Facebook CFO says personalized advertising 'under assault' by Apple privacy changes

Posted:
in General Discussion
Business models that rely on personalized advertising are "under assault" by iOS 14 privacy changes, Facebook's chief revenue officer said Tuesday.

Credit: YaLa
Credit: YaLa


The changes include a new feature that requires users to opt-in to tracking via Identifier for Advertiser, or IDFA, tags on a per-app basis. Although initially planned for the general iOS 14 release, Apple delayed the rollout of the feature until 2021 following public outcry from a number of companies that gain a bulk of their revenue from ad serving, including Facebook.

Speaking digitally at Advertising Week on Tuesday, Facebook CFO David Fischer said that "the very tools that entrepreneurs, that businesses are relying on right now are being threatened," CNBC reported.

"To me, the changes that Apple has proposed, pretty sweeping changes, are going to hurt developers and businesses the most," Fischer added, singling out the IDFA change in iOS.

The Facebook executive also said that the company plans to "defend" its business model, which it sees as valuable and different from Apple's. Fischer referred to Apple's business as "one that sells luxury hardware or subscription services, mainly to consumers like us who are fortunate enough to have a lot of discretionary income in some of the world's wealthiest countries."

Although Apple positions the changes as a pro-privacy measure, Facebook isn't the only company that is concerned about it. Media companies and publishers are "bracing" for the IDFA change, and in September, a group representing the ad industry urged a "dialogue" about the proposed feature.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    Personalize advertising = digital stalking. 
    Under assault = being mitigated. 

    Digital stalking is being mitigated. I don’t want any advertiser to stalk me online. Similarly, I don’t want people stalking me. 

    I consider personal advertising as invasion of my online privacy. If I need or want a product, I’ll use search engine to look for them. 
    olspslicecat52lmasantiAnilu_777Oferbluefire1macseekeryoyo2222edred
  • Reply 2 of 41
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,579member
    The CFO (Chief Financial Officer) and the CRO (Chief Revenue Officer) are NOT the same person.

    They are completely different roles. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is in charge of the company's finances and is a fiduciary responsible for accurate representation of the company's financials. This includes SEC filings.

    The Chief Revenue Officer (CRO) in a company like Facebook is in charge of sales, essentially the sales director. Since most of Facebook's revenue is selling ads, this guy is basically the head ad salesman.

    Per Facebook's investor relations site:

    David Wehner is the CFO. His department is mostly accountants, financial analysts, etc.

    David Fischer is the CRO. His department is mostly ad sales people, ad sales directors, account executives, etc.

    Two completely different people in two completely different roles.

    CFOs of Fortune 10 companies don't swagger and make bombastic and sweeping accusatory statements. They generally talk about numbers in the past tense, usually the same numbers published in an SEC filing. They aren't trash talkers. That should have been the glaring hint that this Fischer guy is NOT the CFO.

    AppleInsider needs to rewrite large parts of this article and the headline to correctly represent who these two senior Facebook managers are.


    edited October 2020 Dogpersonmuthuk_vanalingamxyzzy01michelb76applguyaderutterrazorpitllamaheadfull0winegatorguy
  • Reply 3 of 41
    pslicepslice Posts: 120member
    Sorry, but not sorry. Boo boo. 
    Anilu_777yoyo2222cgWerksedredjahbladeentropyssvanstromBeatsEsquireCatsMplsP
  • Reply 4 of 41
    Oh the humanity! Not the personalized ads!  

    Can anyone imagine an Internet where multi billion dollar companies had to provide a product that was compelling enough for users to actually reach into their wallet and pay?  Where sites competed on the merit of their content rather than who’s algorithm and a/b testing has created the quickest dopamine hit? 

    Yes I’ve been watching The Social Dilemma on Netflix. And yes I appreciate the conflict of interest in a video streaming service creating a documentary on the horrors of being addicted to services that compete for your attention. And yes I appreciate the irony of posting all this on an Internet forum with at least some subliminal desire of coming back later to find it got a few likes. 
    command_fAnilu_777cgWerkstrustnoone00christopher126aderuttermariowincoheadfull0winerandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 41
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,207member
    Not really sure why he thinks clandestine tracking is fine, especially for countries that are low-income. He seems to be implying without tracking people would have to actually pay to use Facebook, and those in low-income countries wouldn't be able to afford it. I have news for him, very few in any country would pay. Pitching lack of tracking as detrimental to the users of Facebook, when in reality it only makes a difference to the bottom line of a multi-billion company doesn't fool anyone. And apart from him, Zuckerberg and FB's shareholders, no one cares about FB's bottom line. Especially not those in low-income countries.
    Anilu_777christopher126leavingthebiggDogpersonaderutterrazorpitspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 41
    The moves Apple is making are only necessary because FB and others cannot be trusted. If they had made what most people would consider as "reasonable" use of privacy-related data, none of this would likely have happened. By taking such data, along with anything else related that they could find, and ruthlessly sharing, selling and otherwise monetising it they have broken all rules of decent behaviour.

    If I invite someone into my house, I don't expect them to then read and share all my personal documents. Apps given access to Contacts for a particular purpose that then copy the entire address book are just one example of such bad behaviour.
    Anilu_777Ofermuthuk_vanalingamrazorpitspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 41
    Facebook cares about its bottom line and its ability to sell ads. Period. If I want a product or to compare products I’ll do it myself or use sources I trust. I don’t want to suddenly find myself inundated by ads from random companies for that product class.  I agree with what ro_ro_ur_boat said:
    Personalize advertising = digital stalking. 
    Under assault = being mitigated. 

    Digital stalking is being mitigated. I don’t want any advertiser to stalk me online. Similarly, I don’t want people stalking me. 

    I consider personal advertising as invasion of my online privacy. If I need or want a product, I’ll use search engine to look for them. 

    aderutterllamawatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 41
    I don’t care about your business model.
    And who told you that I want your personal advertising, even when I purposely don’t want your application
    on my devices?
    rcfaDogpersoncaladanianrazorpitspock1234StrangeDaysdrdavidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 41
    TV ad is never personalize. I don’t see the advertiser stop using TV ad. In fact it is the most expensive ad form.

    FB’s argument is just invalid. 
    rcfamuthuk_vanalingamcaladanianaderutterllamaspock1234StrangeDaysdrdavidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 41
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,124member
    Facebook has no problem “assaulting” people by their specious arguments justifying censorship but cries foul when they “assault” my privacy rights. I hope Apple stays the course.
    edited October 2020 rcfaDogpersoncaladanianaderutterrazorpitdysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 41
    What ever happened to the common decency of asking a person for permission and consent in anything “personally” involving them, their family or anything associated with them? I guess no one has any right to privacy if some one else can monetize their personal information for the benefit of corporate shareholders and CREEPY Business Execs. I think it is time for a Citizens Ballot Initiative in every State to force an opt-in requirement on everything associated with the internet, the use of any personal information or anything of a  personal nature. Facebook and other creeps need to find a newer no so creepy and intrusive business model. Apple is doing you the favor of having some business versus none at all. All sides of the political spectrum are going after Section 230 and other tech abuse of personal information. Read the tea 🍃.
    muthuk_vanalingamcommand_frazorpitmobirdspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 41
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,010member
    Privacy is under assault by personalized advertising. 
    rcfaviclauyycdysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 41
    WTS.....maybe Apple removed FB from the flat form for stealing and using my information, oh wait....waaaaa waaaaa waaaaaa. That will be his reaction 
    rcfawatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 41
    I can't take anything someone from FB says seriously. They want to be information merchants just like Google, and people are sick of being used as a product. Apple is aware of this and so I applaud them for putting barriers up between the user and the information skimmers like FB.
    christopher126rcfaDogpersoncommand_frazorpitspock1234fotoformatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 41
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,682member
    viclauyyc said:
    TV ad is never personalize. I don’t see the advertiser stop using TV ad. In fact it is the most expensive ad form.

    FB’s argument is just invalid. 
    IMO, advertisers have just gotten incredibly lazy. Yes, pretty much all advertising up until rather recently was pretty limited in terms of targeting. If you wanted to target, you had to focus your advertising on certain content/genre/general-audience (of something more specific), etc.

    The thing is, this capability exists in spades these days in terms of podcasts, blogs, etc. The problem is that the ad-buyers are lazy and just want to sell a package and let the algorithms do the work. If this gets curtailed (and, remember IPv6 is coming and cookies are going away as well), they'll actually have to get off their butts and sell ads once again to appropriate media.
    rcfaviclauyyccommand_fspock1234StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 41
    I have deleted all my third-party apps on my iPhone, iPad and MacBook...I visit everything via a link in Safari.

    I love the little "shield" icon on MacOS Safari. One-step setting!

    I don't use Google, FaceBook, Twitter, or Microsoft products. 

    I wish Apple would create and invest in a facebook-like social media app, a twitter-like app, a search engine, an Amazon-like app and offer no ads, no tracking, etc., etc., and just look at it as an investment to make the internet experience more....how should I say it? Apple-like! :)



    FYI: I think I have this right, of all the personal data that has been harvested by bad actors (see above) 98% has been harvested in the last 2 years! :)

    edited October 2020 cgWerkscommand_fspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 41
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,682member
    I have deleted all my third-party apps on my iPhone, iPad and MacBook...I visit everything via a link in Safari.
    Yeah, same here for the most part (or never installed them to begin with). (For the Social apps.)
    I access those sites via my desktop, and just don't use the apps, or like you, just use a browser while on mobile (ie. iPad... I wouldn't bother with my phone).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 41
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,622member
    Duh...
    Mr. Fischer
    We don't like what you do.
    We don't like your business model.
    To be bluntly we don't like you.
    So yes, your abusive business model is under assault. 
    I'd say deal with it but I'd rather you give up and let Facebook die. 
    rcfaDogpersoncaladanianaderuttercommand_fspock1234Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 41
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,693member
    “Targeted exploitation” is under assault by Apple’s privacy changes.
    rcfawatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 41
     Fischer referred to Apple's business as "one that sells luxury hardware or subscription services, mainly to consumers like us who are fortunate enough to have a lot of discretionary income in some of the world's wealthiest countries."

    ha - what elitist rubbish. Given the broad range of people I see using iPhones this claim is nonsense and indicates Apple products are readily accessible for many people.  As for services, the price points for their services fall into the same range as its competitors. 

    I think what he is really saying is that Apple users are willing to spend and are the key market Facebook wants to target for its advertising model. Taking away that market from Facebook is going to hurt Facebook's income and wealth. 
    elijahgcommand_frazorpitspock1234StrangeDaysfotoformatwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.