Refuting Those Fighting The ‘Do Not Track’ List

BusinessWeek today published an article, authored by a Catherine Holahan, in which the writer makes an attempt to play a sort of devil’s advocate to the “Do Not Track” proposal and its proponents, claiming that some unsettling, unintended consequences may indeed arise as a result of the implementation of such a registry.

For those unaware of what precisely the Do Not Track list is – or, to be more precise, what it may be, considering it’s yet to be pushed forth into the realm of enacted legislation – it is, in short, a play on the American “Do Not Call” index. If established, it will deny Web-based ad networks the privilege to catalogue cookies and histories (and all sorts of other newfangled bit-sized personal-information-retaining gizmos they may happen to invent and/or utilize) of individuals who spend time online who choose not to be traced for marketing purposes. Pretty simple, yes? Alright. Good idea, though? That’s your call, really.

However, BusinessWeek has, in response to the discourse surrounding the Do Not Track list, proposed by a collection of privacy groups, made a particular claim that I think deserves some refutation. If only because the claim is, well, illogical. BusinessWeek’s argument: that “a Do Not Track list could actually increase the volume of online ads.”

To be fair, Holahan, in making such a statement, is really only reiterating the general response to the Do Not Track initiative initially put forth by Web advertising firms. But one must beg the question: Why repurpose a rubbish message for the sake of an article to start?

Look, there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts about the Do Not Track proposal. A good deal of particulars depend very much on just how far into the nitty gritty of the average individual’s online travels marketing entities intend to burrow to gather what they wish to gather and, subsequently, deliver what they wish to deliver. Only when those parameters are determined can one really start to definitely sketch out a Do Not Track registry of any kind, anyway.

But to make a senseless statement purporting that the restrictions put in place by a Do Not Track list of some basic construction would increase the number of advertisements distributed to a great swath of Web users is very puzzling indeed – puzzling mainly because of its brazen silliness and dimwittedness.

Why silly? Why Dimwitted? Well, for starters, online ad networks have spent years now dealing with elementary, unintelligent delivery systems, and the number of ads has consistently been kept more or less standard. (They of course increase with the number of channels to which they are distributed, but that just shows growth in the overall market, not necessarily in the number of ads shown “per page” or whathaveyou.)

How anyone can imagine that the delivery of more ads will be necessary to “compensate” for the distribution of non-targeted ads is, well, as illogical as such a determination indeed sounds. The number of ads, targeted or not, won’t very much change. There’ll simply be a choice as to what you and I, Web users, can experience.

In closing, I’ll say this to ad networks concerned with the Do Not Track proposition: Quit the mind games. Quit trying to strike fear of any impending onslaught of advertisements into the minds of Web users. Such messages are rubbish. You know that as well as we do. If the Do Not Track list is put in place some time later this year or next, so be it.

Nothing much will change. Only, Web users will then have a choice. A choice as to whether or not they allow you get to track them, or whether they don’t allow you to do so. That’s it. No surprises. No disastrous repercussions for anyone. No doomsday scenarios. Just choice.