<blockquote>"A new model is to put users of the internet in control of their own data. Let them decide who they trade it with and for what reward," says StJohn Deakins, chief executive of CitizenMe, a group helping consumers take control of their own data and monetise it.</blockquote>
So it is clear which side Yahoo is on. From their business POV it makes total sense. I wonder if Google will follow suit? And when they do, what the free users of those services will do in turn.
- Move ?
- Accept It ?
- Demand A Paid For Service From The Provider ?
The company says it’s not policy to do this — yet — but they’re testing locking Yahoo Mail users out of their accounts unless they turn off ad-blocking.
In case not - the headline of the article <a href="http://www.cheatsheet.com/gear-style/why-ad-blocking-in-ios-9-benefits-only-apple.html/?a=viewall" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">(found here)</a>, Why Ad-Blocking in iOS 9 Benefits Only Apple.
I run both Ghostery and uBlock – just to see what is being dumped on me by anyone.
- uBlock – 30 requests blocked (across 4 out of 25 domains connected)
- Ghostery found 17 trackers
- The purple box at the bottom is the Ghostery list of those trackers – all of which have to be loaded for me to use the site.
The reason it benefits ONLY Apple is that if you got to Apple.com and run the same test – you will find Ghostery finds nothing – and uBlock a single thing, probably because Apple doesn’t need that stuff.
Oh – and neither does the end user – you and me – because it slows down our experiences and fills our machines with stuff we don’t want, and causes us to be tracked and ….
But apparently CheatSheet DOES need it (se results above).
Maybe the good news is that what will happen – is that we find a better way to credit content delivery rather than the 21st century equivalent of bloatware.
Meanwhile – Kudos to CheatSheet for calling it Content-blocking in the article – then again – why ‘Ad-blocking’ in the headline ?
- Half or more of the paid online display advertisements that ad networks, media buyers, and ad agencies have knowingly been selling to clients over the years have never appeared in front of live human beings.
- Agencies have been receiving kickbacks and indirect payments from ad networks under the guise of “volume discounts” for serving as the middlemen between the networks and the clients who were knowingly sold the fraudulent ad impressions.
- Ad networks knowingly sell bot traffic to publishers and publishers knowingly buy the bot traffic because the resulting ad impressions earn both of them money—at the expense of the clients who are paying for the impressions.
It was John Wanamaker who one famously said (I paraphrase) – “Half of my advertising spend is wasted – I just don’t know which half.”
One of the promises of the digital economy was the ability to measure everything. It was going to be the advertiser’s salvation. Turns out not the case. Turns out that the systems can be gamed. Turns out that fraud is alive and well. And why ? Because again we are measuring the wrong thing. Surely advertising should be measured by the results – the increase to the bottom line if you will. But instead we are taking the easy way out and measuring what is easy. It’s just like EMail. Who cares about opens and clicks. What matters is revenue.
Only when we work out to attribute that click on that link to the resulting revenue will we be able to truly know what works and what doesn’t, with the correct attribution … and after that we can really start to see through and solve the ‘JW conundrum’.