Ad firms losing 'hundreds of millions' after Apple clamps down on Safari tracking

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 67
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 

    Funny, I don’t see Criteo complaining about Chrome or Firefox.
    You aren't paying attention to what you're reading. Where did Criteo single out Safari in this AI article?  The quotes you might be attributing to them are not. 

    I would agree that much of the loss might be attributable to Safari tracking changes, but not the only reason. 
    Tracking prevention tools implemented by other companies - e.g., Google and Mozilla - may well be having an affect on the revenues of companies like Criteo.

    But Criteo did, back in December, project a negative impact on 2018 revenues of about 22% attributable to Apple's Intelligent Tracking Prevention. That was the projected negative impact if its attempt to develop a new way to mitigate the impact of Apple's ITP (read: partially get around Apple's ITP) was unsuccessful.

    From Criteo's press release:

    Earlier this month, Apple launched a new version of its mobile operating system, iOS 11.2, which disables the solution that some companies in the advertising ecosystem, including Criteo, currently use to reach Safari users. As a result, we believe the projected 9%-13% ITP net negative impact on Criteo's 2018 Revenue ex-TAC relative to our pre-ITP base case projections, communicated on November 1, 2017, is no longer valid.

    We are focused on developing an alternative sustainable solution for the long term, built on our best-in-class user privacy standards, aligning the interests of Apple users, publishers and advertisers. This solution is still under development and its effectiveness cannot be assessed at this early stage. Should it not mitigate any ITP impact, we believe the ITP net negative impact on Criteo's 2018 Revenue ex-TAC, relative to our pre-ITP base case projections, would become approximately 22%.
    edited January 2018 steven n.lostkiwiRayz2016propodwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 67
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,755member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 

    Funny, I don’t see Criteo complaining about Chrome or Firefox.
    You aren't paying attention to what you're reading. Where did Criteo single out Safari in this AI article?  The quotes you might be attributing to them are not. 

    I would agree that much of the loss might be attributable to Safari tracking changes, but not the only reason. 
    Tracking prevention tools implemented by other companies - e.g., Google and Mozilla - may well be having an affect on the revenues of companies like Criteo.

    But Criteo did, back in December, project a negative impact on 2018 revenues of about 22% attributable to Apple's Intelligent Tracking Prevention. That was the projected negative impact if its attempt to develop a new way to mitigate the impact of Apple's ITP (read: partially get around Apple's ITP) was unsuccessful.

    From Criteo's press release:

    Earlier this month, Apple launched a new version of its mobile operating system, iOS 11.2, which disables the solution that some companies in the advertising ecosystem, including Criteo, currently use to reach Safari users. As a result, we believe the projected 9%-13% ITP net negative impact on Criteo's 2018 Revenue ex-TAC relative to our pre-ITP base case projections, communicated on November 1, 2017, is no longer valid.

    We are focused on developing an alternative sustainable solution for the long term, built on our best-in-class user privacy standards, aligning the interests of Apple users, publishers and advertisers. This solution is still under development and its effectiveness cannot be assessed at this early stage. Should it not mitigate any ITP impact, we believe the ITP net negative impact on Criteo's 2018 Revenue ex-TAC, relative to our pre-ITP base case projections, would become approximately 22%.
    We agree.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 23 of 67
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 762member
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 
    So do you deny that folks regularly say how much safari sucks and nobody uses it ? That is what the OP was making a point of. If no one uses safari than how could Apple’s ad blocking possibly hurt this company’s bottom line ?  From what I understand Apple’s ITP is different than the ad blockers you can install on the browsers you mentioned?  
    StrangeDaysanton zuykovwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 67
    So that is why the creepy ads on AI's website are no longer there! Amen!
    You can include MDN in that statement as well.
  • Reply 25 of 67
    Soli said:
    Do we need a class action on this? Do users need a toggle switch and transparency from Apple whenever they intelligently prevent a site from tracking a user? /s
    No.  

    But it would have been nice if they’d let me know, so I could have said “Thank you!” sooner.
    anton zuykovRayz2016
  • Reply 26 of 67
    It's quite obvious Google isn't being harmed at all. Every year they make more and more ad money with no end in sight. Unlimited growth potential is always being said for Google.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 27 of 67
    If the numbers in the article from 2016 are accurate, then the ad industry will see a drop in revenue of at least $973 million during C2018. I think this will cause some Apple centric sites to convert to subscription, consolidate or disappear. That will be good also, especially the subscription part. The nattering nabobs of negativity won't pay to post.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 67
    beng said:
    Whenever I can, I send the following message to sites that gripe about ad Blockers:

    Dear [fill in the blank],

    You have noted that I have an ad blocker and have asked me to Whitelist your site.  The answer is NO, I WILL NOT.

    The reason is simple.  The pervasive popup adds are an extreme nuisance and represent an invasion of my privacy by improperly using my browsing information.

    I have no desire to put you out of business, nor do I object to "honest" advertising.  You have plenty of space on your site to place legitimate ads.  Please do so and quit pestering me with the false comment that you need the popup adds to survive.



    I use 1Blocker on my iPad.  It works pretty well.

    I also don’t object to “honest” advertising, but they’ve pissed me off enough that I throw out the baby with the bath water.

    Trying to find “honest” advertisers is like trying to find a needle in a haystack... 
    toysandmelostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 67
    Even Google is going add an ad blocker to their browser.  Yes, Google.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/google-confirms-ad-blocker-coming-to-chrome-in-2018.html

    Talk about shooting one’s self in the foot!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 67
    Sorry, Criteo, I'm not buying it. I've had "Prevent cross-site tracking" enabled since it was an available option. I still see plenty of ads, plenty of relevant ads from multiple networks, and plenty (but fewer) creepy annoying ads. As I recall, Apple's ITP only limits the cookies, it doesn't eliminate them. If you're still losing that much revenue, you're doing it wrong.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 67
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,603member
    Soli said:
    Do we need a class action on this? Do users need a toggle switch and transparency from Apple whenever they intelligently prevent a site from tracking a user? /s
    No.  

    But it would have been nice if they’d let me know, so I could have said “Thank you!” sooner.
    I LOVE that Apple's revenue model allows it to put its customers first when it comes to user experiences. Or should that be - I LOVE that a great user experience is what fuels the Apple empire :) I am not at all against advertising per se, if you peddle a product people have to know about it, but advertising will be the death of the inter webs. How many people remember those terrible flashing banner ads? It is a desperate battle of 'how much can we bug the shit out of people and still make money?'. The mid video ads on YouTube has already reduced my YouTube viewing dramatically.
    SoliRayz2016propodkingofsomewherehotwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 67
    i’m a big fan of 1Blocker, which i use on iOS and macOS for blocking of trackers and ads. 
    williamlondonlostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 67
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,599member
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 

    It more than blocking the ads from your view it is also tracking your habits, and this is what safari is also blocking. But as I have been noticing Websites are starting to block access to their content if they find you are blocking their ads $. I am seeing more websites like Forbes which will not allow you to view articles unless you turn off all blocking.

    We have a situation which ads got so bad and obnoxious that blocker came about and Apple blocking the ability to track what you are doing on other website not we have to deal with Website block your access unless you allow them to advertise to you. Just proves nothing is free.

    propodwatto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 67
    MuntzMuntz Posts: 26member
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 
    Shill harder dude.
    StrangeDaysRayz2016suddenly newtonjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 67
    See the tear? Sorry, you'll just have to look closer. Imagine the world's smallest tear, evoked by the world's smallest violin playing something barely sad in a decidedly minor key.
    Rayz2016dewmetmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 67
    mike54mike54 Posts: 340member
    Success! Well done. But there is still more to go.
    Apple should aim Safari to have the best and configurable adblocker/tracker blocker malicious/ anti-mining/scam sites/etc  browser ever.
    lostkiwiwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 67
    uraharaurahara Posts: 241member
    gatorguy said:
    lkrupp said:
    But NOBODY uses Safari! We hear that daily on this site and others. Safari sucks, Chrome rulez. Even Firefox is better than Safari. No one and and I mean NO ONE uses Safari as their browser so why would ad companies be losing money because of a browser nobody uses? 

    Or could it be that the nerd herd, techie wannabes who make those pronouncements are the real outliers, the clueless wonders who just like to be negative by trashing anything Apple?
    Both Chrome and Firefox have ad-blockers too. The impact on a company like Criteo is coming from several directions. 

    Funny, I don’t see Criteo complaining about Chrome or Firefox.
    Everyone wants to bite an Apple Pie.
    anton zuykovwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 67
    I will be voting for Apple with my money.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 67
    It's quite obvious Google isn't being harmed at all. Every year they make more and more ad money with no end in sight. Unlimited growth potential is always being said for Google.
    Hasn't Google recently mentioned in one of their letters to the shareholders they are projecting a decrease in ad revenues?
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 67
    Anybody should all be able to opt out of tracking, but what if the consumer wants to opt in when preparing to purchase something? Usually I see ads as a nuisance, but recently, just prior to buying a car, I found the tracking ads useful. Perhaps every ad should have a button where the consumer could opt in, and provide either general areas of interest, i.e. "travel", but especially with the ability to submit key words, like "Rio", etc. Seems like a real missed opportunity for the ad agencies. They need to open communication with the consumer, and be a tool, not a nuisance. And for privacy, they should delete or anonymize the specific ad requests when the consumer resets their preferences.
Sign In or Register to comment.