Nothing comes for free in the world
In June last year Apple announced upcoming privacy changes on its platform, meant to give users some control over how their data is used and shared among app creators and advertisers. And the day when ATT (App Tracking Transparency) will be enforced looks like it’s getting closer and closer.
In a nice twist of PR, most companies call the IDFA usage “personalised ads”, marketing it to users as a great tool to:
- avoid tons of obscure ads that polluted the internet over the past 18 years, ever since Google launched AdSense in 2003, condemning the media industry to a living death;
- enjoy content for free that they otherwise would pay for — e.g. digital publications and mobile apps that otherwise would be forced to switch to a premium model, vs the current one focused on ads.
I’ve seen quite a few people that I respect advocating against the change, on Twitter, blogs, podcasts, with some arguments making more sense than others: it could kill smaller businesses, you’ll have to pay for services you were used to consume for free… or that Apple’s intentions are crooked and self-serving, among others.
Why I would disagree with them?
1. First, because Digital Advertising is conceptually wrong.
Digitalisation has changed the world for the better in so many ways, yet it bares the high cost of our privacy. Because it was trashed with cookies, trackers, identifies, and more, allowing Big Brothers to take control. Whether you’re pregnant, sick, in love, you prefer blue tulips or something new has happened in your life, Google is the first to know, among other companies non-related to you. Things that would be shared with your family and close friends, or not shared at all, they are now used and abused, without you having a realistic option of doing something about it — except giving up completely to your digital life.
Digital advertising has corrupted minds and tampered with the ethics at such an extent, that it’s impossible to distinguish between right and wrong.
In 2016 I was attending an innovation conference in Copenhagen, as a representative of Tinitell — a startup that developed a wearable mobile phone for kids, with GPS tracking features. The whole idea behind the product was for parents to be able to reach out to their kids, primary school age, not ready yet for a smartphone. The GPS tracking feature wasn’t the primary function of the product, it was the calling / GSM capabilities. The GPS was a safety net. Our team at the time spent a lot of energy and working hours in making sure data is safe and protected, only parents have access to it, and internally we didn’t have access to any individual logs in analytics or otherwise. So of course, I was shocked to the point of sickness, when media & advertising people weren’t asking me about the product concept, but how they could put their hands on the kids GPS data, and how this kind of data could be of use, from analysing patterns, schedules, routes, and link them back to advertising and personalisation, of course. (side note, my son was 6 at that time, and I felt it deeply). This is only one example.
I won’t even go into the Cambridge Analytica story, it’s all too famous by now, or the way Facebook always seems to play a role around elections and political regimes, all based on manipulating users data.
As long as Ad ID usage goes unchecked, there will always be someone to use it the wrong way. Ad ID has become a powerful weapon. It can be used to such an extent, that would allow some to manipulate masses, elect leaders, twist and change public opinions. It’s no longer just about me, a pair of shoes I might like, it’s about the others and the world we live in.
Behind the dramatic doom and gloom I’m not arguing that Apple is the messiah and their stance towards privacy + IDFA restrictions are the ultimate solution. It’s just that it feels like it’s the first step to right some wrongs.
- Is it enough? No. Can it be done better? Sure.
- Is it detrimental to advertisers? Might be, but should we care? :D
before judging this statement, please define “advertiser”
- Is it detrimental to publishers? Debatable.
- Is it detrimental to users, for loosing free benefits?
- Is the “Apple self-serving” argument enough to reject the idea?
In search for some answers, I’ll continue my list of “lets agree to disagree”:
2. The advertising business model is dystopian and forces a low quality bar on publishers
Internet is free is a mirage. A free internet bears an unaccountable cost in quality, sustainability, employment, income.
The digital advertising business model was never sustainable in the first place. Once upon a time, traditional media used to thrive on the advertising model. It was a time when we were talking about brands, equity, creativity; agency people would give their best to come up with the smartest, ingenious, entertaining and/or informative ad, that would generate recall and awareness “on brand”. There was a time when we were humming commercial jingles.
Media budgets were huge, but they would mostly go into the pockets of the TV stations, newspapers and magazines, except for the 3% commission and the not-so-secret rebate, going back to the media agencies.
When digital came into existence, it hoped it could replicate on this success and get a “share of the pie”. Therefore internet was offered for free and consumers were educated into the world of the free internet, in all senses. But the share of the lion today doesn’t go to the digital makers, it goes to the mediators. In truth, very little gets to the end of the food chain.
Honest publishers that rely on advertising can barely make a living, and are forced in delivering a low quality product:
- product value and creativity have been reduced to inventory and click-bait
- volume trumps value
- consumer-focused ideas have been replaced by placement solutions and how to maximise scraps of revenue
- understaffing, lack of resources, leads to compromises: low-cost, untrained and unskilled employees, high turnover
Everyone complains about the quality of the digital media today, poor content badly written or executed, the assault of ads that are taking over the screen when trying to read an article. Is it really greed that got them there? Why are the most experienced and respected journalists laid off at the first sign of a crisis? Why are a lot of qualified people laid off to cut corners, replaced by unqualified resources? Why many qualified people are compromising on being paid a quarter of their true worth?
The digital advertising business model is not made to create value, but volume. It’s not sustainable in the long run for those who actually want to build their product with value in mind. It’s just scraps and leftovers from those who hold the reins of this entire ecosystem, the real advertisers: the Ad Networks. Spending money on advertising doesn’t make you an advertiser, it makes you a spender. Spenders have limited to no control over their ads or placements. As I said, the real advertisers are the Ad Networks. And knowing what I know, please allow me not to feel sorry for these advertisers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
So, are the Apple privacy changes detrimental to publishers?
I said debatable because of this. Because instead of focusing on scraps, they will be forced to focus on a better, more sustainable business model, that could put the product and the consumer at the centre. The change might be brutal, it’s true. But it has to start somewhere.
Will big players thrive because of their unfair advantage, killing the smaller ones? Some say it is utopia to hope IDFA restrictions will regulate a bit the market or do much good — big players have the comfort of enough resources to ride the storm. Yet, I wonder if they’ll have the comfort of riding over the end of the year reviews and reports, board meetings, next year forecasting and planning, and so on. Without IDFA, no matter how low the CPA, the end cost might be steep and someone has to answer for an uncontrolled spent. If you can’t measure ROAS through attribution, it doesn’t mean you can’t evaluate the revenue and profit by “traditional” means. They’ll no longer have the data to justify supporting a house of cards. Everyone has a boss. Except for indies and bootstrapped entrepreneurs :P.
Shouldn’t we give a bit more credit to small publishers and developers? They’re better and stronger than many think. The subscription economy is growing and if there’s someone who can successfully succeed in a nimble adaptation, it’s them. More and more people are willing to pay for quality, for something they see value in, and good products stand a chance.
We’re seeing great indie apps leading the way in innovation, forcing the rest of the market to follow through. Let’s not forget the iOS14 launch and “the nigh of the widget zombies”. While big publishers sat on their…., small nimble publishers where topping the Category rankings, registering x00% increase in users and sales for months to come. When are we going to stop underestimating them?
And last on this matter, how many big publishers in the App Store have become what they are because of the advertising income? How many advertising income success stories do you know? Except for social networks that morph into ad networks at some point.
3. The advertising trade for free access to services is a deal with the devil and tempers with our capacity to value things, as humans
Nothing is for free in this life. The cost is not always tangible, but it’s there. For a long time internet was such a thing. We’ve seen the cost in privacy and the threat to our human rights.
And more than that, how capable are we today to truly value and appreciate the things we have, the services we use? Consumers have been wrongly educated that digital things should be free. This allowed a toxic phenomenon to pollute and infest the entire web, and companies like Google and Facebook to control our lives. Some apps that we’re using, they have no value in our eyes, we don’t care, because we haven’t paid a cent. We don’t think about the work behind the app, don’t take into consideration how much value we get from it, but we’re quick in trashing, bullying and throwing stones. The advertising trade has simply made us a generation of spoiled brats.
Yes, it’s frustrating to hit the paywall on websites or in the apps, when you want something more. But is it wrong? Am I willing to pay for news, apps and content that used to be for free? Honestly, it wasn’t an easy thing to get used to, but with a little bit of training, trial and error, I’ve become good in evaluating what I want, what I need, when and how much I’m willing to pay for it. Great accomplishment in my late 30s 🤯.
Are you willing today to pay for movies, while yesterday you were downloading them from torrents? Is it right or wrong? I know my answer. And I don’t understand in which universe it’s ok for people to work almost for free for me, or why should I support a slavery system just because it gives me free access to content, because otherwise I would have to pay for it.
You might argue that this will encourage and support social inequality. That access to information and technology is crucial at all levels of society, and many could simply not afford it. BUT. Let’s not forget that the freemium model is the one that dominates the subscriptions & IAPs market. And a freemium model will always do a better job than the ads model. First, because freemium is customer focused. It’s designed to offer enough value to repeatedly use the product and to want more of it. It has to offer value, not inventory. Freemium goes on the 80/20 rule, but it cares about the free users, even when supported by the paying ones. The advertising business model doesn’t care about anything but inventory, clicks and installs.
4. Finally, the last thorn. Is the “Apple self-serving” argument enough to reject the idea?
Is the Apple stance crooked and self-serving? Maybe. How much of that is ethics and how much is self interest? Who knows.
But let me rephrase the question: Has Apple ever gathered and sold user data the way Ad Networks do? Are we, as users, profiled by obscure organisations based on the data Apple provides? Are they going to do it in the future? I don’t think so. Even if they would want to, with this whole privacy thing they started, they simply closed that door.
If I want to get out of the Apple ecosystem, I can do it today and I will be able to do it tomorrow. I’ll simply switch from iOS & Mac to Android and some sort of PC. If I want to get out of the Google ecosystem can I? Or even Facebook? Or away from the Ad Networks, trackers, cookies, pixels, content fortresses? So yup, with Apple I have a way out, with the others I simply don’t.
Should we burn the baby because the mother is a witch? It sounds like a medieval solution and how to not stop a pandemic, playing on superstitions spread by those responsible for it.
