Online ad story from Robert X. Cringely: Click
fraud the old fashion way.
There is apparently
no standardized ad auditing capability on the
Internet so scams of this sort are actually easy
to do. And advertisers often lean into it by often
preferring not to know precisely how effective are
their ads. Links back to a previous article: Apple
and the Future of Publishing – Part One:
Ad agencies 15 years ago didn’t want to know
whether or not their ads had actually been read, they
told us. This was simply because if an advertiser
discovered that few, if any, people were actually
reading their ad on page 113, the company might just
pull that ad and save their money, taking revenue
away from the ad agency in the process.
Larry Downes: Customer Intelligence, Privacy, and the "Creepy Factor" Interesting point that people get de-sensitized to creepy ad practices. But the remaining question is how the creepiness level as seen by the user affects the effectiveness of the ad, or likelihood that the user will run an ad blocker. Any answers?
Jacques Mattheij explains the You
are not the customer, you are the product meme.
Instead of the simplistic ‘you are the product’
view it is much more complicated. (Just because
you see an ad for example.com doesn't mean example.com
necessarily knows anything about your web activity.
Tracking feeds into a whole hairball of Big Data
that's different from site to site.)
Finally, some good points on the great app.net experiment:
Dalton Caldwell: Fred Wilson is wrong about “Free”
J.D. Bentley: The Network Underneath
Matthew Gertner: The Case Against Advertising
(By the way: you can follow me as dmarti on alpha.app.net.)