I read "Moo" and my first thought was "Yes! News on Master of Orion!" instead of cows... You should know better than to bandy that word around Timothy.
"He said the 'instant recognition and appeal' of the 'blank inside' format stems from 'Intel's enormous investment of over a decade of time and money.'"
Well don't trademark a common phrase you moron! It's your own damn fault for commercializing a fairly intuitive linguistic structure like "blank inside". What the hell? How about coming up with a campaign called "Hello Intel!" and being shocked that there are actually parallels in the Real World(tm)! Every programming tutorial book gets sued over "Hello world!" programs...
yeah - sorry that 'credentials' bit came out harsh. We are, all in all, saying the same thing - that the DARTmail can be abused but isn't spamware and that the context the article was presented in on Slashdot and the general reaction here was way off. The dialog you and I and several others have been having - standardization of double opt-in and enforcement of due dilligence - is more in line with reality. Saying DCLK is in the Spam-biz is flat out misinformation.
Because of John Doe subpoenas, I'm actually a bit nervous disclosing more about what I know vis-a-vis the technologies and procedures but I think I can say without a doubt that spamming and any sort of questionable activity is taken very seriously there. As a client, my company was in a situation where we had conflicting privacy policies in different environments and had trouble presenting that clearly to the user. DoubleClick's privacy department insisted that we take the matter to the FTC(!) for approval of our solution. In the end, DoubleClick and the FTC forced us to make some changes we didn't really want to make.
Anywho, I completely concur about double opt-in (well, the business side of me is more inclined to single opt-in with notification because of the huge drop-off between impulse subscription and the confirmation).
Hee-hee! Excuse me for not explaining in detail every facet of how we process unsubscribes...;) Our asp solution doesn't utilize VERP but we do insert the address we emailed to. But for reasons that I'm not clear on, people frequently delete the body of the email when they send an unsubscribe request. When you email 1.8MM people rare occurances like that actually become fairly significant.
Another thing I have a recurring problem with is people subscribing and typos. But I guess that's what we get for being single opt-in.
Actually if you want to wave credentials you'll lose - as an ex-employee of DCLK, an ex-client, and currently a list admin using a different provider.
So let's go:
1. How does DoubleClick verify that the lists in use are opt-in? When you are negotiating for the process, at least one sales person and probably a pre-sales consultant goes to your site and goes through the registration process multiple times. Some of the addresses they then ask to unsubscribe - if you spam them anyway there's a problem. They also go through your privacy policy to ensure compliance.
Also, if you send out a mailing that comes back with large numbers of unsubscribes and bounces, that raises a big red flag. Lastly, there actually are people monitoring the abuse@doubleclick.net address. If a particular client crops up enough, it will be addressed.
2. What are the penalties if the list isn't opt-in? If it's proven that your list is not opt-in then your contract is abruptly cancelled. And depending on how bad a PR flap you can be sued.
3. DoubleClick has no responsibility for spam like an ISP. DoubleClick's number one responsibility is to its shareholders. Bad PR has significantly hurt their business.
4. Bulk email is the stated point of the DARTmail service. Nyet. You are misunderstanding "bulk" means large numbers. If you send out 1.8MM newsletters like I do, Outlook or some small scale provider isn't going to cut it. That's bulk. The stated purpose of DARTmail is bulk OPT-IN email.
5. Cost issues. We left DARTmail because it was too expensive. Period. Most SPAM is only cost-effective with a cheap CPM. That's not a 100% guarantee but a general truism.
I have no doubt that there will be abuses of the technology. DoubleClick's client base is large and there are certainly issues in monitoring compliance for that many clients. But there's a huge difference between a legitimate product that will be fractionally abused and actual spamware.
Then that's the fault of the publisher not DoubleClick. DARTmail is simply a delivery engine and management UI. DoubleClick does not own the client's lists nor can they use them. If one of their clients is spamming you, contact the client to be removed and CC: dartmailsupport@doubleclick.net. Because of all the bad PR, DoubleClick is really up tight about companies using their software to spam people. Plus DARTmail CPMs (cost per thousand emails sent) are waaay too high for spammers to be cost effective. What you got was an exception.
That's also possible too. I'm a list admin and I've bungled an unsubscribe or two. But I'm usually nice and apologetic about it. But oh my god do people make mistakes, I've people trying to unsubscribe and threatening lawsuits but they subscribed with more than one address, have an alias, or set up an auto-forwarding rule to a different address. How the hell am I supposed to know an unsubscribe request from "billyjoe@hotmail.com" is really to unsubscribe "monty.robins@somecompany.com"? Sheesh...
You're missing the point - the company's list has to be opt-in. And DARTmail is way to expensive to be used as a spamming tool. Also, the list isn't given to DoubleClick per se - it still belongs to the client and DoubleClick can't touch it or use it. Lastly, DoubleClick doesn't send out the mailings either - they provide the asp technology. The client still manages the list and sends the mailings.
Well, a couple people have pointed out that DARTmail is NOT a spammer product. But those people are in the minority so I'm going to drive this home:
It's a premium email delivery engine. It is much too expensive for spammers. This is for publishers who maintain newsletters and house advertising lists. Hell, it's too expensive for a lot of publishers for that matter... Anywho, DoubleClick, like most email providers, is extremely uptight about their clients using opt-in only lists (albeit IIRC I think they still let you get away with pre-checked single opt-in). I know this personally from having them investigate mailings that had high rates of bounces and unsubscribes (it was a list import problem and the primary key wasn't properly parsed from the email address - I'm not a spammer!).
Plus, there is nothing new about this - if you read the article, you see that it says this is DARTmail 3.5. DoubleClick has been in the email tech biz for a couple years now. v1 was scratch built, v2 was when they bought Flo, v3 is integrating Message Media's technology.
The ALSOS mission is one of the most fascinating things in WWII. If you haven't looked into it, read The Hunt For German Scientists by Michael Bar-Zohar I believe, The Alsos Mission by Col. Boris Pash, and Alsos by Samuel Goudsmit.
Alsos was an intelligence operation to assess the German's science capabilities, in particular their nuclear fission program. It largely degenerates into commando raids and kidnapping (get the scientists before the Reds do!). A gripping read.
Yeah, I have to admit - I can't tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and a 128k ogg file. I use ogg simply because I read about it one day, liked the people behind the project, and just started using and haven't gone back. Their aspirations appealed to me and I've been happy with the product.
Since discovering ogg, I have become a huge fan of streaming radio stations, both home-grown and professional. The potential royalty fee for using mp3s is a big issue in those circumstances. That's another reason I support ogg as an open and free audio format. Icecast (http://www.icecast.org) has a beta ogg streaming program, as far as I know it isn't mature yet though.
The directors and shareholders of Doubleclick recently bought Abacus databases containing millions of personal user profiles collected from those credit card customers (etc.) that you mentioned. Real and hard data. My guess is that they did not buy that business simply to continue running it as is. They will want to turn a sizeable profit with that purchase.
>>>>>
Word. The Abacus purchase was intended for four things:
1. Offline/Online Identifiable profiles. Nixed after DCLK bought Abacus
2. The brand and clients. Abacus is a respected company in offline marketing with some major marquis clients that DCLK wanted to snag online too.
3. The people. Abacus has done some awesome statistical modeling and predictive work - DCLK wanted their gray matter and expertise for online.
4. A solid investment. Abacus was well into profitability and is a valuable investment in and of itself.
Number 1 got nixed, number 2 achieved, number 4 ongoing - that leaves Number 3. DoubleClick is focusing on technology and is coming out with buying/planning software of which data and modelling is integral. Look at their other recent purchases - @Plan and Comscore (planning and analysis products).
>>>>
What elso do they have? Well, the article states "In the last 16 months, DoubleClick has worked to deflect its dependence on the sickly advertising market. It has built up its research, data and technology divisions while slowly dismantling its media division."
>>>>
This qoute really really really needs to be clarified. The Media division at DoubleClick _sells_ inventory. Repping website inventory was DCLK's original and core competency. The dismantling of that division in no way or form changes DoubleClick's focus from adserving technology and the supporting research, planning, and market analysis tools.
>>>>>
So they have surfing habits, e-mail identities and hard real-world data.
>>>>>
Not much in the way of email identities actually. The data for the DARTmail products belong exclusively to the clients. Technically, the data resides on DoubleClick's servers but realistically they can't use that data without an uproar surpassing that of the Abacus/PII flap.
>>>>>
Think about it. The "not enough money for more servers/equipment" lame excuse is a red herring.
>>>>>
Well, the reason they are shifting their focus is because the margins are to slim, part of which is infrastructure costs. Think about it - their dbs capture every single ad they serve to every single person and records at least 8 different datapoints with every event. Plus they track click, post-view, and post-click activity. That's an insane amount of data. It's mind-bogglingly huge. Now the issue isn't the storage of all that data - it's being able to use it. That is the major technology hurdle.
>>>>>
My guess is that in addition to keeping their online business _sans_ those pesky media attracting privacy issues (legal problem solved!), they will quietly be working in the investment community with their combined data and profiles to invest into and launch new online business ventures that target specific nich markets. And that is where they will get their return on investment.
Which in a way sucks. It's companies like X10 that do the annoying bulk purchases of the same firckin ad over and over. The stuff that was done with Intelligent Targeting was awesome - for example, GM had these ads for a new line of commercial vans that would target particular occupations and industries. Each ad was unique and tailored to each field. If I was a plumber surfing the web and I had my choice between seeing a "Punch the Monkey" ad and a banner tailored to my career about a product I might actually be interested in, I know which I'd rather see.
In a lot of cases I'd rather get a targeted ad than a non-targeted.
DoubleClick is not selling their tracking system - the "tracking system" is simply their cookies tied into the ad serving tool. And they aren't selling their adserving tech. Just dumping Intelligent Targeting.
What good is buying the database? There's no personally identifying info in it. Just DoubleClick cookie IDs. What can you do with someone else's cookies?
DoubleClick is NOT leaving the adserving business. Just the Intelligent Targeting product. DoubleClick will still use cookies, still serve ads using targeted information (each host website can dynamically insert key-values into the ad tags for targeting purposes - demographic or behavioral information that can be targeted to).
What DoubleClick is no longer doing is taking traffic data and putting into a big consortium to find interest segment associations and targeting. This is the exact same thing that offline marketers do - you apply for the credit card and buy a sweater at Gap, that goes into a db with your age and location and other info. That info is then contributed to a data pool which also has purchasing habits of Pottery Barn, Ikea, William Sonoma, etc. The various members in the consortium can then purchase lists of various demographics for targeted direct mailings and catalogs.
I don't think the info is sellable - what good is someone else's cookie data? It's not like you'll be able to serve ads to a doubleclick cookie unless you somehow take over the domain. And there's no personally identifiable info in that database either.
Well, maybe not - one way to look at it is it's the scope of the compensation that the media companies are awarded through the piracy compensation tax. If they implement anti-piracy technology we all understand and agree that will just reduce piracy, not eliminate it. So I can see the tax being reduced. Dunno about it being eliminated. Not necessarily an either/or.
Indigenous cultural artifacts definitely convey an incredible weight in meaning and history but they are rare. They don't provide that omni-present sense of history that so much else of the world has. Certainly when you view them you are shocked into a certain perspective but they aren't ever-present reminders.
Walking down the streets of San Francisco, where there were once several tribes, you can't find any legacies other than hints in the etymology of the landscape. Not the same as walking down a street in Europe or Asia where reminders are all around you. I won't forget after a kitschy shopping trip stumbling on a beautiful largely unmarked and unnoticed Roman bath from 350 AD in Paris - it wasn't in any of our guide books. And there's something wonderfully meaningful that's hard to describe in sitting in a modern cafe in a nook that's actually sheltered under the arch of an aqueduct dating from Hadrian's reign.
Anywho, I think I've deviated - yes I agree you can feel a sense of antiquity without needing the continuity (or cultural identification), it's the lack of reminders that I regret not having.
If you dig the ruins in Italy, you should try Turkey. Italy went through a long and intense phase of recycling where the materials of ancient buildings were nicked to build new ones. While Turkey certainly wasn't exempt from that, the profusion of well-preserved ruins is astounding. I've heard Algeria also has swaths of only lightly cannabilized ruins but I haven't verified that yet.
Sigh... A sense of continuity and antiquity is one of the things lacking in America that I truly miss (Native Americans excepted).
In a lot of places, archaelogists have to do an examination before development can begin on a site. The article seems to be saying that it was a routine examination for the state, and not that they were selling the rights. "Vecchio discovered the village north of Vesuvius while doing routine tests to grant a company a license to build a shopping center and underground parking lot on the site."
Tsk tsk. You know the saying about assuming things? It makes an ass out of you and, uh, you. Yeah...
It's an opt-in list that is targeted to interest segments that people specify they want to receive promotions, coupons, etc for. It is NOT spam. We do NOT cull email addresses from websites. We do NOT buy or sell email addresses.
I know you meant it as a joke but it's actually insulting to company that really goes out of it's way to do the right thing. And based on high open rates, high click-thru rates, and low unsubscribe rates our userbase is fine with it and in fact appreciates it. They also understand that the free services we provide cost money and ads are one of the ways that we recoup our costs. There's a big difference between spam and legitimate advertising. If I ever culled an email address from a website without that person's permission I'd let you shoot me.
That's all I can say. Whyte Wolf said it all. Thanks Slashdot - you pulled through beautifully when it was crunch time. And thanks to all the Slashdotters for the insights, commentary, diverstity, and community at this time.
Oh no... And here I was afraid it would be WOTC who got the license. Little could I imagine that GW would get their grubby little hands on it. Should've realised it though - hasn't their stock and earnings been in the gutter for a while?
Also, the link should be http://www.games-workshop.com/
Kinda OT but the artwork got me thinking about how I liked the artwork done by (now defunct) Iron Crown Enterprises in the Middle-Earth Role-Playing game. I used to love that game but we died a lot - stupid critical charts... ("Strike through ears. Big lummux dies immediately. Any earwax is removed").
Any word on whether a new game is going to be released? Hopefully with better game mechanics? Hopefully not by WOTC using d20?
I'm afraid of crass commercialization too but I'd rather people collecting Frodo stuff and reading Tolkein's books than say, Garfield...
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Hey, galego - in no way am I defending or justifying terrorism. In no way do I think that the invididuals at the WTC were anything but innocent victims. My only point was that things happen for a reason. And it's those ultimate reasons, not proximate causes, that need to be addressed for true peace and security.
Simple. They are major networks with major resources. Most dot-coms are not and don't.
A little background on TechTV: it was purchased by the mogul Rupert Murdoc (I think it's still owned by him, ZDNet, the online part of ZDTV which became TechTV, was sold to CNET. TechTV.com I believe is still Murdoc owned.) and in theory the parent company has gobs of resources but I can tell you in practise, the TechTV.com child company does not.
And as for how annoying the ad is - well yes, it annoyed me too. I'd make some justification about advertising being necessary to pay the bills, the death of the banner and the need for intrusive rich media ads to perform, etc, etc. But no, I just found that particular ad unnecessarily annoying too.
Slashdot Mirror
I read "Moo" and my first thought was "Yes! News on Master of Orion!" instead of cows... You should know better than to bandy that word around Timothy.
"He said the 'instant recognition and appeal' of the 'blank inside' format stems from 'Intel's enormous investment of over a decade of time and money.'"
Well don't trademark a common phrase you moron! It's your own damn fault for commercializing a fairly intuitive linguistic structure like "blank inside". What the hell? How about coming up with a campaign called "Hello Intel!" and being shocked that there are actually parallels in the Real World(tm)! Every programming tutorial book gets sued over "Hello world!" programs...
Hola,
yeah - sorry that 'credentials' bit came out harsh. We are, all in all, saying the same thing - that the DARTmail can be abused but isn't spamware and that the context the article was presented in on Slashdot and the general reaction here was way off. The dialog you and I and several others have been having - standardization of double opt-in and enforcement of due dilligence - is more in line with reality. Saying DCLK is in the Spam-biz is flat out misinformation.
Because of John Doe subpoenas, I'm actually a bit nervous disclosing more about what I know vis-a-vis the technologies and procedures but I think I can say without a doubt that spamming and any sort of questionable activity is taken very seriously there. As a client, my company was in a situation where we had conflicting privacy policies in different environments and had trouble presenting that clearly to the user. DoubleClick's privacy department insisted that we take the matter to the FTC(!) for approval of our solution. In the end, DoubleClick and the FTC forced us to make some changes we didn't really want to make.
Anywho, I completely concur about double opt-in (well, the business side of me is more inclined to single opt-in with notification because of the huge drop-off between impulse subscription and the confirmation).
Hee-hee! Excuse me for not explaining in detail every facet of how we process unsubscribes... ;) Our asp solution doesn't utilize VERP but we do insert the address we emailed to. But for reasons that I'm not clear on, people frequently delete the body of the email when they send an unsubscribe request. When you email 1.8MM people rare occurances like that actually become fairly significant.
Another thing I have a recurring problem with is people subscribing and typos. But I guess that's what we get for being single opt-in.
Actually if you want to wave credentials you'll lose - as an ex-employee of DCLK, an ex-client, and currently a list admin using a different provider.
So let's go:
1. How does DoubleClick verify that the lists in use are opt-in?
When you are negotiating for the process, at least one sales person and probably a pre-sales consultant goes to your site and goes through the registration process multiple times. Some of the addresses they then ask to unsubscribe - if you spam them anyway there's a problem. They also go through your privacy policy to ensure compliance.
Also, if you send out a mailing that comes back with large numbers of unsubscribes and bounces, that raises a big red flag. Lastly, there actually are people monitoring the abuse@doubleclick.net address. If a particular client crops up enough, it will be addressed.
2. What are the penalties if the list isn't opt-in?
If it's proven that your list is not opt-in then your contract is abruptly cancelled. And depending on how bad a PR flap you can be sued.
3. DoubleClick has no responsibility for spam like an ISP.
DoubleClick's number one responsibility is to its shareholders. Bad PR has significantly hurt their business.
4. Bulk email is the stated point of the DARTmail service.
Nyet. You are misunderstanding "bulk" means large numbers. If you send out 1.8MM newsletters like I do, Outlook or some small scale provider isn't going to cut it. That's bulk. The stated purpose of DARTmail is bulk OPT-IN email.
5. Cost issues.
We left DARTmail because it was too expensive. Period. Most SPAM is only cost-effective with a cheap CPM. That's not a 100% guarantee but a general truism.
I have no doubt that there will be abuses of the technology. DoubleClick's client base is large and there are certainly issues in monitoring compliance for that many clients. But there's a huge difference between a legitimate product that will be fractionally abused and actual spamware.
Then that's the fault of the publisher not DoubleClick. DARTmail is simply a delivery engine and management UI. DoubleClick does not own the client's lists nor can they use them. If one of their clients is spamming you, contact the client to be removed and CC: dartmailsupport@doubleclick.net. Because of all the bad PR, DoubleClick is really up tight about companies using their software to spam people. Plus DARTmail CPMs (cost per thousand emails sent) are waaay too high for spammers to be cost effective. What you got was an exception.
That's also possible too. I'm a list admin and I've bungled an unsubscribe or two. But I'm usually nice and apologetic about it. But oh my god do people make mistakes, I've people trying to unsubscribe and threatening lawsuits but they subscribed with more than one address, have an alias, or set up an auto-forwarding rule to a different address. How the hell am I supposed to know an unsubscribe request from "billyjoe@hotmail.com" is really to unsubscribe "monty.robins@somecompany.com"? Sheesh...
You're missing the point - the company's list has to be opt-in. And DARTmail is way to expensive to be used as a spamming tool. Also, the list isn't given to DoubleClick per se - it still belongs to the client and DoubleClick can't touch it or use it. Lastly, DoubleClick doesn't send out the mailings either - they provide the asp technology. The client still manages the list and sends the mailings.
Well, a couple people have pointed out that DARTmail is NOT a spammer product. But those people are in the minority so I'm going to drive this home:
It's a premium email delivery engine. It is much too expensive for spammers. This is for publishers who maintain newsletters and house advertising lists. Hell, it's too expensive for a lot of publishers for that matter... Anywho, DoubleClick, like most email providers, is extremely uptight about their clients using opt-in only lists (albeit IIRC I think they still let you get away with pre-checked single opt-in). I know this personally from having them investigate mailings that had high rates of bounces and unsubscribes (it was a list import problem and the primary key wasn't properly parsed from the email address - I'm not a spammer!).
Plus, there is nothing new about this - if you read the article, you see that it says this is DARTmail 3.5. DoubleClick has been in the email tech biz for a couple years now. v1 was scratch built, v2 was when they bought Flo, v3 is integrating Message Media's technology.
The ALSOS mission is one of the most fascinating things in WWII. If you haven't looked into it, read The Hunt For German Scientists by Michael Bar-Zohar I believe, The Alsos Mission by Col. Boris Pash, and Alsos by Samuel Goudsmit.
Alsos was an intelligence operation to assess the German's science capabilities, in particular their nuclear fission program. It largely degenerates into commando raids and kidnapping (get the scientists before the Reds do!). A gripping read.
Yeah, I have to admit - I can't tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and a 128k ogg file. I use ogg simply because I read about it one day, liked the people behind the project, and just started using and haven't gone back. Their aspirations appealed to me and I've been happy with the product.
Since discovering ogg, I have become a huge fan of streaming radio stations, both home-grown and professional. The potential royalty fee for using mp3s is a big issue in those circumstances. That's another reason I support ogg as an open and free audio format. Icecast (http://www.icecast.org) has a beta ogg streaming program, as far as I know it isn't mature yet though.
The directors and shareholders of Doubleclick recently bought Abacus databases containing millions of personal user profiles collected from those credit card customers (etc.) that you mentioned. Real and hard data. My guess is that they did not buy that business simply to continue running it as is. They will want to turn a sizeable profit with that purchase.
>>>>>
Word. The Abacus purchase was intended for four things:
1. Offline/Online Identifiable profiles. Nixed after DCLK bought Abacus
2. The brand and clients. Abacus is a respected company in offline marketing with some major marquis clients that DCLK wanted to snag online too.
3. The people. Abacus has done some awesome statistical modeling and predictive work - DCLK wanted their gray matter and expertise for online.
4. A solid investment. Abacus was well into profitability and is a valuable investment in and of itself.
Number 1 got nixed, number 2 achieved, number 4 ongoing - that leaves Number 3. DoubleClick is focusing on technology and is coming out with buying/planning software of which data and modelling is integral. Look at their other recent purchases - @Plan and Comscore (planning and analysis products).
>>>>
What elso do they have? Well, the article states "In the last 16 months, DoubleClick has worked to deflect its dependence on the sickly advertising market. It has built up its research, data and technology divisions while slowly dismantling its media division."
>>>>
This qoute really really really needs to be clarified. The Media division at DoubleClick _sells_ inventory. Repping website inventory was DCLK's original and core competency. The dismantling of that division in no way or form changes DoubleClick's focus from adserving technology and the supporting research, planning, and market analysis tools.
>>>>>
So they have surfing habits, e-mail identities and hard real-world data.
>>>>>
Not much in the way of email identities actually. The data for the DARTmail products belong exclusively to the clients. Technically, the data resides on DoubleClick's servers but realistically they can't use that data without an uproar surpassing that of the Abacus/PII flap.
>>>>>
Think about it. The "not enough money for more servers/equipment" lame excuse is a red herring.
>>>>>
Well, the reason they are shifting their focus is because the margins are to slim, part of which is infrastructure costs. Think about it - their dbs capture every single ad they serve to every single person and records at least 8 different datapoints with every event. Plus they track click, post-view, and post-click activity. That's an insane amount of data. It's mind-bogglingly huge. Now the issue isn't the storage of all that data - it's being able to use it. That is the major technology hurdle.
>>>>>
My guess is that in addition to keeping their online business _sans_ those pesky media attracting privacy issues (legal problem solved!), they will quietly be working in the investment community with their combined data and profiles to invest into and launch new online business ventures that target specific nich markets. And that is where they will get their return on investment.
>>>>
That's a good theory.
Which in a way sucks. It's companies like X10 that do the annoying bulk purchases of the same firckin ad over and over. The stuff that was done with Intelligent Targeting was awesome - for example, GM had these ads for a new line of commercial vans that would target particular occupations and industries. Each ad was unique and tailored to each field. If I was a plumber surfing the web and I had my choice between seeing a "Punch the Monkey" ad and a banner tailored to my career about a product I might actually be interested in, I know which I'd rather see.
In a lot of cases I'd rather get a targeted ad than a non-targeted.
DoubleClick is not selling their tracking system - the "tracking system" is simply their cookies tied into the ad serving tool. And they aren't selling their adserving tech. Just dumping Intelligent Targeting.
What good is buying the database? There's no personally identifying info in it. Just DoubleClick cookie IDs. What can you do with someone else's cookies?
DoubleClick is NOT leaving the adserving business. Just the Intelligent Targeting product. DoubleClick will still use cookies, still serve ads using targeted information (each host website can dynamically insert key-values into the ad tags for targeting purposes - demographic or behavioral information that can be targeted to).
What DoubleClick is no longer doing is taking traffic data and putting into a big consortium to find interest segment associations and targeting. This is the exact same thing that offline marketers do - you apply for the credit card and buy a sweater at Gap, that goes into a db with your age and location and other info. That info is then contributed to a data pool which also has purchasing habits of Pottery Barn, Ikea, William Sonoma, etc. The various members in the consortium can then purchase lists of various demographics for targeted direct mailings and catalogs.
I don't think the info is sellable - what good is someone else's cookie data? It's not like you'll be able to serve ads to a doubleclick cookie unless you somehow take over the domain. And there's no personally identifiable info in that database either.
.bartacus
Well, maybe not - one way to look at it is it's the scope of the compensation that the media companies are awarded through the piracy compensation tax. If they implement anti-piracy technology we all understand and agree that will just reduce piracy, not eliminate it. So I can see the tax being reduced. Dunno about it being eliminated. Not necessarily an either/or.
cheers,
bart
Indigenous cultural artifacts definitely convey an incredible weight in meaning and history but they are rare. They don't provide that omni-present sense of history that so much else of the world has. Certainly when you view them you are shocked into a certain perspective but they aren't ever-present reminders.
Walking down the streets of San Francisco, where there were once several tribes, you can't find any legacies other than hints in the etymology of the landscape. Not the same as walking down a street in Europe or Asia where reminders are all around you. I won't forget after a kitschy shopping trip stumbling on a beautiful largely unmarked and unnoticed Roman bath from 350 AD in Paris - it wasn't in any of our guide books. And there's something wonderfully meaningful that's hard to describe in sitting in a modern cafe in a nook that's actually sheltered under the arch of an aqueduct dating from Hadrian's reign.
Anywho, I think I've deviated - yes I agree you can feel a sense of antiquity without needing the continuity (or cultural identification), it's the lack of reminders that I regret not having.
best,
-zama
If you dig the ruins in Italy, you should try Turkey. Italy went through a long and intense phase of recycling where the materials of ancient buildings were nicked to build new ones. While Turkey certainly wasn't exempt from that, the profusion of well-preserved ruins is astounding. I've heard Algeria also has swaths of only lightly cannabilized ruins but I haven't verified that yet.
Sigh... A sense of continuity and antiquity is one of the things lacking in America that I truly miss (Native Americans excepted).
In a lot of places, archaelogists have to do an examination before development can begin on a site. The article seems to be saying that it was a routine examination for the state, and not that they were selling the rights. "Vecchio discovered the village north of Vesuvius while doing routine tests to grant a company a license to build a shopping center and underground parking lot on the site."
Tsk tsk. You know the saying about assuming things? It makes an ass out of you and, uh, you. Yeah...
It's an opt-in list that is targeted to interest segments that people specify they want to receive promotions, coupons, etc for. It is NOT spam. We do NOT cull email addresses from websites. We do NOT buy or sell email addresses.
I know you meant it as a joke but it's actually insulting to company that really goes out of it's way to do the right thing. And based on high open rates, high click-thru rates, and low unsubscribe rates our userbase is fine with it and in fact appreciates it. They also understand that the free services we provide cost money and ads are one of the ways that we recoup our costs. There's a big difference between spam and legitimate advertising. If I ever culled an email address from a website without that person's permission I'd let you shoot me.
That's all I can say. Whyte Wolf said it all. Thanks Slashdot - you pulled through beautifully when it was crunch time. And thanks to all the Slashdotters for the insights, commentary, diverstity, and community at this time.
Oh no... And here I was afraid it would be WOTC who got the license. Little could I imagine that GW would get their grubby little hands on it. Should've realised it though - hasn't their stock and earnings been in the gutter for a while?
Also, the link should be http://www.games-workshop.com/
Kinda OT but the artwork got me thinking about how I liked the artwork done by (now defunct) Iron Crown Enterprises in the Middle-Earth Role-Playing game. I used to love that game but we died a lot - stupid critical charts... ("Strike through ears. Big lummux dies immediately. Any earwax is removed").
Any word on whether a new game is going to be released? Hopefully with better game mechanics? Hopefully not by WOTC using d20?
I'm afraid of crass commercialization too but I'd rather people collecting Frodo stuff and reading Tolkein's books than say, Garfield...
Hey, galego - in no way am I defending or justifying terrorism. In no way do I think that the invididuals at the WTC were anything but innocent victims. My only point was that things happen for a reason. And it's those ultimate reasons, not proximate causes, that need to be addressed for true peace and security.
rock on.
-zama
Simple. They are major networks with major resources. Most dot-coms are not and don't.
A little background on TechTV: it was purchased by the mogul Rupert Murdoc (I think it's still owned by him, ZDNet, the online part of ZDTV which became TechTV, was sold to CNET. TechTV.com I believe is still Murdoc owned.) and in theory the parent company has gobs of resources but I can tell you in practise, the TechTV.com child company does not.
And as for how annoying the ad is - well yes, it annoyed me too. I'd make some justification about advertising being necessary to pay the bills, the death of the banner and the need for intrusive rich media ads to perform, etc, etc. But no, I just found that particular ad unnecessarily annoying too.
cheers,
zama