Cookie proposals would be "massive nuisance"
Share
Proposals to clarify the rules of online behavioural advertising have been heavily criticised for the impact they would have on consumers and marketers.
“The requirements insisting that internet users opt in to receive cookies are not only potentially very detrimental to the growth of the online advertising industry as a whole, but will be a massive nuisance to the user,” says Jay Stevens, vice-president and general manager international of the Rubicon Project.
Proposals to clarify the rules of online behavioural advertising have been heavily criticised for the impact they would have on consumers and marketers. “The requirements insisting that internet users opt in to receive cookies are not only potentially very detrimental to the growth of the online advertising industry as a whole, but will be a massive nuisance to the user,” says Jay Stevens, vice-president and general manager international of the Rubicon Project.
“This idea seems to have been developed in a legislative vacuum, with no-one fully understanding the impact this will have on the only bright star in the media industry - online advertising. This would put up an artificial barrier to growth,” he adds.
Stevens was responding to an Opinion published on 24th June by the highly-influential Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. The party recognised the advantages of behavioural advertising to both sides, but stressed that users are bound by the revised ePrivacy Directive. This requires informed consent before cookies are installed.
In their Opinion, the members of the working party said/ “The European Data Protection Authorities call for simple and effective mechanisms for users to affirmatively give their consent for online behavioural advertising. Equally simple and effective mechanisms should be established for users to withdraw their consent. Currently, three out of the four most widely-used browsers have as default setting to accept all cookies. Not changing a default setting can not be considered, in most cases, as meaningful consent.”
Readers' comments (2)
Francis Wallinger | Mon, 2 Aug 2010 7:46 am
The Rubicon Project team have hit the nail on the head. One can hardly say that the email opt-in has been effective in controlling SPAM, I find it difficult to see how this would be either.
But where in all this is the DMA who should be all over this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:50 pm
What amazes me about these comments are how self serving they are, and how removed they are from the end customer. Why do customers use the national-do-not-call list? Why do they use pop-up blockers? Why do they use their DVRs to prerecord and then watch a program? Why do 70% plus Facebook users implement privacy controls? The simple truth is that consumers value their time and privacy and advertisers lack sufficient information and tools to ensure the relevancy of their communications.
As evidence of the self centric perspective of entitlement consider the fact that there does not exist a ROI calculator that takes into account the costs to the consumers for whom the ads are irrelevant. With 2% conversion rates being common has anyone ever really given any consideration to the 98% of the people for whom a solicitation is considered SPAM?
Advertisers need to start to face up to the fact that they are not entitled to consumer’s data. Advertisers have no God given right to this information. If advertisers were even moderately responsible and effective in their advertising efforts then there would not be a public backlash and “threats” of regulation. Advertisers need to adopt a new mindset and new engagement models that place control into the hands of consumers. They need to adopt a cooperative model of communication as opposed to the current interruptive/intrusive models that alienate the vast majority of consumers they solicit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment