Saturday, November 9, 2024

March 6, 2000– Newsletter #70

Goodies to Go ™

March 6, 2000–Newsletter #70

************************************************************

Please visit https://www.htmlgoodies.com

************************************************************


Greetings, Weekend Silicon Warriors,


Did you hear…


eCommerce! eCommerce! Rah! Rah! Rah! Apparently after three
good years of business on the Web, colleges and universities
have decided it’s here to stay and have begun offering
degrees specifically geared to cyber-business. The University
of South Alabama in Mobile, Old Dominion University in Norfolk,
VA, Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, and Texas Christian University
in Fort Worth, TX, all are offering degrees. From what I’ve
seen they’ll have no trouble filling classrooms. Each of the
schools reports good attendance and even waiting lists.


I’m offering my HTML class both in class and online this
semester and will again in the fall. Both classes generate
waiting lists as long as the actual enrolment. Right now,
the Web is what students want to know.


A variant of the Trin00 hacking tool that brought down
CNN.com, Yahoo! and various other Web sites was found on 16
student computers at James Madison University. The “zombie
code” is disturbing because it was found working inside
Windows98 operating systems. Up until now, only Solaris- and
Linux-based servers have been infected. Apparently someone
mutated the code and presumably a new rash of
“denial-of-service” attacks could possibly be launched
through personal PCs.


This one didn’t get as much play in the media, but National
Discount Brokers Group Online was hit with a
denial-of-service attack last week. It put them offline for
a good 70 minutes.


Funerals online? Before you suggest it’s morbid, think about
the benefits for those who cannot come to the actual service
but wish to pay their respects. Fred Ferguson owns
www.FergersonFuneralHome.com and plans to offer video of
funerals online. He doesn’t want to do it as a pay-per-view
event for weird viewers. It would be for friends and family
of the deceased. If you can get past the initial macabre
concept, it actually sounds like a pretty good idea.


Now onto today’s topic…


You watch TV, right? I mean, in amongst your frequent trips
into cyberspace, you turn on the set now and again.


What do you think of the commercials? If you’re like most
people, you have a general understanding that it’s those
commercials that keep the television stations afloat. They
show commercials in exchange for providing you with free
programming. According to just about every survey I’ve read
on the subject, most consumers get that commercial/free
programming relationship.


Too bad Web surfers don’t see the same relationship between
ad banners and free content. The people at DoubleClick, the
Web’s largest advertising banner server have announced that
now Web surfers are clicking on less than one percent of all
banners displayed.


That’s a very low number. I remember back in the mid-1990s
when click-throughs were so prevalent that you could sell
advertising packages based on clicks alone. I remember one
distinctly that paid me 35 cents for each click up to a
certain number of clicks. I don’t remember the advertiser
though. I just remember the banner had a lizard on it. It
was a type of software I think.


This is nothing new. DoubleClick knew that click-throughs
were dropping so they put their research team into action.
The answer? Tailor the ads to the consumer.


It’s not exactly a stunning revelation. Advertising has been
doing it since, well, forever. Radio stations have been
measuring and describing audiences since their inception in
the 1920s. The U.S. government paid for the first nationwide
audience survey. I own a first printing of the book
describing the results. Television started describing its
audiences both through government surveys and the Hooper
ratings, a forerunner to today’s well-known Arbitron and
Nielsen ratings.


DoubleClick thought this would be the way to go. They
purchased a large database of consumer habits and began to
track those who viewed their banners through cookies. From
DoubleClick’s point of view, this was brilliant. Now,
consumers can be shown banner advertisements that actually
apply to them.


If I am a big software buyer, show me more banners regarding
software. If I visit Amazon.com a great deal, show me
Amazon’s monthly specials. If I search for a good deal in
New Orleans, show me banners that promote Mardi Gras and
beads.


This is a great idea. It does exactly what other advertising
mediums do. Look at the audience, find out their habits,
their likes and dislikes, and tailor advertising to those
parameters.


It’s a win/win situation, right?


Wrong. “It’s invasion of privacy”, some say.


Huh? But…but…it’s the same thing that other advertising
mediums have been doing for years. What’s the difference?


“No one asked me. They just took the information from me.”


Ah! I think we’ve hit it.


If you’re a long-time reader of HTML Goodies, you probably
know my thoughts on advertising. I like it. I have no trouble
whatsoever with a person making a legal, ethical buck on the
Web. I think banner ads are great. They allow me to keep my
site free, yet still make enough profit to pay for the
hardware, upkeep, and service work I provide.


Since the beginning of advertising on the Web, I never
understood people proclaiming everything should be free.
It can’t be. This stuff costs money. I have to pay server
fees and pay myself a profit or I can’t make a mortgage
payment.


I knew DoubleClick and others were tracking consumers just
about from the start of the process and I never really found
it a horrible thing. I saw it as what they wanted it to be,
a help to the consumer.


I would get into big arguments with colleagues about why
television, radio, and print can track an audience, but the
Web cannot. Then, last Friday, a student said the line I
printed above.


“No one asked me. They just took the information from me.”


I still don’t think setting cookies and tracking habits is
such a bad thing, but now I might actually see a bit of the
opposing argument.


Television, radio, and print ask their audience for info.
Ratings are done through audience meters, diaries, phone
calls. Print often asks their audience to fill out
questionnaires. Yes, each medium can track consumers through
feedback from their audience through advertiser’s reports,
but it’s not the same.


My thinking is that people who don’t mind the “traditional”
media tracking habit, but dislike the Web doing it, feel that
way because the traditional media tracks “out in the open”.
The audience knows it’s being tracked. Ratings are reported.
People are asked before information is gathered.


Yes? Do I have it? Am I at least on the correct track?


I am asked about my thoughts on this topic all the time. In
fact, I’ve headed up several academic seminars on just this.
Apparently I’m invited because I will boldly stand as an
opposing viewpoint.


Here’s my real problem when I get into an argument regarding
tracking and advertising on the Web. Many people that argue
with me stand on the reasoning, “my privacy” alone.


Well, what is it specifically about privacy? There simply
has to be more to it than “my privacy, my privacy”.


(Don’t get angry with me just yet, I’m actually starting to
get to the opposing side of the argument. Keep reading.)


During every seminar I’ve attended, someone always claims the
“my privacy” argument. Someone else immediately jumps on the
pat response, “are you going into sites that you’d rather
others don’t know about”? The implication, rightly so,
infuriates the person concerned about their privacy.


So, let’s, again, look at the future. If the privacy issue
wins out and all forms of tracking are eliminated, the best
advertisers can hope to do is randomly post banners or make
educated guesses about what people want to see.


The click-throughs will drop farther down than they are right
now and advertisers will possibly stop coming to the Web in
such great numbers.


Continuing the domino effect, those who own sites will not be
able to garnish enough cash to keep their site online. They
will either have to start asking for a fee to view, sell
something, or go offline.


This is bad. If this scenario occurs, don’t think the Web
will once again become a free place where great ideas are
exchanged and everyone’s happy. It won’t. Those who have the
cash, or garnish the cash, to run a site through sales or
fees will rule the Web.


We, those who use and promote the Web, must find a balance
between advertising banners and privacy. So, allow me to
suggest a solution.


Would you feel better if cookie tracking was eliminated in
favor of self-tracking? Hear me out. What if tomorrow, the
business sites you visited popped up a questionnaire that
you had to answer to get in? You only had to answer it once
or twice a year, but you had to answer it to get in.


Now, we have self-submitted information that can be used to
help sites sell advertising that targets the customer.


Yes, I know it would be a pain in the yazoo twice a year,
but a greater piece of your privacy might be protected and
you’d know who has information regarding your Web habits. I
also know some would fill in bogus information. I’ve done a
ton of surveys in my academic research, and bogus information
is part of the process. Most respondents actually do fill in
good information.


Yes, the information gathered might be sold around the Web,
but remember that it’s general information. It’s not
specifically you. It’s information about an audience en
masse. That’s a great deal like the method used by the
traditional media.


No, this isn’t a perfect idea, but think about it. Can an
agreement be made that allows both privacy and general
audience tracking? I would suggest, yes. Maybe this isn’t the
way to go, but are you at least open to such an idea?


Think about it. I’d actually be interested in hearing
suggestions about how privacy could be protected and
advertisers could still gather information. Talk to someone
who you know has a viewpoint different than your own.


Can you both reach an agreement or will you both stand so
firm on your views that nothing will happen? Hopefully you
can reach an agreement. Hopefully everyone can reach an
agreement. If we don’t, the decisions will be made for us.
The banner advertisement companies will plod forward and Web
users will continue to proclaim, “my privacy, my privacy”.


In the end, banners will stay, people’s privacy will continue
to be argued, and no one will feel like they’ve been heard.


Think about it. Is there a method of having it all? I think
there is. I just don’t quite know what it is yet.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


That’s that. Thanks for reading. I really enjoyed writing
this one.


Joe Burns, Ph.D.


And Remember: Have you ever seen a map that has an arrow
pointing where you’re standing? The arrow usually reads “You
Are Here”. Did you know there’s a technical name for that
arrow? It’s called an ideo locator.

Archive Home Page.

Get the Free Newsletter!

Subscribe to Developer Insider for top news, trends & analysis

Popular Articles

Featured