Advertising Groups Ask Apple to 'Rethink' New Cookie Tracking Standards in Safari 11

[Uaaerospace2]

Sadly many miss this point. Advertisement is how many of the sites we enjoy (including MacRumors) exist. They can't pay their bills without advertisements. If you want your favorite site to continue operating and providing you with great content, you really should allow advertisements on that site (whitelist them with your ad blocker).

I think maybe you are missing the point. I don't mind ads. However, I don't want to look at an item on Amazon and then have that item show up on every other website I visit for 6 months. It's the tracking and targeting of ads that I don't like, not the ads themselves. Apple isn't trying to block ads here, they are trying to block the user tracking and targeting of ads.

ha, this is one really nice thing about brick and mortar retail stores. If I look at a pair of pants in the store, every billboard on the way home isn't showing me those pants.

 

[nt5672]

Lets hope Apple wins here. I'm tired of advertisers throwing crap in my face every time I use the internet. Advertisers needs to find a less obnoxious way to get their message across. There are things I'm interested in, that I would opt into if there was a way. Advertisers don't want to have play nice, they just want to take, take, and take of my personal data.

I hope this forces advertisers to change the advertising paradigm.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I think the real problem is that waaaaayyyy to much content these days is advertorial in nature or simply drivel designed to get your eyeballs on ads. What's worse, this style or strategy (or whatever you want to call it) has infiltrated trusted sources. Even once-vaunted publications like The Washington Post are crap now - just vapid clickbait to draw you into a page with 80% advertising.

Sadly, many have had to go the advertorial route because ad blocking has increased. Companies still need to sell their products and if one means cuts them off, they'll find another to do so.
[doublepost=1505489677][/doublepost]

These targeted advertising algorithms aren't as smart as the advertisers seem to believe. You buy some lightbulbs, the algorithm targets you as a lightbulb buyer, and you see lightbulb ads for months afterwards. How much are the advertisers paying for that service, I wonder?

Sounds like a poorly setup retargeting program. Like everything, there are smart advertisers and dumb ones. With retargeting, you should only be getting ads for products you viewed but DIDN'T buy. If you're seeing them for the ones you did buy then they didn't setup their conversion tracking correctly.

This is an issue of an advertiser setting up their campaign incorrectly, not the technology not being smart enough. Just look at Amazon. Their retargeting should stop as soon as you buy the product they're pushing (though they may start suggesting a related add-on product instead).

 

[albebaubles]

18 trackers on the macrumors front page. EIGHTEEN

 

[5105973]

Oh the irony, I had to turn off my ad blocker to see and comment on this thread, and this thread alone! My content blocker has never been a problem on any other part of this site. I don't mind turning off the ad blocker for this site. I actually didn't use one before and forgot I even had it installed.

I only installed an ad blocker because I can't read certain sites like a certain Android centered site that shall not be named, because their ads are so bad I can't navigate their pages at all without a content blocker. Otherwise I don't mind ads to support sites like this one, where the ads are unobtrusive and often useful. And I wouldn't have minded them on that other site if they didn't interfere with actually using the site.

I'll try to remember to leave my ad blocker off while here.

 

[robeddie]

Ha! Good luck with that and all.

"Apple's unilateral and heavy-handed approach is bad for consumer choice"

Somebody help! I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe!

I figured that would be the consensus here. But I do wonder if theres something to be said for a balance. Obviously a lot of the great stuff on the internet we take for granted is funded by advertising.
If we choke their ability to advertise, will we lose the good parts of the internet?

 

[DoctorTech]

Content on the internet costs money to produce. Advertising pays the bills for site hosting and content creation.

I don't know why people revel in blocking the revenue streams that grant them these things.

I don't mind ads (that much) if...
1) they are simple banner ads (just like reading a page in a magazine - I don't want moving / flashing ads that are distracting)
2) they only pertain to people interested in the content of that page / website

If I am reading a fishing magazine / website I expect to see ads related to fishing rods, boats, outdoor clothing etc. I don't expect (or want) the ad tracking me around for weeks or months because of what I was shopping for on Amazon weeks ago. I don't want advertising agents building a profile / portfolio on me.

 

[dannyyankou]

What’s ironic is that this story was blocked by a content blocker for me for some reason, haha.

Don’t back down Apple.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I think maybe you are missing the point. I don't mind ads. However, I don't want to look at an item on Amazon and then have that item show up on every other website I visit for 6 months. It's the tracking and targeting of ads that I don't like, not the ads themselves. Apple isn't trying to block ads here, they are trying to block the user tracking and targeting of ads.

ha, this is one really nice thing about brick and mortar retail stores. If I look at a pair of pants in the store, every billboard on the way home isn't showing me those pants.

Apple isn't stoping these types of ads. It's stopping how they're currently sloppily implemented.

Google has just updated AdWords so their retargeting ads will still function just the same. The only change needed was to place that tracking cookie from Google Analytics (run on most sites) instead of AdWords. Nothing else will change as far as AdWords ads go.

 

[5105973]

Who the **** loves ads!?

I manipulate settings to control the ads I see and sometimes I do find new products and services I like through the ads and then "de-louse" my browser when I want freedom from tracking.

Unless I want to start paying subscriptions to read every news article I find via a web search, I accept that looking at ads is currently the price of admission, so to speak, for my browsing freedom. I've only recently started using an ad blocker because I'm finding, as I seek IPhone information, that too many sites employ the most obnoxious styles of ads that block you from seeing the content. If they would all set ads unobtrusively, much the way this site does, I'd be happy to give them a look and maybe even a click.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

We need to remember that it's the sites, not necessarily the advertisers, that you should be hating on. The advertisers don't tell a website "Put 50 ads on your page." That's done by the site itself.

Google has limits to how many ads can appear on a page. That current limit is 3. Sites with more are using other advertisers which don't have such limits. Google also makes ads as unobtrusive as possible and screens the content to make sure it's relevant and well presented. The same can't be said about other advertising networks.

 

[NomadicTy]

Procter and Gamble cut their online advertising, worth over a billion dollars a year. And they found that there were no effects on their sales. NONE. P&G is one of the biggest, and oldest consumer brands in the world. Where they go, others will follow. Facebook, and Google could soon see their ad revenues go down in hurry.

 

[hetrigger]

Ads do have a place in our society...and in the same breath, we have the right to not have them interfering with our surfing or porn or reading of articles or shopping or...the list will go on and on. I don't care about a "shopping" trip I may have done online or research on a product. I don't need to be bothered by it after I glance at it or express interest in. If I bought it, great! If I didn't, I don't need to be "strong armed" in to looking at it again.

The "porn" was to see if anyone was really reading it!

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Who the **** loves ads!?

Virtually no one that I know (though *someone* must love them b/c they are successful). However, what the advertisers referenced wasn't the ad's themselves as much as the ad-supported content (Youtube?) and other ad-supported services.

 

[cfurlin]

Sadly, many have had to go the advertorial route because ad blocking has increased. Companies still need to sell their products and if one means cuts them off, they'll find another to do so.

Lesson: Build better, more desirable products.

IMO, an aggressive ad campaign implies a product that can't stand on its own.

Example: I can't remember the last time I paid attention to an Apple ad. I know which products I want because I know they are quality and I go looking for them.

Pull, not push.

 

[AppleMad98004]

Google announced that Chrome will implement this in Jan. Oh wait only auto play blocking.

 

[zhenya]

I think maybe you are missing the point. I don't mind ads. However, I don't want to look at an item on Amazon and then have that item show up on every other website I visit for 6 months. It's the tracking and targeting of ads that I don't like, not the ads themselves. Apple isn't trying to block ads here, they are trying to block the user tracking and targeting of ads.

ha, this is one really nice thing about brick and mortar retail stores. If I look at a pair of pants in the store, every billboard on the way home isn't showing me those pants.

100% agreed. Most of the time all ads are blocked for me. On occasion when my adblocking ceases to work I am amazed at how obvious the targeted ads are - and ineffective. I look up something for work and now all my ads are obnoxious and about just that item.

Sadly, many have had to go the advertorial route because ad blocking has increased. Companies still need to sell their products and if one means cuts them off, they'll find another to do so.
[doublepost=1505489677][/doublepost]

Sounds like a poorly setup retargeting program. Like everything, there are smart advertisers and dumb ones. With retargeting, you should only be getting ads for products you viewed but DIDN'T buy. If you're seeing them for the ones you did buy then they didn't setup their conversion tracking correctly.

This is an issue of an advertiser setting up their campaign incorrectly, not the technology not being smart enough. Just look at Amazon. Their retargeting should stop as soon as you buy the product they're pushing (though they may start suggesting a related add-on product instead).

Amazon's system doesn't work that well either. They've been suggesting the same 'buy it again' items to me for years - items that *nobody* would buy again in less than about 10 years. Plus a number of very expensive items that I *returned*.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Content on the internet costs money to produce. Advertising pays the bills for site hosting and content creation.

I don't know why people revel in blocking the revenue streams that grant them these things.

I will generally agree, though there should be a middle-ground that can be reached. when consuming ad-supported content then we have an obligation to make ourselves open to the advertisements. I would be surprised if most people felt otherwise. HOWEVER, what I personally object to is the cross-site tracking. As others have noted, just because I look at something on Amazon does not give every other site the right to push similar ads my way. If you want to advertise... go for it. I'm happy to either read/watch or ignore them at my discretion. Doesn't mean I have to be an open book for them.

 

[xdhd350]

Anything that offers up more privacy and fewer ads is gold for me. I want to be respected as a consumer, able to make my own choices about my needs, seek them out on my own and be helped by knowledgeable people when I want information on what to purchase. I do not want to be some kind of Pavlovian lab experiment to see what temptation at what level of obtrusiveness based on past behaviour (which quite frankly is no one's damned business) will most make me want to spend money.

Find another way to monetize your business. And no, finding that way for you is not on me as a consumer.

Could not have said it better myself. Get tired of the pervasive creepiness of these advertisers. Imagine just walking on to a car lot, looking around and leaving, without talking to anyone or "knowingly" leaving your contact info. You get home and in just a short time, your phone is ringing off the hook from this car dealer and you are suddenly getting emails from them. You are asking yourself, "how in the hell did they figure all this out?" All of this dot connecting behind the scenes is what really chaps my backside. And people wonder why I won't share certain info about myself on social media.

Random ads are a good thing. I might actually be interested in something that I never knew existed.

 

[bobdobalina]

Content on the internet costs money to produce. Advertising pays the bills for site hosting and content creation.

I don't know why people revel in blocking the revenue streams that grant them these things.

Sure, but the privilege of internet "content creators" to make money is not more important than the right of every internet user to privacy.

Also, since when is tracking individuals fundamental to monetizing content? Sure, advertisers love to get more data. But it's not like print, and TV advertisers get their ad spots for free just because they don't know that I saw their ad. Obviously, the internet is different from print, radio, and TV, but just because advertisers want your data doesn't mean that they need your data.

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Sadly, many have had to go the advertorial route because ad blocking has increased. Companies still need to sell their products and if one means cuts them off, they'll find another to do so.

If that route is to violate the consumer's trust, I think most of us with brains will say no thanks to those products.

 

[dvhoosier]

When they pay for my internet they can have an opinion of the ads I see.

 

[DanielDD]

You know Apple is doing it right when advertising groups come forward like this

 

[5105973]

Sadly, many have had to go the advertorial route because ad blocking has increased. Companies still need to sell their products and if one means cuts them off, they'll find another to do so.
[doublepost=1505489677][/doublepost]

Sounds like a poorly setup retargeting program. Like everything, there are smart advertisers and dumb ones. With retargeting, you should only be getting ads for products you viewed but DIDN'T buy. If you're seeing them for the ones you did buy then they didn't setup their conversion tracking correctly.

This is an issue of an advertiser setting up their campaign incorrectly, not the technology not being smart enough. Just look at Amazon. Their retargeting should stop as soon as you buy the product they're pushing (though they may start suggesting a related add-on product instead).

Can these ad agencies listen to what we are saying and instead of getting on Apple's case for trying to help beleaguered consumers? Can they be made to see and acknowledge the error of their ways and work up some unified standards for non-crippling levels of ad implementation and also educate their clients on how to make ads appealing or at least tolerable as opposed to wanting customers to put up even more barriers. Right now it's like we are at war.

It could be a happy synergy if businesses would practice some restraint. They'd get some rejection from people who are stubbornly going to reject advertising anyway. But they'd win over customers like me who don't mind ads if they don't break my browsing experience. Or get too creepy stalkerish with my data.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

As someone who works in paid media, this is going to be a pain in the butt. Retargeted marketing is very effective. Plus if you're going to get ads, do you want them to be for stuff you actually like? A lot of the time special deals are offered to people with targeted marketing.

Fair enough, but I see a few current and future problems with this.

1. Just because I look at something doesn't guarantee I am another more than mildly curious. Continuing to bombard me with "please buy this..." ad's will make me less likely to casually browse in the future.

2. Continuing to push ad's for things I'm already looking at means that you aren't pushing for new things. If I'm already looking at a product... show me something different!

3. Repetitious advertisements are ignored. How many times has you watched something on Hulu only to be shown the same 2-3 commercials repeatedly? Not effective.

4. The biggest problem, in my opinion and experience, is that consumers are becoming dull to the effects of advertisement. We see them on TV, websites, in our bills, in email, on billboards, in stores, etc. When does that stop being effective? It's information overload.