"Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users' direction. In our view, It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn't express user intent."
On this hot topic of "Do Not Track"-Yahoo say" that they will not recognize search partner Microsoft and IE10′s default DNT signal on Yahoo! properties at this time.
< According to sources, the impetus for the Yahoo decision was CEO Marissa Mayer > (According to Kara Swisher's AllThingsD account, that's linked above). Yahoo's policy blog adds that:
"Yahoo will closely evaluate our support for DNT as the industry makes progress in reaching a meaningful, transparent standard to promote choice, reduce signal abuse, and deliver great personalized experiences for our users."
Kara Swisher points out that Google recently added DNT support to the latest version of its Chrome browser developer build. - [Plus,] the third major browser, in Mozilla's Firefox, also offers a DNT product as a key feature.
At this point of my post, I'll remind readers of what Scott Meyer the CEO of Evidon said recently: (http://bit.ly/VcHsNo)
"If DNT is implemented the way that Microsoft, some regulators and hard-core privacy advocates want, the big winners are--wait for it -- the biggest American internet companies with their huge first-party opt-in databases.
Everyone else in the industry better hold on, since the playing field is about to make a huge tilt toward the big guys. My guess is this has been Microsoft's plan all along."
Regulators may best sit back and watch this all unfold, perhaps? And Yahoo (as I am seeing it) could well be setting itself up to gain 'the best of both worlds' with it's initial declared decision.
Let the For and Against (Do Not Track) Games, begin?
A recent post mentions a blog written by Tobias Peggs who provides readers with an excellent insight into targeting, in such a 'straight talk' style. In his article he examples an own recent experience.
In simple, plain talk,Tobias explains plenty on the workings of 'cross-platform, geo-located, personalized ad targeting'-along with just how he was retargeted on Facebook (http://tiny.cc/6hznmw), and I can assure you that it is well worth your reading it through.
Arriving at another 'ongoing' topic re; Click Fraud? (Still ~10%?)
"1st of all, you need to target the right people" (You can listen here to Facebook Click Fraud - go to ~24.30 )
In my post, I had also linked to what I feel is an ideal solution that can almost eliminate any occurrences of Click Fraud- besides the number of other existing problems, as they stand. The thought that by using a, Murthy Nukala's suggested "Intent-Based Unit Of Trade"- stopping fraudulent clicks can be achieved as advertisers are finding anonymous users in real-time RTB, across a ONE huge (intent based) publisher marketplace.
I liken these 'intent based' buys as being much-like the OZ saying, in keeping a secret with someone that you may be in a conversation with: "this is only between, you-me-and-the-gatepost - ok Mate?"
Where .......... You='s Publisher .... Me='s Advertiser
And that within an intent based marketplace, it's 'the gatepost' that is 1st to know (the marketplace management- initially), if an impression or, any paid click is to be a 'you/me' acceptable. (As a chargeable).
It's Only Then, that....
You and me get to know the identi-code for both me (the advertiser) and of the targeted user- from where that impression was served to or, clicked on by - before we then happily settle our account based on this transaction data that we've both received.
Where's the 'click fraud' opportunity for 'cowboys' when (initially), it's only the targeted user (whose 'intent' is being anonymously made available to many advertisers to bid on - and through the marketplace management), who only ever gets to see the actual ad that wins the (each & every individual RT) impression or make the paid click?
Always, only an opinion.
LOOK: $0.8290 0.0289 (+3.61%) Oct 26, 2:08PM EDT
Disclosure: Long LOOK ('the gatepost')