Tag Archives: digital media

August 20, 2014 · 11:14 am

Tracking The Trackers

Footprints in sand. Marinha Grande, Portugal.

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Another day, another web site (well, portal in this case) comes out in favor of ignoring the express wishes of its user base.

AOL‘s new privacy policy states that it will not honor the do-not-track requests that users send through their browsers. I’ve written about this before and as someone who is very customer-focused, I can’t understand this decision.

Here is how one of the companies (the Network Advertising Initiative) administering a Do Not Track program explains it:

NAI members are committed to transparency and choice. The NAI opt-out tool was developed in conjunction with our members for the express purpose of allowing consumers to “opt out” of the Interest-Based Advertising delivered by our members…Following an opt out, (members)… cease collecting and using data from across web domains owned or operated by different entities for the purpose of delivering advertising based on preferences or interests known or inferred from the data collected (Interest Based Advertising or IBA).

Pretty clear.  The  browser you’re using right now probably offers do-not-track headers, which tell publishers and ad networks that you don’t want to be tracked. But the header doesn’t actually prevent tracking. Instead, ad networks and publishers are free to ignore the signals. Of course, when you combine users opting in to the do not track program with them setting their browser to tell sites that they do not wished to be tracked, you’d have to be pretty dumb not to get the message.  Yet of all the hundreds of sites out there, only 21 have committed to implement this program and only 2 (Twitter and Pinterest) are what I would consider major sites.

In AOL’s case, as is the case with Yahoo and damn near every other publisher, they get the message.  They’re just ignoring it.  They use excuses like “no one else is honoring them” or “the standards aren’t set yet for what can and can’t be tracked.” I read that as “our business interests supersede your desire not to receive targeted ads.”  This is short-sighted and will, I believe, result in more users doing as I do:  blocking analytics, ads, and everything else publishers use to make the content they offer better for the user.

As someone who works with clients to make money off of their digital efforts I know how vital data is.  I grew up in the ad business so I support free content paid for by your attention to ads.  But the value exchange needs to be transparent.  I think there is a huge potential for backlash as what and how users are being tracked, as well as what’s done with their data, reaches the mainstream.  What do you think?

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, Huh?

Tagged as , , , , , ,

August 6, 2014 · 1:15 pm

Experts? Hardly.

You may be following the saga of Foursquare as it tries to find a business model that works.

Foursquare Logo

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The bloom of collecting badges has clearly worn off and almost every app has some sort of check-in feature to let your friends know where you are. Now Foursquare seems to be moving in a direction that will let them compete with Yelp (which has a good business model) and are splitting off the check-in part of the service into another app (Swarm).
Maybe you got the same email I did the other day which talked about their new feature called “Expertise”:

In the new Foursquare, we want to reward people who share their expertise, helping other people to great experiences. When you leave great tips, you make progress. And, the more people like or save them, the faster you’ll earn expertise.

It goes on to say that all of the tips you post thereafter will show they were posted by an expert.  On behalf of people who actually DO have some expertise on a few things, may I call BS?  I’ll even go further: I’m offended.

I’m offended because any moron with the price of dinner and a mobile device can write a review which may be complete blather and very inaccurate. I have no problem there.  But if they do so 10 or more times, does that really make them an expert or just a blithering idiot?  How is anyone to recognize the real experts?

I’m offended  because Foursquare is doing something that I find offensive among a number of content companies.  They are using the very same audience they sell to marketers to make their product.  The reward to the consumer for doing so?  An ego trip:

Once you’ve earned an expertise, we both mark your tips as coming from an expert (so the world knows), and make sure more people see them because they’re high quality. And, when you’re looking for great things to do when you’re at a place, you can see which ones come from experts.

How about something more tangible – a gift card, a weekly sweepstakes, anything that reflects the value of the contribution?  Foursquare seems to believe the famous Woody Allen quote that showing up is 80% of success.  If you show up at a place and write about it, you’re a success – an EXPERT!  My take?  Hardly.  Yours?

1 Comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Huh?, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , ,

July 29, 2014 · 8:54 am

Trusting Sponsored Content

We’ve explored the subject of branded content or advertorial or deceptive editorial or whatever you want to call it here on the screed a few times.

English: Example of a variable data tear sheet...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Some data on the subject that I came across from Contently is worth a minute of your time.  They were spurred to do the research by a statement from the CEO of Chartbeat, an analytics company, who claimed that only 24% of readers were scrolling down on native ad content compared to the 71% of readers who scroll on “normal content.” Since that content is advertising that is supposed to integrate seamlessly with the site’s other content and, therefore, get the sponsor higher brand engagement, that number is pretty disturbing.  For my money, not quite as disturbing in some ways as what the subsequent study found.

Putting aside that most of those surveyed disagree about what exactly qualifies as “sponsored content”, some of the other findings were:

  • Two-thirds of readers have felt deceived upon realizing that an article or video was sponsored by a brand.
  • 54 percent of readers don’t trust sponsored content.
  • 59 percent of readers believe a news site loses credibility if it runs articles sponsored by a brand.
  • As education level increases, so does mistrust of sponsored content.

In fact, the study found that people would rather have to deal with banner ads than sponsored articles, and the more education the consumer has the greater chance they feel deceived by a piece of branded content.  The fine print labeling it as something not quite the same as other editorial does nothing to change consumers’ views.

Way back in October of 2012, this is what I had to say on the subject:

I’m not a fan.  Obviously I’m a big fan of ad-supported media – I worked in it and sold it for decades.  I do think, however, that doing this in digital in particular is an issue since there is so much content out there and users’ expectations of editorial integrity…are not met when the line is crossed.  It calls into question all of the legitimate reporting.  I get that people might ignore advertising but pay attention to this.  They need to know it’s not the same as other content.

My views haven’t changed.  Have yours?

Leave a comment

Filed under Consulting, digital media, Huh?

Tagged as , , , ,