now have to hand over his server logs to someone who wanted to track me.

    Of course, blocking images from sites like photobucket and imageshack is dumb, as blogs and forum postings tend to use these for image hosting; legitimate, visible content I won't block. Ads and especially tracking gifs/scripts can go though.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.