Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 9:04 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)
In reply to: Firefox adds tracking protection by default by peter-b
Parent article: Firefox adds tracking protection by default

The was a research that showed that adds without tracking brings only 4% less in revenue for publishers. It is ads delivery networks that earns real money from tracking.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 5, 2019 11:06 UTC (Wed) by peter-b (guest, #66996) [Link] (11 responses)

> The was a research that showed that adds without tracking brings only 4% less in revenue for publishers. It is ads delivery networks that earns real money from tracking.

For many companies, 4% is more than their entire profit margin.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 5:21 UTC (Thu) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link]

One would hope ads without tracking are simpler to serve and thus those delivering them would be cheaper.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 7:10 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link] (9 responses)

That's 4% more in *advertising revenue* - not *total* revenue.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 8:20 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (7 responses)

Don't confuse REVENUE with PROFIT.

That's what riles me about these news stories about "Company X made £millions profit". Without knowing the *revenue* it tells you nothing. If a company makes £1m profit on revenue of £10m, it's doing reasonably well. If it makes it on revenue of £100m, it's on a knife-edge of going bust.

(That said, a lot of VC startups seem to survive forever on negative profit ...)

If a company has a profit margin of 4%, it's pretty close to going bust.

Cheers,
Wol

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 13:21 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (1 responses)

> If a company has a profit margin of 4%, it's pretty close to going bust.

That depends, there are plenty of industries where 4% is above avg., e.g. the German food retail or long-haul aviation.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 8, 2019 20:40 UTC (Sat) by bjartur (guest, #67801) [Link]

Food and long-haul aviation happen to be industries where bankruptcies seem common, supporting Wol's heuristic. Even the tiny economy of Iceland has recently seen an airline going bust as soon as it became the country´s biggest and a small grocery store chain going under a tad longer after an expansion. Restaurants frequently fail to pay staff and suppliers. The Icelandic Jamie's Italian franchisee is fiscally healthy, but a thousand UK workers simultaneously lost their jobs when the restaurants owned by Jamie himself collapsed into administration. I don't expect such a disorderly exit from IBM, Oracle or any of MAGA, nor from small tech firms with robust profits. I would expect it from unicorns with <4% profit margins, and more so from those with <0% profit margins.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 17:10 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link] (4 responses)

I was merely making the point that *advertising* revenue is a portion of *total* revenue.

As such, a 4% increase of a *portion* doesn't tell you what proportion this increase forms of the *total*, and is therefore, a pointless statistic.

If your point is that the WSJ survives on less than 4% of its *advertising* revenue, then I'd find that quite surprising.

It's almost certain that sites like the WSJ do this out of industrial inertia (everybody is doing it, it's easy to do, etc), rather than any actual expectation of boosting profits significantly.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 17:21 UTC (Thu) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link] (2 responses)

Even more specifically, **online** ad revenue powered by _tracking_ users, is going to be a *portion* of *total advertising* revenue.

Probably brings it down to an almost insignificant contributor to the global scheme of things at the WSJ.

Ergo, I'd find it very hard to believe the WSJ actually need to track anyone at all.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 6, 2019 19:06 UTC (Thu) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't think anyone was making a point about the WSJ - you're the only person who has mentioned it. There are plenty of other news sites that don't have a paper version and that don't do subscriptions, so pretty much 100% of their revenue must come from online advertising (where else would they be getting any money from?). Larger sites can work directly with advertisers to do ad campaigns or sponsored content etc, which are less dependent on tracking-based personalisation (and more dependent on disguising the ads as real content), but smaller sites can't afford that and I'm not aware of any good alternative to relying on automated third-party ad networks. So for many companies it can be most of their total revenue.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 8, 2019 10:43 UTC (Sat) by gfernandes (subscriber, #119910) [Link]

I think the original post (k8to) did exactly that - made a point about how some commercial sites could deliver ads without tracking, but choose to track you as well.

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 7, 2019 7:33 UTC (Fri) by mjthayer (guest, #39183) [Link]

> It's almost certain that sites like the WSJ do this out of industrial inertia (everybody is doing it, it's easy to do, etc), rather than any actual expectation of boosting profits significantly.

Which begs the question - do they even realise that they are doing it, or is it done for them by whoever they subcontract their advertising to?

Firefox adds tracking protection by default

Posted Jun 7, 2019 7:06 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

And even this 4% is disputable because advertising budgets are not infinite and pretty much stable over time.

It's “4% loss if we gIve up on this but others continue to do it”.

In other words, don't feed this race, where past advertiser nastiness, is used to justify ever more advertising nastiness, because not being nasty would represent a “money loss” to others which are being nastier. If you say no to everyone equally the same amount of advertising money will be distributed to the same beneficiaries without the current end user harm. Probably more advertising money since part of it won't be consumed to create even more nasty ad systems.

Also, consider that the human manipulation systems developed as part of this advertising nastiness race are now repurposed to control elections and populations. The damage levels are no longer anecdotal.