Advertisers 'staring into the abyss' as Apple limits ad tracking
Apple's forthcoming App Tracking Transparency privacy feature in iOS 14 leaves advertisers guessing, but sure that revenues will be hit.
Users will be asked whether they want to allow ad tracking or not
As Apple reminds developers to prepare for App Tracking Transparency (ATT) in iOS 14.5, marketing firms expects their $105 billion US mobile ad industry to take a hit.
According to AdWeek, the expectation is that few iOS users will elect to allow ad tracking once they are prompted to choose.
"[Opt-out] rates among users seeing test prompts aren't encouraging," says Adweek, "the median opt-in rate so far is 32%. The mobile advertising sector is staring into the abyss as the privacy changes loom."
One source told the publication that the industry is facing a repeat of what happened when Apple introduced Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) to Safari in 2018. ITP allegedly caused ad firms to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in expected revenues.
As previously reported by AppleInsider, the publication also says that a significant number of advertisers are planning to move away from iOS to Android.
Another source said their firm expects an initial 9% drop in revenues. Facebook, until its recent about-face, has predicted advertisers will see a 60% hit.
"But what happens next is anyone's guess, with almost half of all marketers now scurrying for a fresh means of ad targeting and measurement," says Adweek.
Apple's App Tracking Transparency will prompt users to choose whether to allow ad tracking or not, the first time they open any app that relies on this. Alongside ATT, Apple is deprecating its old Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) and instead introduce new advertising frameworks.
Separately, Craig Federighi has said he believes advertisers' fears are unfounded, and that Apple's new anti-tracking move will be emulated by all technology companies.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Users will be asked whether they want to allow ad tracking or not
As Apple reminds developers to prepare for App Tracking Transparency (ATT) in iOS 14.5, marketing firms expects their $105 billion US mobile ad industry to take a hit.
According to AdWeek, the expectation is that few iOS users will elect to allow ad tracking once they are prompted to choose.
"[Opt-out] rates among users seeing test prompts aren't encouraging," says Adweek, "the median opt-in rate so far is 32%. The mobile advertising sector is staring into the abyss as the privacy changes loom."
One source told the publication that the industry is facing a repeat of what happened when Apple introduced Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP) to Safari in 2018. ITP allegedly caused ad firms to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in expected revenues.
As previously reported by AppleInsider, the publication also says that a significant number of advertisers are planning to move away from iOS to Android.
Another source said their firm expects an initial 9% drop in revenues. Facebook, until its recent about-face, has predicted advertisers will see a 60% hit.
"But what happens next is anyone's guess, with almost half of all marketers now scurrying for a fresh means of ad targeting and measurement," says Adweek.
Apple's App Tracking Transparency will prompt users to choose whether to allow ad tracking or not, the first time they open any app that relies on this. Alongside ATT, Apple is deprecating its old Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) and instead introduce new advertising frameworks.
Separately, Craig Federighi has said he believes advertisers' fears are unfounded, and that Apple's new anti-tracking move will be emulated by all technology companies.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Comments
this is why FB and such were all up in arms about Apple’s changes. They were less worried about losing advertising dollars, as much as they were their customers finding out that what they were selling was not that valuable. They’ve been doing this song and dance for years about how they have this wildly valuable product, when those of us on this end know otherwise.
Do you click on online ads? I know I don’t and I know anyone who does.
If I want something I look for it, I go to the site directly. I have never been reading AppleInsider, or Tumblr, or a news site and suddenly thought, “Gee that makes sense I think I will buy that Dell Server”.
Online advertising is nowhere ass effective as they claim it is.
Maybe it has to do with ‟$$¢$$” ¿‽¿
They are a bane to existence. I go to a site to read the material there. Anything that gets in the way of that task is a distraction.
What is worse is on many sites these popup ads actually prevent me from reading the article contents as the ads end up shifting the page layouts to accommodate the ad images, making it impossible to read the articles.
Result -- totally avoid going to the sites now. Surprisingly I haven't missed them.
Spend money rather than buy with data. Google has paid YouTube subscriptions.
Fully agree that companies should be upfront about it, and that the default setting should be off rather than opted in unless you specifically say otherwise. FWIW Apple is guilty in this regard AFAIK with certain ad and data gathering settings on by default on your new iPhone. Users rarely change default settings and the companies use that to their advantage.
Things have improved a lot on Android in the past three years, prompted no doubt by Apple leading the way. Kudos Apple.
I understand that developers have to eat and have bills to pay... but, if I have to choose between the two evils of ads that follow me around from one app to the next, and in-app payments, I will pick the latter most times (some in-app payments are just rip-offs).
The other day I watched my son playing an iOS game that had so many ads, that he was getting an unskippable 30-second ad for every minute or two of game time - that is just ridiculous! It made a fun little game unplayable. Even after I paid the in-app subscription, the ads did not stop... they were just reduced in number and some became skippable. Developers should at least give users of their apps the option to pay for the app or pay to use certain features of the app in lieu of being tracked by ad agencies who then use that data to bombard us with targeted ads.
You definitely sound like someone who's never ran targeted Facebook ads. They're most definitely effective.
You absolutely do know people who click on ads. Regardless, there's a reason ad sales are generally based on thousands of *impressions* and not clicks. Engagement with online ads doesn't require anything other than eyeballs, just like with radio ads and ears.
Anecdotal data is andecdotal. Meanwhile, advertisers have real-world data from campaigns they can analyze that proves you wrong.