On
Jun 18, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Justin Brookman wrote: Feel
free to distribute to whole group, but one of the primary criticisms I have
heard from the beginning about this text is that "pseudonymized" is
nowhere defined. Probably too late to address that at this stage, but I
believe it will have to be addressed if there's any chance of being accepted
into the specification.
Also,
more specific information about why this calibration is necessary would be very
helpful. The mental standard I've been using for permitted uses
is purposes that are strictly necessary for the web (including contextual
advertising) to work. I don't feel you've made the case why calibration
of panels falls into that category, other than vague pronouncements that
"advertising will go away without it." Chanin's powerpoint only
uses hypothetical figures and vague demands from Randall Rothenberg. It
just doesn't seem intuitive given that other media seem to work without such
calibration; I think the burden is on your side especially given that you're
looking to supersede user's affirmative decision to opt out of your tracking.
Answer: Research and
measurement have historically informed the process of understanding media reach
and exposure whether it is TV, print, radio or outdoor and for those media we
can work with panel data only because the universe of possible stations or
media vehicles is known. No panel can accurately or completely represent all
the traffic, including international, to a website. Panels may not include web
traffic from the workplace if panelists cannot download the software to the
work computers.
The internet is
a much more fragmented and global medium than traditional media and growth and
usage worldwide are much more dynamic. For instance, many sites are too small
to generate a statistically robust audience from a panel. It may be impossible
to build a sample size large enough to fully represent internet traffic or
visitation activities with more than 33 billion web pages available.
AMR helps advertisers
better plan their media campaigns and the panel foundation with broader data
for calibration ensures that larger sites are not overstated and smaller ones
ignored in online traffic numbers. The
data used by financial auditing bodies is based on metrics originating from
this research - just as with print, one looks at annual circulation figures and
the position of the ad to fix the rate. Core audience measurement metrics are
unique visits, site visits and page views, number of visitors to a given
website in a given period, and a general indication of geography.
AMR counts
cookies and we do not believe that counting is tracking. There is no impact on an
individual. If users have to give their consent every time an ARM cookie is
placed, users would not be better protected but this would be the only medium
which cannot provide transparency and accountability for its advertisers.
From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
To: Kathy Joe [mailto:kathy@esomar.org]
Cc: Ed Felten [mailto:ed@felten.com], <public-tracking@w3.org> [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
Sent: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:41:53 +0100
Subject: Re: Revised text issue 25: Aggregated data collection and use for audience measurement research: ACTION 415
Kathy Joe:
There is still insufficient detail here--nor a response as yet to Justin's very key critique. Before any measurement permitted use should be permitted, more information must be provided. It especially needs to address the current changes in market research used to collect and analyze users over multiple devices and also via diverse experiences (in-store, etc). How can a spec be approved that look's at yesterday's market research paradigm?
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
202-986-2220
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Kathy Joe wrote:
Hi Ed,
Answers below in bold.
Kathy
From: Ed Felten [mailto:ed@felten.com]
To: Kathy Joe [mailto:kathy@esomar.org]
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org> [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org]
Sent: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:58:45 +0100
Subject: Re: Revised text issue 25: Aggregated data collection and use for audience measurement research: ACTION 415
As in the previous version, it seems that the "non-normative" text includes a bunch of normative requirements (e.g., "The purposes of audience measurement research must be limited to...", as well as the definition of the term "audience measurement research" itself) as well as some descriptive language that could be read as normative (e.g., "This collection tracks the content accessed by a device rather than involving the collection of a user’s browser history...") It's important to be clear about what is required and what is not.
We attempted to separate out the normative requirements from normative text and are happy to review this again for clarity. The normative text has a requirement of certification by some other body. Which bodies exist that could provide the certification required by this language? How do we know what standards those bodies would apply, and whether they would be consistent with the DNT standard? And what rationale do we have for allowing those bodies to determine "the parties eligible to collect information under DNT standards and the audience measurement research permitted use"?
This body is being set up to be consistent with the W3C DNT standard and parties eligible would need to abide by the audience measurement research permitted use in the DNT standards to provide transparency and choice.
research permitted use and it provides users with an opportunity to exclude their data contribution.