Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Tags containing: "data collection"

Advertising | Perspectives

Now is the time for publishers to take back control

The forces that were already turning the publishing world upside down have been accelerated by the ongoing global pandemic. And publishers have been busy battening down the hatches as best they can. However, as the conversation shifts from sheltering in place to returning to some form of “normal,” publishers have a unique opportunity to shape the “normal” to which they’ll return on the other side of this crisis. 

Right now, as business-as-usual operations take a temporary pause due to the lockdown, repercussions reverberate across many industries. This offers publishers an unprecedented chance to roll up their sleeves and reset their course within the media landscape. Publishers know the direction they need to head. They’ve just lacked the break in the daily grind (and quarterly revenue expectations) to implement the course correction that they know is necessary for long-term sustainability. A pause in “business as usual” was sorely needed. 

Now is the time. This opportunity may not come again. Let’s look at how publishers can use this “pause” to take back control of their own destinies. They can use their collective power to transform the ad tech and media landscape for the future. 

Game changing

There’s no winning a direct battle against the triopoly. But publishers can still flourish in an ad world dominated by Google, Facebook, and Amazon. They simply cannot do it on their own. And they can’t do it by continuing down the same path they’ve been on. Banners and programmatic media represent the (same) game being played by the major platforms, only publishers are not as good at it. It’s time to play a different game, and at a scale that truly matters. It’s time for publishers to unite around the engagement and influence that define their value to consumers.   

When it comes to industry-wide collaboration, consider it a form of “herd immunity.” Coming out on the other side of the pandemic, publishers need to start working together to influence the media and ad tech landscape. It’s time to act as one and take some of the control back that has been willingly relinquished over the years. To do this, they need to focus on four key areas that they must influence in order to change the landscape: technology, data, inventory, and KPIs.

Cooperation and collective action

A healthy media business is characterized by healthy competition. But let’s face it: Covid-19 has the industry reeling. So, now we must re-evaluate what is best for our companies, and for the industry as a whole. We have an opportunity to reimagine the consortium mindset for a new era. We can look at DCN’s own TRUSTX as an example. By collectively providing premium inventory at scale, we create a technology backbone we can build upon.

Publishers don’t need to split their attention to become tech companies in their own right. They shouldn’t try to recreate Facebook or beat the existing walled gardens at hyper-targeting users with direct response ads. Publisher power lies in engagement and influence — changing minds and informing with trust and credibility. To capitalize on that power, they must work with partners that are incentivized to act in the publishers’ best interests and don’t work against these traits. 

They need partners that can help them unite to achieve a level of differentiation that has impact at a scale that matters. A big part of that is seeking out technology that can improve the speed, experiences, and ad quality on their sites. Lest publishers forget, ads are part of their content, and the quality of their ad experiences reflects on their brands.

Take control of your data

With a collaborative foundation to support them, it’s time for publishers to get their data back in order. Much as the Covid-19 pandemic offers the pause publishers need to hit the reset button, we’re also at a unique once-in-a-decade crossroads that will allow publishers to push back on the external data sources that have undercut their opportunities for the past decade. 

The world has been awash in third-party audience data for years now. And the providers of that data have been capturing a large part of the media value chain, diminishing the importance of the supply itself and publisher context. However, with the shift to cookieless environments and rise in privacy regulations, many of the tactics of these third-party data vendors have been rendered unsustainable. And this, in turn, opens up new opportunities for open web publishers to reclaim that value for themselves.

The problem is that many publishers are going down the same path of either fragmented homegrown solutions that will not matter in the long run or outsourcing everything to a new vendor. No matter how much more publisher-friendly those new data vendors are than the last ones, this individual outsourcing puts publishers at risk of losing their influence again down the road. Working together changes this. Publishers can aggregate their influence to serve the needs of the industry versus only those of the most demanding publishers.

Take control of your inventory

If publishers can come together to bring collective scale to their advertising opportunities, they’ll also be able to accomplish another much-desired initiative to increase sustainability: They can pull their inventory out of exchanges. It’s no secret that the backdoor access these exchanges have to publishers’ premium inventory is undercutting the value of their inventory. Programmatic success by third parties works against publishers’ interests. But of course, simply pulling your inventory from these third parties is not enough. Buyers do want ease and accessibility, which is why cooperation is key. Publishers must give them a way to buy that’s easy and exclusive.  

Take control of your KPIs

Should publishers really be judged on how well they get users to click off their sites?  If you’re looking to drive conversions, hit an audience or drive low-cost clicks, throw in the towel now.  Publishers will never beat a Facebook on user data, an Amazon on capturing commerce intent or Google on capturing search intent — never. Pardon the bluntness, but trying to beat the giants at their own game is like choosing to be the team that plays against the Harlem Globe Trotters. Don’t play a game you can’t win. 

Publishers are great at driving engagement, influence, and deeper thought across a smaller, more selective audience. The ad experience and the KPIs around them should reflect that. As powerful as the large platforms are, they are still largely built on direct response. Digital branding and mid-funnel influence is still nascent and a game that publishers are better equipped to play and win. 

Covid-19’s derailment of the daily business treadmill offers a unique opportunity for publishers to hit the soft reset button on their current paths and unite for a more sustainable future. If they seize this chance, they have the opportunity to wield far greater control over the post-pandemic world into which they emerge. They simply need the courage to not go back to “normal.”

The time is right. Let’s move.

Industry-Research

Consumers are excited about 5G connectivity. Less so about escalating privacy concerns

Perhaps the word of the year for 2019 should be “connectivity.” According to Deloitte’s new report, 2019 Connectivity and Mobile Trends (CMT), the average household now has 11 connected devices, with seven different smart screens to view content. Smart home devices are also popular with more than a quarter of U.S. households (28%). Consumers are using connected thermostats, security, lights, and other connected products.

Consumers are also enthusiastic about 5th generation wireless networks (5G) and the promise of higher performance, greater reliability, and more cost-effective usage. Awareness is quite high with close to two-thirds of consumers reporting that they are familiar with 5G wireless networks. In fact, 28% of consumers say they are “very likely” to buy a compatible smartphone when the service is available in their area.

According to Deloitte’s findings, both Gen Z and Millennials plan to use 5G for its promise of speed and bandwidth for gaming and entertainment services like augmented reality and virtual reality (AR and VR). These services require high-speed, low-latency connections. Further, mobile gaming will also see a surge in usage. Nearly half of both Gen Z and Millennials familiar with 5G (49%), report that they will play more mobile video games using 5G connectivity.

Data collection

With consumers more connected than ever before, they are also more aware of the realities of the data economy including the collection of their personal data. Nearly three-quarters of consumers (72%) agree that they are more aware of how their data is collected and used than a year ago. Connected devices are a way of life. So too is the exchange of personal data for free digital services.

It appears that over half of consumers (52%), agree that the value they derive from digital services overrides their privacy and security. It’s important to note, this study did not differentiate between the data collection of publishers compared to social platforms or between first-party or third-party in its line of questioning.

Vulnerability is key here. More than half of consumers (58%) are “very” or “extremely” concerned about the privacy of their smartphone data, and 59% feel similar about its security. Consumers are also concerned about the privacy and security of smart phone speakers (73%) and about the privacy of home automation devices (72%). Importantly, 90% of consumers report that they should be able to see and delete data that companies collect about them. Further, 84% state that they want to be paid by companies that profit from their data.

Data protection

Consumers see platform and online services that collect their data as “most responsible” for protecting it (35%). This is followed by consumers themselves (26%), and the government (15%). Nearly two-thirds of consumers (61%) report that platforms and online services are making it harder for them to understand how their data is being used. A full 56% also state that they have less trust in these companies than they did a year ago. Interestingly, most consumers (84%) agree that the government should do more to regulate the way companies can collect and use data.

Consumers clearly welcome better connectivity and improved service performances. However, this comes with heightened awareness and concerns over their data privacy. While they value the online services they use, consumers want more control and transparency on the data collection, usage and a share in its monetization.

Industry-Research

Out of control: Consumers increasingly wary of data collection, use, and security

Consumers are increasingly concerned about their privacy and apprehensive about their activities being tracked. They are also very worried about the ways in which their data is being used and about its security. According to Pew Research Center’s new study, Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information, 81% of U.S. consumers say the potential risks of data collection by companies outweigh the benefits, and 66% say the same about government data collection. In fact, most Americans do not think it’s possible to go through daily life without having data collected about them by companies or the government (62% and 63%, respectively).

Out of control

Consumer concerns about digital privacy includes those who collect, store, and use their personal information. Nearly eight in 10 consumers are “not too” or “not at all” confident that companies will admit or take responsibility if personal information is compromised or misused. Further, 69% also report this same lack of confidence in the way companies use their personal information.

Most consumers in the US do not feel in control of their own personal data. Eight in 10 consumers report they have little or no control over what data that companies (81%) and the government (84%) collect about them. Consumers report seeing little benefit from all the data that companies (72%) and the government (76%) collect about them.

Privacy, please

Concerns about the right to privacy can be traced to the Constitution. In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy can be inferred from the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments. The concept of privacy has evolved for consumers and now includes access to their digital footprint and all of their personal information. Pew finds that consumers specifically identify privacy as “other people and organizations not being able to access their possessions or private life” (28%) and “control over information, possessions, self; deciding what’s accessible to others” (26%). Many also feel the term “personal data” is interchangeable with “digital data.”

Data insecurity

Given the number of major data breaches in the last few years, (Marriott International, Yahoo!, Facebook, Equifax to name a few) it is no wonder that 70% of consumers report that their data is less secure today than it was five years ago. 

Few consumers know what companies and the government are doing with the data collected on them. Further, most consumers lack the understanding of personal data tracking policies and restrictions.

Digital sites, especially premium sites with a direct consumer relationship, must find a way to clearly communicate their data tracking polices. Further, it’s important to clearly message data tracking policies with complete transparency on what data is being collected, what data is being used and how it’s being uses.

Featured Post | Perspectives

Platforms, politics, people and sharks

Last week at the 2019 World Media Congress in Las Vegas I had the privilege of being asked to address the weighty topic of “Platforms, Politics, and People.”  At this moment in time, it presents a remarkable challenge to cover the confluence of these topics before a global audience.

I found myself trying illuminate a perilous intersection between the growing distrust of tech platforms (which continue to register record usage) and the growing divisiveness in politics. And, to make things even more challenging, my speaking slot was at 5 p.m. just before cocktails in Las Vegas, of all places.

And so, facing challenges both topical and logistical, I decided to do what had to be done: I cued up “Baby Shark.”

Jumping the shark

As much as this dreaded video is guaranteed to intractably embed itself in the mind of any hapless listener, it also represents the good of these topics. This song impossibly united all of Washington, regardless of politics, as the Nationals won their first ever World Series. It has racked up close to four billion views on Google’s YouTube making it one of the most watched videos of all time. If there is good in the world of platforms and politics, it’s represented in Baby Shark.

Yet, despite the tenaciously peppy and persistent beat of Baby Shark, my mind turned to the bigger, badder sort. After consulting DCN member National Geographic and the Merriam-Webster dictionary, I found the term I was looking for: feeding frenzy.

This wildly aggressive attack of prey by an animal or group of animals provides an accurate description of policy makers’ and the press’ relationship to tech companies right now. Their frenetic scrutiny of tech has been driven primarily by Facebook’s woes over the past 18 months. It took some time but there are already signs of Google’s blood in the water. The alpha predators are under attack.

Boiling the ocean

Tech platforms currently face two issues that are making big waves. The first is a slew of antitrust investigations, which are underway in the Germany, UK, Israel, Australia, and France. Oh, and also in the offices of nearly every one of the United States’ Attorneys General, not to mention by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and Congress. For perspective, recall the antitrust investigation of Microsoft two decades ago, which many argue provided the oxygen for Facebook and Google to launch. That investigation (which resulted on certain limitations being imposed on the company) involved a mere 20 states as compared with this bipartisan group of nearly 50.

On its own, an antitrust review might not cut too deeply. Significantly, however, this one takes place at the same time as new laws around privacy and data protection are being enacted globally. The business model of devouring personal data to micro-target advertising is at risk. It’s this intersection of data and competition policy which presents significant challenges to this mighty Duopoly.

Google and Facebook would prefer to keep antitrust scrutiny focused on the price of their products. That’s because most of their services are free to the end consumer. But price is not the only factor in an antitrust investigation. And, in an increasingly complex profit-driven data economy, new issues have arisen that raise the stakes. For one, there’s the obvious question of whether Facebook’s dominance allowed it to look the other way while users’ data was abused, and its post-IPO profits soared. 

Shark tank

Significantly, today’s political concerns – and these investigations – are bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats alike are increasingly worried about data privacy and the ability for market entrants to innovate in a world where two companies dominate through data-based surveillance advertising. At the same time, everyone is getting more educated on the issues as we can see in the hearings. And we’re seeing an increasing flow of press coverage and research.

I find no better examples of these two developments – bipartisan concerns and savvy scrutiny – than in the actions of some of our youngest politicians:

The youngest member of the House is the media-friendly Democratic US Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ahead of Mark Zuckerberg testifying two weeks ago, she went to Twitter to learn more about the issues and asked the public for good lines of questioning. Her engaged constituents dutifully replied with more than 12,000 responses.

With this input, her questions of Zuckerberg captured significant attention and highlights spread through Twitter receiving millions of views. We witnessed a representative using Twitter to gather input to question one of the most powerful people in the world and then to move the discussion further along after the hearing. Simply put, she came of age with the Internet and social media and knows how to use it.

The youngest member of the Senate is Missouri’s Republican Senator, Josh Hawley. I played his grilling of a Google policy executive for attendees of the World Media Congress. The audience was clearly pleased to see a Google executive being expertly questioned about concerns ranging from antitrust to child safety and privacy.

Chumming the water

These matters continue to drive down consumer trust in Facebook and Google. Unfortunately, this is where we confront an uncomfortable dichotomy between the interests of advertisers and the public. To date, advertisers are still drunk on the precision targeting, efficiency, and scale that Facebook brings to the table. 

As such, they’ve been willing to avert their attention from the growing body of research that shows that the perception of environment seeps into advertisements presented there. In the right context, that’s a good thing. In the wrong context, irreparable brand damage can occur.

Shark tale

The sailing is not smooth for publishers right now. While digital offers incredible opportunities for consumer engagement, audience interaction, and innovation, the market is reacting having been driven to the brink by the dominance of a few predatory players.

But it’s time to take the offensive and go on the hunt. There’s blood in the water and a frenzy of scrutiny buoyed along on a tide of changing consumer perspective. We need to focus on the opportunities emerging amidst this political and public scrutiny of the way in which information is being distributed and data is being collected and deployed.

DCN member research shows considerable growth in non-advertising revenues driven primarily by subscriptions and direct-consumer revenues. DCN’s public research, further confirmed by recent News Media Alliance research, also shows that most digital subscribers are happy with the value they’re receiving and at the same time are not concerned about how much they’re spending in any given month. These are two very good things: Consumers are happy with the value and not closely tracking what they’re spending. I smell opportunity in the water. The launch of Disney+ last week for $6.99 per month saw more than 10 million customers sign on in the first 24 hours. That’s a clear testament to this dynamic. 

Open water

With all of this in mind, there are four things I encourage everyone to focus on as we continue to build safe and sustainable businesses. First, know that trust is the currency our industry must capitalize on. Publishers can take their uniquely trust-based consumer relationships and brand safe environments to the bank. Second, premium publisher brands add considerable value to any platform. This is evident in the $100 million Facebook spent to entice publishers to participate into its latest foray into news. Third, media’s revenue mix is changing. Publishers are doubling down on consumer revenues and it’s paying off. And fourth, direct relationships win, and data is very much a part of this equation.

Above all, publishers need to maintain their trust-based relationships with consumers. They must protect their data and ensure that under emerging privacy laws, Facebook and Google don’t find ways to circumvent these protections and continue to vacuum up consumer data outside of their expectations. We must continue to illuminate these behaviors when we see them, and to build the next wave of digital innovation as the tide turns against the Duopoly.

Advertising | Uncategorized

Compete or collaborate? Two approaches to dealing with walled gardens

Publishers are rightfully concerned with the fact that huge search and social companies dominate today’s digital advertising market. Typically, they have reacted to this state of play in one of two ways: by either trying to compete with these so-called walled gardens, or by joining forces with them.

But which approach leads to the best results for advertisers? Should publishers give in meekly to the “can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” mentality that’s been lining the pockets of these companies for well over a decade? Or should they take stock, take a stand, and find profitable ways to compete against them?

We’re in a unique age of digital domination

The advent of digital has brought with it a dilemma for publishers and their advertisers. It is possible to reach a wider audience than ever before. In most cases, that means they need to pay for exposure with the globe’s biggest and most influential big tech firms, Google and Facebook.

However, many publishers are embracing the challenge of taking on these closed publishing ecosystems. They have confidence in their methods, and they want to prove to their customers that their brand is in fact in safer hands when it’s away from the monopolistic claws of the duopoly.

Others, however, believe that the walled gardens created by such companies make it nigh on impossible to compete for reach in the wider market. And some of them look to inter-provider collaboration as a way to guarantee results for their customers (and keep their business afloat).

The case for competition

A growing percentage of today’s publishers are hesitant to collaborate with big tech because they’ve been burned by them in the past. And many they don’t trust platforms to deliver the exposure and brand-safe contexts that their advertisers need.

The topic of trust has come to the fore in recent years. A series of antitrust investigations have been exposing the monopolistic practices of big tech, particularly in the US, where 50 state attorneys recently opened general investigations into Google’s advertising policies.

High fluctuations in traffic from these providers hasn’t improved their reputation for stable, consistent results, nor has the withdrawal of many features from these platforms that were intended to help publishers share, and profit from, their content. Facebook’s Instant Articles, for example, died a rather untimely death after just two years thanks to inconsistent reporting and a lack of opportunity for monetization.

The technical challenges involved with cooperating with these companies are also proving to be barriers to successful collaboration. Many big tech firms, not least Facebook, expect publishers to build their own separate content injection API, a process that is costly, time-consuming and inconvenient.

Data driven

In fact, walled gardens are notoriously cagey with their data as a whole, making it difficult to remove and activate key information from their own systems and thereby rendering it incompatible with other aggregation platforms that might have better (read: more relevant) features for publishing houses.

This has led to many publishers relying heavily on their own primary data as their main insights to the market. Doing so might be restrictive, but the upside is, at least the company in question has complete control over how much of this data is released, and who sees it.  

Experience matters

When considering the case for competition, we also need to look at the way in which the buying public respond to ads from various channels. Research has proven that people are sick of screens covered with paid search ads, but are receptive to advertising in the context of trustworthy content. A report from Nielsen goes so far as to say that local media receives three times higher consumer trust and 2.5 high positive sentiment compared to ads from high market-share platforms, suggesting that ads from magazines, TV and newspapers are less annoying to (and thus more successful with) consumers.  

The case for collaboration

Google and Facebook not only dominate the publishing space, they’re directing it. It could be argued that they are doing a lot of the hard work by blazing the trail. Thus, all collaborators need to do is keep up – and use the features and innovations delivered via their marketplaces to the advantage of their advertisers. A key argument for collaboration is that shared data equals better data. Having access to the insights shared by walled gardens benefits the whole of market. That is, if this data hasn’t been manipulated for these companies’ own gain, of course.

And here we are, back to the elephant in the room. The issue of trust. Those who are still keen to collaborate should be encouraged by the fact that some big tech CEOs, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, do appear to be addressing publishers’ concerns head on.

Yes, more needs to be done when it comes to levelling the playing field for publishers. (And proposed policies such as the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act are going to go some way to alleviating publishers’ concerns.) But the fact remains that these companies lead the market because they have nailed a model that, for the most part, works. According to a survey from Adform, some 13% of publishers even believe that walled gardens simplify revenue generation and the distribution process. Despite the bad press, there are publishers out there who are happy with what’s on offer and who will keenly collaborate.

Finding the best approach

Both approaches have their own merits. The only way that publishers can decide whether they want to compete or collaborate with Google and Facebook is to consider their long-term goals, then determine how the features on offer from each platform will help them achieve them. They also need to think about where they stand on content sharing and control, data ownership, and the availability and accuracy of their reporting metrics.

And there’s no reason why publishers can’t adopt a dual strategy that allow them to compete and collaborate in equal measure. After all, collaboration doesn’t mean giving in to big tech. It just means keeping their biggest adversaries onside – and using access to big tech’s products and policies to better inform their own strategy.

Can we really compare news publishers with big tech firms?

Regardless of the relationship they have with Google and Facebook, smaller publishers must remember that they offer something different to the tech giants of today. They’re unique from big tech in three important ways:

  1. Advertisers trust them, because they have control over where their ads appear.
  2. They can not only prove campaign ROI, but also deliver recommendations that add value to their offering. It’s an element of personalization that Big Tech struggles to emulate at scale.
  3. Crucially, they the capabilities to deliver omnichannel campaigns in a much more agile way than the bigger firms. This is key in a market that’s increasingly embracing the combined power of digital, print, OOH and events advertising channels. 

There is most definitely an argument for publishers to focus to their own strengths, not big tech’s well-documented weaknesses.

Featured Post | Perspectives | Policy

TikTok: How China concerns highlight the lack of US leadership on data

Last week, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence to request an assessment of the national security risks posed by TikTok. As you may know, TikTok is owned by ByteDance, which is based in Beijing. With TikTok’s popularity surging worldwide, the Senators expressed concerns about the Chinese Communist government’s ability to access consumer data collected by TikTok, censor speech, or even influence elections.

Of course, these concerns are not new. In the past, other policymakers have expressed similar concerns about the Chinese government when there is news about a US company operating in the Chinese market. Recently, Apple and Google among others were criticized for removing apps from their app stores that the Chinese government did not like.

A unified front

Chinese censorship has long been an issue that runs contrary to American beliefs and policy. Across the board, American policymakers agree that free speech is an important principle that should be protected. And this political consensus informs our stance with regard to China. There are questions about the best way to strategically engage with China, but there is no question that America supports the right of people to protest and speak freely.

The Chinese government has also been heavy handed with its use of data for surveillance as well as to monitor public (and private) sentiment. Though it has GDPR-like data regulation, what companies can do and what the government can do under Chinese law are quite different. This becomes a more complicated issue for the U.S. as we lack a federal standard or consensus for what constitutes ethical use or reasonable protection of consumer data by corporate entities or the government.

In 2018, Europe began to enforce the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which provides a framework for the proper collection and use of consumer data. And, in the last year, a handful of states (California most prominently) have adopted consumer privacy laws. For years, individual states have maintained separate and different data security and breach notification requirements. However, federal policymakers remain divided over a national standard for how consumer data should be protected, collected and used. This lack of consensus hinders America’s ability to lead the global conversation about data. And it certainly prevents our ability to take a unified stance on China’s data policies.

Competitive behavior

This year, we have seen multiple investigations opened into the anticompetitive behavior of Google and Facebook. Some have argued against breaking up Facebook and Google because these two companies need to be big enough to compete with China. For me, that argument runs counter to the core American values of democracy and capitalism. Ignore for the moment that monopolies (or duopolies in this case) tend to grow stagnant and stifle innovation. Our answer to China shouldn’t be “let’s be more like China!” Rather, we should be focused on enabling a fair marketplace where small and large businesses can compete, where consumers are protected and empowered, and where ideas and speech are protected.

DCN has long supported the passage of a federal standard for data security and breach notifications and a comprehensive consumer privacy law. Having a single national standard for the protection and use of consumer data would benefit consumers, who currently have no or different laws that apply. It would also benefit businesses, which would prefer to avoid having to comply with multiple and sometimes conflicting state laws.

Now, we have one more reason to unify our policy. A national standard on data security and use would get the US off the sidelines and enable American policymakers to lead the global conversation about data.

Advertising | Perspectives | Revenue

With the cookie crumbling, the new recipe for data-driven success features consumer trust

The digital advertising industry is changing. Third party cookies are being rendered obsolete by recent browser updates including Safari’s ITP 2.2/2.3 and Firefox’s v69. Users are also becoming wary of how vulnerable their personal information is to misuse and mishandling following the Cambridge Analytica Scandal and Equifax Data Breach – among others.

In the face of this shift, the industry needs to behave responsibility and be cautious, so that “data” is not called out as the underlying issue that needs to be solved. Data is not inherently good or bad. And when data is used responsibility, it empowers digital media and advertising. Data can a user to discover a compelling article or product that they may have never found on their own. It also gives tools to advertisers to be strategic about who, when, and where their messages reach valued consumers. And data allows the world’s leading publishers to focus on producing quality content that consumers depend on.

As an industry, we are scrambling to find tactical solutions to each new browser update or legal regulation that comes out. Despite the need to address these emerging issues, we must keep our eye on the big issues. And the proper use of data is one we must focus on.

Consumer privacy comes first

Consumers have a right to privacy. They also have a right to know how their data is used and shared and they have a right to determine if they are comfortable with their data being used for advertising. The industry needs to come together to align on governing principles that, at the core, have fundamental protections in place for user’s data across the entire ecosystem.

There needs to be a sincere consideration for the user’s right to privacy and fundamental protections in place for their data across the entire ecosystem. Consumers need to feel safe and protected online. And their information is not being misused or mistreated. Additionally, we need to be mindful with the perception of “creepy ads” in order to build the level of trust like that of users sharing fingerprints and face recognition with phone manufacturers.

Education is key

The industry needs to better inform users about how their data is being used and provide the option to opt-out. At the same time, it is critical to teach users about the importance of advertising and how it fuels the free content that they consume on a daily basis.

Moreover, we need to educate users on why allowing sharing data with responsible parties can help them have a much better experience and receive more personalized ads. With more and more direct-to-consumer brands, consumers mostly learn about them and their products through advertising. These companies are taking on giant competitors and need to be very efficient with their advertising. To do so, they focus on providing a unique and added value to consumers, particularly early adopters. The most effective way to reach those people is by using data and customer profiles.

We also need to be open about how data driven advertising supports journalism while making a true and honest best effort to provide value to marketers, publishers, and users.

Let’s build a healthy economy

In order to move forward, we need to commit to building a healthy digital economy and evolve compliance in order to restore trust among consumers. We need to look at ways to ease concerns among users, providing more transparency across the web and making it easier for users to exercise their right to privacy. We need to educate users on the value of their data and the ways that it is being used to provide a healthy digital economy that they can benefit from.  The bottom line is a cookie-less world means one big thing for advertisers: We need to gain back the user’s trust in order to succeed as an industry.

Featured Post | Innovation

Media tech bosses talk innovation, disruption, and delivering great experiences

Media businesses today juggle a lot of C-suite acronyms. When it comes to tech-related execs, there are established staples like the chief information officer (CIO) and chief technology officer (CTO). However, in recent years we’ve seen the emergence of the chief digital officer and chief data officer—two titles that share an acronym but can have distinctly divergent duties. Yet all share a common purpose: using technology to aid operations, increase revenue, and outpace the competition.

In the world of digital media, those are some big responsibilities, especially today, when artificial intelligence, machine learning, neural networking, and analytics increasingly perform more of the heavy lifting involved in marketing and sales. Folks in these positions are at the forefront of the new technologies and innovations implemented by a media business. Yet they often aren’t the ones you read about, as presidents and CEOs commonly get the lion’s share of quotes and media attention when such matters are reported on.

However, spend just a little time with a CTO or CDO and you quickly get a sense of how stimulating and forward-thinking their jobs are as well as how in tune they have to be with the latest tech trends that will shape and impact companies pushing content for a living. Case in point: Jess Szmajda, Axios’ recently hired CTO, who’s been brought aboard to help the enterprise build its paid product offerings. Szmajda’s got boundless energy and enthusiasm, but she’s also got a lot on her plate.

Business Driven

“I lead Axios’ tech team in building tools and advancing capabilities for Smart Brevity—our innovative storytelling format that gets to the point and tells you what you need to know and why it matters,” says Szmajda, a transgender woman and the first female CTO of a major media company. “From the forward-facing items that our audience interacts with.” These range from “Axios’ infinitely scrolling stream, newsletters, advertisements, or podcast—to our behind-the-scenes efforts, like ensuring user privacy and supporting highly performant responses during traffic surges, our tech team touches almost every part of the company.”

Not every media property is alike, however, which means that the tech chief’s role can vary, depending on the company. Take, for instance, Joe Simon, Vice Media’s recently enlisted CTO.

“My job involves being across and responsible for all technology activities, including business applications, basic and post-production infrastructure, the cloud, all things digital—like websites and apps—and our broadcast and media operations,” says Simon. “The business functions of CTOs can be extremely different. For example, we support post-production and broadcast, while another CTO may work closer with clients and be in charge of developing new technologies.”

Szmajda notes a common misconception about CTOs—that their main objective is to advance technology for technology’s sake.

“What CTOs actually focus on is finding ways to make technology work better for people. One of my personal goals throughout my career has been to try and build technology that enables and enhances human abilities,” she says. “That’s what the tech team and I are focused on as we develop and innovate Axios’ efficient and valuable way of communicating.”

Data that Delivers

A media player’s CDO, on the other hand, often has a wholly different set of duties. Consider Mike Smith, chief data officer for Hearst Magazines. He’s charged with managing strategy and ongoing development of the firm’s digital advertising operations, data capabilities, and ad product offerings; Smith also supervises CDS Global, a Hearst division that delivers outsourced business solutions across various industries.

“We help our advertisers predict their prospective customers so they can better target ads. They give us data and our data scientists study and merge it with our own collective audience data using machine learning models,” Smith explains. “My role is data-centric but in the service of sales and editorial.”

Smith’s challenges include educating the data scientists who work for him about how advertising works and trying to satisfy advertisers who expect the data richness inherent in a Facebook ad.

“Premium publishers need to hire people who can qualify the data better and serve advertisers better when it comes to their media buys,” adds Smith. “The advertiser wants to purchase your display ads but with data informing that buy. The question is, how do you charge for that?”

Disruption and Distribution

Simon, meanwhile, faces down other types of complications.

“The media industry is going through some pretty big and disruptive changes, and Vice is right in the middle of it. Audience tastes and consumption patterns are all changing, and we need to evolve with those changes—all while focusing on current and expected revenue,” he says.

While the obstacles vary by position, there’s one thing all three of these pros can agree on: The job comes with rewarding perks beyond the paycheck.

“I’m very excited about new distribution options, and I’m fascinated by the diverse and evolving consumption options for our audience. These new opportunities give us a chance to change our business model and offer new products,” Simon says.

As for Szmajda, she’s excited about the prospects of pushing her company forward—in more ways than merely technological.

“One of my favorite things about serving as CTO for Axios is the incredible runway I have to build and scale our tech team,” notes Szmajda. “I have always had a people-first mentality and an intense focus on diversity and inclusion in tech. The field is dominated by white, heterosexual men, and many people don’t see people who look like them or identify with them or think like them, making it hard to break into. Through top-notch hiring efforts and community engagement, I’m really excited to build out this team and its culture.”

Perspectives

My data, my rules

Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg published a new company manifesto called “A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social Networking.” In it, Zuckerberg acknowledged Facebook’s poor privacy track record: “frankly we don’t currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services.” Who knew he had such a gift for understatement?

Zuckerberg outlined a new approach for the company, in which Facebook will build services that allow people to communicate privately. Apart from acknowledging the extreme examples of “child exploitation, terrorism, and extortion,” Zuckerberg doesn’t say how he will address the very real concern that he may be enabling the more problematic aspects of Facebook’s effects on society to flourish without scrutiny. Nor does he say that he is changing Facebook’s basic model of hoovering up data about its users and monetizing it through marketing.

However, Zuckerberg is clearly responding to growing concerns about how the digital world impacts our privacy. I share these concerns. I also have a suggestion for how they should be addressed.

The Problem With Privacy Policies

Let me start with two questions. Have you ever read a company’s terms of service or privacy policy all the way through? Have you navigated through the bowels of your social media service’s privacy settings to establish what data they can collect and how they can use it?

If you are like most people, the answer to these questions is “no.” According to Deloitte, 91% of us don’t read the terms of service. Most of us are not equipped with the knowledge base or willing to spend the time needed to navigate through privacy policies and privacy settings. In 2008, one study estimated it would take a typical internet user 244 hours a year to do so! And it is surely worse today.

The Cost of Free

We sort of get that when we use a “free” service, the real “cost” of that service involves giving a company access to data about ourselves. But we only sort of get it because we don’t really know what we are giving up, and therefore we are not in a position to assess whether it’s a good deal or not. Spoiler alert: it’s not.

For starters, the value exchange between consumers and service providers is completely opaque, with only one side of this transaction really understanding what is going on. Without knowing the terms of a deal, how can you be sure it’s fair?

As my colleague Pooja Midha says, with transparent value exchange, everybody can win. Before the rise of the internet, the value exchange for all advertising was relatively clear: The ads were the cost (or part of the cost) of access to the content. If you wanted the content, you “paid” for it by giving your time and attention to the ads. Sure, we can turn the pages of the magazine, or grab a sandwich at a commercial break, but that behavior was expected and factored into the price. Both consumers and marketers had a pretty clear idea what they were getting and what they were giving up.

The Data Dilemma

With the internet, that all changed. Free services like those offered by Facebook and Google didn’t offer content, they offered functionality. And they offered it in exchange for consumers’ time and attention paid to advertising. Or, at least, so it seemed. But the unique, bi-directional nature of internet-based services allowed for a second source of value to flow to a service provider – data. And data is where the real money is.

A recent survey asked consumers whether they would be willing to share their data for a price and what price. A majority (57%) said it was worth a minimum of $10, while 43% valued it at less than $10. The higher the income, the more likely they were to want more for their data.

This stands in stark contrast to the true value of their data. Facebook’s average annual revenue per users in the US and Canada was reported to be near $112 in 2018. Think about that. US consumers think their data is worth $10 or less, and just one company is generating $112 from their data.

Regulatory Restrictions

Transactions where consumers are faced with huge information imbalances are often targets for government regulation. It is no surprise to see the GDPR efforts in Europe and the activity happening in California with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the Governor’s recent call for a data dividend to be paid to consumers. While renewed interest in privacy and more transparent value exchange is great, it doesn’t address the core issue. Let me explain.

Today consumers have to choose whether or not they are willing to abide by the myriad privacy policies of all the different companies they engage with over the internet. In my view, that is exactly backwards. It puts the burden on the party with the least information, and in the worst position to understand the details of what they are getting into.

Personal Control

I have a better idea: My data, my rules. Imagine if you could go to a central site and establish what data can and cannot be collected from you, and at what price. This becomes your personal privacy policy. It follows you around the web, and any service you interact with has to abide by it. If you set your privacy policy to be too restrictive a service may not be willing to work with you, or work with you for free. But that’s ok! The value exchange is completely transparent. You both know what you are giving up and getting – unlike today.

This would be a huge step forward, empowering consumers, and making the digital world easier to navigate effectively, and the costs of doing so more transparent.

In a “my data, my rules” world the consumer is empowered and the value exchange is clear, with information and understanding similar on both sides. In a “my data, my rules” world, marketers can be confident that the data they are using is permissioned. This will reduce their exposure to brand damaging charges of “surveillance capitalism.” Like marketers, in a “my data, my rules” world, technology companies can engage with consumers more safely, knowing that the data they are collecting is permissioned, reducing the risk of ugly articles in the New York Times, and political fallout.

Personal Data Protection in Practice

There are two ways this change can happen. The first is government regulation. Think of it as the ‘do not call’ list on steroids. It may well be that this is the only way to flip current practice.

But there is another way. All it would take would be for a few key players to adopt this policy and refuse access to their platforms for any entity that doesn’t abide by a consumer’s stated privacy policy. For example, what if Apple or Google established rules that no app could be available in the app store unless it abided by the user’s stated privacy policy? Or if a large network operator like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T required that everyone engaging with their customers abide by that customer’s privacy policy?

With one large player having established this as standard operating procedure, it would be hard for other companies not to follow. What consumer wants to use a service that refuses, as a matter of policy, to follow their preferences?

It is time for a change. Let’s stop hiding behind opacity and complexity. Instead let’s all live by a simple principle on the internet. My data, my rules.

Perspectives

The cookie conundrum: Complexity for publishers in the age of ecommerce and cybercrime rings

Media publishers in 2018 are at a historical juncture as they face new pressures from many directions. These pressures included competing content providers who provide a wider array of products to draw site users; readers with changing habits, expectations, and preferences; and a growing number of data privacy regulations that are forcing businesses, in general, to change how they operate.

Publishers in the increasingly diversified digital media landscape have had to revise their business models along with the introduction of paywalls, multi-tiered subscription packages, and merchandise. Not only are they content providers but full-blown ecommerce businesses, a change that comes with its own set of challenges.

Cookies and commerce

That fact is that, if a website accepts any form of payment, it is running an ecommerce platform. Actually, media companies are unique in that they can have three disparate revenue channels all tied to their digital environment: advertising/sponsorships, subscriptions and merchandise. More likely than not, these three channels are managed by various internal groups with different objectives. The absence of a single throat to choke for the digital environment at a time when the latter is under mounting cyberattacks and a growing number of data privacy regulations raise these companies’ exposure to a host of digital risks.

The most significant challenge is managing all the third parties and digital partners who help make the ecommerce websites’ user experience a success. That experience involves providing content to users based on their subscription level and enabling payment for subscriptions and—for a growing number of publishers—merchandise.

The problem is, most of these third parties, and the cookies they use to identify visitors/users, are unknown to publishers. On average, the cookies they drop into an ecommerce site can account for anywhere between 50-95% of all cookies on that site. Left unmonitored and unchecked by publishers’ digital policies, those largely unknown cookies can degrade the user experience by driving up latency, collecting information from unsuspecting users, or both.

Regulation ups the stakes

While latency might not break any laws, collecting information without users’ informed, specific consent violates a rising number of data privacy regulations. We have seen the impact of changes to the legislative landscape on publishers. Privacy laws such as the EU’s GDPR and the state of California’s Consumer Privacy Act have created an increasingly dangerous environment for data processors who fail to adhere to them.

In May of this year, after GDPR came into effect, large US based publishers such as The Chicago Tribune became unavailable to EU readers, due to the mismatch in privacy laws in the European Union, and the code operating on these sites. At the time of writing, the Tribune remains offline in the EU, highlighting how seriously even the largest publishers are taking the legislative changes we have witnessed this year. The proposal of a U.S. federal Consumer Data Privacy Act, which would jail CEOs for misleading regulators makes compliance even more urgent, especially for large companies.

The mood of publishers’ audiences is also changing. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal has proven, users of all types of platforms are increasingly aware and suspicious of how their own data is collected and used. The last year’s mega breaches such as Equifax have only escalated consumer wariness of the security and use of the data they willingly provide to publishers.

Bad actors

To further muddy the waters, we have seen the exponential growth of malicious campaigns targeting publishers. Increasingly sophisticated cybercrime groups such as Magecart, widely believed to be responsible for the British Airways breach, and, more recently, 3ve, are exploiting vulnerabilities around payment pages, capitalizing on digital advertising’s obscure processes, and targeting users of digital wallets.

As if all of this wasn’t enough, publishers also have to contend with upstream partners who process or use the data harvested on their platform whose consent management process, or lack thereof, could put publishers at risk of infringing data privacy laws.

Digital cookies are routinely dropped on with 65% of cookies collecting personal data, and 28% of cookies lasting longer than a year. While they allow publishers to provide a better experience for readership, it can also mean that they are in direct conflict with the latest data privacy laws.

Getting cookies right

Publishers can take proactive measures to stay compliant by ensuring that executives in charge of the various ecommerce revenue streams align their goals, objectives and policies in order to safeguard and enhance the user experience. Understanding the landscape of your digital ecosystem is essential. Make sure that you are monitoring your website for the code being run, and proactively question why it is running. Furthermore, the third parties running code, and the companies in their own supply chain who process data need to understand the players and activities in their own digital landscapes.

However, taking these steps are just the start. Publishers must also prove such measures are being taken. Therefore, publishers, their third-party partners and any other relevant parties should undertake rigorous audit trails to retain proof of regulatory compliance. This allows you to make the case for your overall legislative posture, if it is called into question.

In addition to this, there are industry organizations which aim to create a set of standardized compliance-related practices in order to create a more transparent culture around cookies. The International Advertising Bureau have attempted to deliver and enforce a framework via their CMP Validator. The AOP (Association for Online Publishing) UK has engaged in similar activities with their Cookie Consortium. Involvement of as many publishers and technology vendors as possible in these industry initiatives is crucial to the continued success of publishers and other players along the digital supply chain.

Why it matters

It’s important to establish that the running of cookies on web pages is a fundamental part of how the internet functions in 2018. It makes life significantly easier for both publishers hoping to keep users happy, even working to turn this hope into an actionable reality. It also benefits users hoping to access content, and marketers hoping to build a strategy.

However, they can only provide these useful functions if the organizations that use them do so with the appropriate regard for any regulations that govern them, as well as for the users whose data is stored in them. In fact, publishers stand to gain the most from the changing regulatory environment, which provides an opportunity to collaborate more closely with third parties and digital partners, and ultimately build customer trust by improving their user experience.

About the Author

Chris Olson co-founded The Media Trust with a goal to transform the internet experience by creating better digital ecosystems to govern assets, connect partners and enable Digital Risk Management. Chris has more than 15 years of experience leading high tech and ad technology start-ups and managing international software development, product and sales teams. Prior to The Media Trust, Chris created an Internet-based transaction system to research, buy and sell media for TV, radio, cable, and online channels. He started his career managing equity and fixed income electronic trading desks for Salomon Brothers, Citibank and Commerzbank AG.

Featured Post | Innovation | Perspectives | Revenue

In 2019, these 4 shifts offer opportunities for trusted media brands

 

Successful media companies have always relied upon having a direct, trusted relationship with consumers and advertisers. Consumers want to know the brand and the experiences they’ll get from them. And advertisers that want to build this same level of customer relationship directly seek out these trusted media brands or tune advertising algorithms their way.  

The teams at trusted content brands wake up every day and create content people love, products that serve them well, and safe and valuable advertising environments—all while maintaining the high level of ethics and professional standards that benefit viewers, readers, listeners, and a healthy marketplace. And we’re here to support you.  

What makes our members unique is also what makes DCN unique. By focusing at the brand level across the entire media strategy, we’re able to advocate and work to advance the future of trusted news and entertainment and partner to develop all sources of revenues. We can also do it without needing to curry favor or meet the needs of a few large tech platforms with out-sized influence who are required partners for any modern publisher. 

As we turn toward 2019, it is a good time to reflect on the top-of-mind trends for media companies. Here are four important shifts happening in digital media right now—all of which play into the strengths of trusted media brands:  

1. Revenue, direct from audience.

With our quarterly and annual members-only benchmark report, DCN has unique access to market research specific to premium publishers. Importantly, our research isn’t skewed with numbers from Google and Facebook. (This is a very common issue in industry research. Always look “under the hood.”) Our research is based solely upon our members. One of the things our benchmarks tell us is that approximately 80% of members’ digital revenue comes from advertising. However, we’re finally seeing growth in direct revenue from audiences whether it comes in the form of membership, subscription, or donation.  

Trusted publishers are uniquely positioned for this shift because they offer exactly what people want: high quality news and entertainment – that’s worth paying for. It remains to be seen how the market evolves in order for this revenue segment to grow as it must, but we’re thrilled to see our members playing a proactive role in shaping the opportunities.  

2. Distributed platforms, going over the top

The list of platforms is endless and evolving: YouTube, Facebook, Snap, Twitter, Apple News, Flipboard. While publisher revenues on these distributed platforms have been promising at times (YouTube), they’ve often been disappointing (Apple News, Facebook Watch). But right now, quality content creators are seeing the fastest movement in the video space, particularly long-form and over the top (OTT).

Our best practice research on OTT earlier this year showed how our members are taking aim at these opportunities. However, new gatekeepers are surfacing in the OTT space like Amazon and Roku. And while Google and Facebook don’t like being called “walled gardens,” every new platform will no doubt be planting their own seeds to maximize their profits off your content. Experimentation is essential. But protecting your IP and deal terms early on is critical.  

3. Ad targeting, rebirth of context 

In the EU, the impact of GDPR has just started. There are new claims calling into question the entire way Google has collected consent for its ad supply, how real-time bidding operates, not to mention endless class-action suits mostly focused on Google and Facebook. DCN has distributed research on Google’s unique and unavoidable ability to mine behavioral and location data significantly beyond user expectations as you browse the web and walk the streets . We’ve argued towards raising the bar on companies who collect data across most of the web while recognizing the inherent trust in choosing to visit your environments, brands and context.  

Global leaders are asking more questions than ever. Looming large over the discussion is a new law in California which will impact the very companies that are now (albeit, ironically) advocating for federal laws to save them through preemption. It’s been a wild year when Google, Facebook and its trade group, IAB, are now finally pushing for a federal privacy law thereby admitting their existing frameworks may be failing consumers. Quality publishers have a unique role in shaping any solutions as consumers seek more controls and alignment with their expectations. Consumers don’t know the hundreds of ad tech companies mucking up their web experiences, but they do know you and your brands. And, of course, this value then transfers to ads in this environment.  

4. Advertising, direct to consumer

Research from the IAB, as well as industry discussions, has driven a DTC (“direct to consumer”) movement as the next big thing. Here is the great news about this conversation: It’s no longer focused on the plumbing, data, ad tech, and vendors. It’s focused on how brands have value and can connect directly with audiences and consumers, bypassing gatekeepers and intermediaries. This is the sweet spot for quality content companies. In fact, I’d say if anyone wants to better understand how to go direct to consumers, they should start with the members of DCN.

But here’s the rub: Many players in the market won’t ever really be able to go “direct to consumer” without relying on the brand equity of trusted media. In order to find scale, they’ll first need to build demand, be willing to bundle, and find quality brands to associate with and carry their flag. They’ll want to be near those with purpose and value recognized by the public.  

I’m sure each of these movements will surprise us in ways we can’t predict. They may develop more slowly than anticipated or accelerate at light speed like the privacy regulation has with GDPR and Facebook’s mishaps hitting in the same quarter. But either way, premium publishers should be ready as, with the right proactive strategy, there are opportunities in all. 

Innovation | Perspectives

Mozilla’s path to enhanced tracking protection

Mozilla’s user research, and research conducted by universities and independent experts, consistently shows that most people who use the web do not approve of many of the ways in which their personal data is collected and shared for targeted advertising. In fact, people consider some practices to be invasive, creepy, and even scary. User tracking can also create real harm, including enabling divisive political advertising and affecting health coverage decisions. To help make the web more trustworthy for our users, Firefox is developing, testing, and deploying new privacy features to protect them.

As a leader of Firefox’s product management team, I am often asked how Mozilla decides on which privacy features we will build and launch in Firefox. Since transparency is fundamental to our way of doing business, I’d like to tell you about some key aspects of our process, using our recent Enhanced Tracking Protection functionality as an example.

Mozilla is a mission-driven organization whose flagship product, Firefox, is meant to espouse the principles of our manifesto: “A Pledge for a Healthy Internet.” Firefox is our expression of what it means to have someone on your side when you’re online. We believe in standing up for consumers’ rights while pushing the web forward as a platform that is open and accessible to all. As such, there are a number of careful considerations we must weigh as part of our product development process in order to decide which features or functionality make it into the product, particularly as it relates to user privacy.

A focus on people and the health of the web

Foremost, we focus on people. They motivate us. They are the reason that Mozilla exists and how we have leverage in the industry to shape the future of the web. Through a variety of methods (surveys, in-product studies, A/B testing, qualitative user interviews, formative research) we try to better understand the unmet needs of the people who use Firefox.

Another consideration we weigh is how changes we make in Firefox will affect the health of the web, longer term. Are we shifting incentives for websites in a positive or negative direction? What will the impact of these shifts be on people who rely on the internet in the short term? In the long run? In many ways, before deciding to include a privacy feature in Firefox, we need to apply basic game theory to play out the potential outcomes and changes ecosystem participants are likely to make in response, including developers, publishers and advertisers. The reality is that the answer isn’t always clear-cut.

Balancing the pros and cons

Recently we announced a change to our anti-tracking approach in Firefox in response to what we saw as shifting market conditions and an increase in user demand for more privacy protections. As an example of that demand, look no further than our Firefox Public Data Report and the rise in users manually enabling our original Tracking Protection feature to be Always On (by default, Tracking Protection is only enabled in Private Browsing):

Always On Tracking Protection shows the percentage of Firefox Desktop clients with Tracking Protection enabled for all browsing sessions. (Note: the setting was made available for users to change with the release of Firefox 57.)

The optimal outcomes are clear. People should not be tracked across websites by default and they shouldn’t be subjected to abusive practices or detrimental impacts to their online experience in the name of tracking. However, the challenge with many privacy features is that there are often trade-offs between stronger protections and negative impacts to user experience. Historically this trade-off has been handled by giving users privacy options that they can optionally enable. We know from our research that people want these protections but they don’t understand the threats or protection options enough to turn them on.

We have run multiple studies to better understand these trade-offs as they relate to tracking. In particular, since we introduced the original Tracking Protection in Firefox’s Private Browsing mode in 2015, many people have wondered why we don’t just enable the feature in all modes. The reality is that Firefox’s original Tracking Protection functionality can cause websites to break, which confuses users. Here is a quick sample of the website breakage bugs that have been filed:

Bugs filed related to broken website functionality due to our original Tracking Protection.

In addition, because the feature blocks everything, including ads, from any domain that is also used for tracking, it can have a significant negative impact on small websites and content creators who depend on third-party advertising tools/networks. Because small site owners cannot change how these third-party tools operate in order to adhere to Disconnect s policy to be removed from the tracker list, the revenue impact may hurt content creation and accessibility in the medium to long-term, which is not our intent.

Finding the right tradeoffs

The outcome of these studies caused us to seek new solutions which could be applied by default outside of Private Browsing without detrimental impacts to user experience and without blocking most ads. This is exactly what Enhanced Tracking Protection, being introduced in Firefox 63, is meant to help with. With this feature, you can block cookies and storage access from third-party trackers:

The feature more surgically targets the problem of cross-site tracking without the breakage and wide-scale ad blocking which occurred with our initial Tracking Protection implementation. It does this by preventing known trackers from setting third-party cookies — the primary method of tracking across sites. Certainly consumers will still be able to decide to block all known trackers under Firefox Options/Preferences if they so choose (note that this may prevent some websites from loading properly, as described above):

Sometimes plans change. So we test

As part of our announcements that ultimately led to Enhanced Tracking Protection, we described how we planned to block trackers that cause long page load times. We’re continuing  to hone the approach and experience before deciding to roll out this performance feature out to Firefox users. Why? There are a number of reasons: The initial feature design was similar in nature to the original Tracking Protection functionality (including ad blocking). But blocking only occurred after a few seconds of page load. In our testing, there was a high degree of variability as to when various third-party domains would be blocked (even within the same site). This could be confusing for users since they would see blocking happen inconsistently.

A secondary motivation to block trackers and ads on slow page loads was to encourage websites to speed up how quickly content loads. With the tested design, a number of factors such as the network speed played a part in determining whether or not blocking of trackers and ads would occur on a given site. However, because factors like network speed aren’t in the control of the website, it would pose a challenge for many sites, even if they did their best at speeding up content load. We felt this provided the wrong incentive. It could cause sites to prioritize loading ads over content to avoid the ads from being blocked, a worse outcome from a user perspective. As a result, we are exploring some alternative options targeted at the same outcome, much faster page loads.

Open, transparent roadmaps

We work in the open. We do it because our community is important to us. We do it because open dialog is important to us. We do it because deciding on the future of the web we all have come to rely upon should be a transparent process — one that inherently invites participation. You can expect that we will continue to operate in this manner, being upfront and public about our intent and testing efforts. We encourage you to test your own site with our new features, and let us know about any problems by clicking “Report a Problem” in the Content Blocking section of the Control Center.

I hope this glimpse into our decision-making process around Enhanced Tracking Protection reaffirms that Mozilla stands for a healthy web — one that upholds the right to privacy as fundamental.

About the Author

Peter Dolanjski is the product lead for Firefox on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Along with a team of like-minded internet advocates and a vibrant open source community, he fights for the fundamental right to online privacy through innovative browser features and meaningful privacy defaults.

©2024 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.