OK it is a little black and white and overly simplistic but there is something in this phrase. After working with Evidon, formerly Better Advertising, I realised that we are spending so much time talking about data privacy when in reality part of the game is data accuracy.
Evidon are one of the first companies in the US and soon to be EMEA that overlay a logo on each and every banner, allowing a consumer to learn a number of things about who is tracking them and what these databases hold on an individual user. Once you click through you are told about the company whose page you are on and anyone else who may be tracking you across over 300 data partners. Now it gets interesting, not only can you see this data but you can change it in real time to reflect you and your life more accurately OR you can opt out altogether.
The first and interesting learning was only a tiny, tiny percentage of the users clicked on the logo, we can forgive that as there has not been much coverage and education, that said against billions of impressions the actual number was high enough to learn lots about what they did next..they did not opt out, no they updated their profiles on the databases. They were happy to be tracked but only on their terms, they wanted to make sure they were rightly represented so they got the best advertising.
I dont think enough people talk about this, we are constantly assuming consumers / users want out, no they want accuracy and they want to see who and what is looking at them, after that in the main it appears they are happy to work with us nasty, media and data companies, they may even want to receive an advertising message!
So I think we should talk as much about data accuracy as we do data privacy..
Bertozzi's Bytesize 
Agree that I would rather see ‘relevant’ ads – if you asked me (and that’s what the mini survey does). However, serendipity is missing. I ‘think’ I want to see ads about F1 because I like it. But honestly, I should really buy a new lawnmower.
Almost certainly impossible to measure, but I’m not sure that I am the best judge of ‘what I should be seeing’. If I only get served ads that suit me, someone somewhere is going to lose out.
Data rules – and if it works, it works. Fear it will make my world as a consumer terribly vanilla.
Agreed. I don’t think there’s any argument that [most] web users want to see relevant ads and understand the value exchange thereof.
In terms of @Swissss comment of seeing F1 ads because of previous behaviour when you really should be buying a lawnmower: I think we’ll move away from the 2.0 notion of ‘you saw this therefore I believe you might be interested in this’ to a 3.0 predictive notion of ‘I believe this what you’re looking for’. Companies like Quantcast will help refine audiences at scale and also watch out for start ups like Cognitive Match whose solution will include plug ins from weather centres etc.
Pingback: Plaintiff Drops Claim Against interclick; AdMeld Starts Consulting Biz; Publicis Sees Rosy Future Led By Digital
i quite agree with the written article however i think the main problem is the image of the industry in the eyes of the audience – we come across as a nuisance, at least to the majority of the public. based on that i think the main question to be asked here is how scalable this can be ? asking the users to participate in the advertising characteristics shown to them is not relevant to the majority of the public and therefor i fear that this can be made only in low volume , hence – wouldn’t be effective.
Hi – totally agree with you. I would prefer relevance than generic ads that don’t do much other than take up space. That being said, I was just curious if you had any numbers on the actual opt-outs. I know you said tiny tiny but just wondering how tiny that percentage is.
Opt out rates as low as 0.0002% on 10s of billions of impressions..