DuckDuckGo CEO Explains How To Make Money Without Creepy Tracking

[engine]

Gabriel Weinberg, DuckDuckGo's CEO explains how it makes money in search without crossing the "creepy line"

Simple: it uses advertising without invasive tracking.

It's worth reading his piece , and not just because he's critical of the web giants.

[quora.com...]

[keyplyr]

Interesting insight. That being said, I think publishers, and to an extent advertisers, are at the mercy of the ad brokers. We're offered only the choices they give us.

[tangor]

The alternatives are there. One only needs to embrace them. Kudos DDG...

[justpassing]

I think publishers, and to an extent advertisers, are at the mercy of the ad brokers. We're offered only the choices they give us.

Yes, exactly.

About direct ad selling, not everybody can do it. I tried, but most advertisers prefer to use ad networks, this is more convenient for them to reach larger audience from one place. Also advertisers love the tracking that Ad networks are doing, because this allows them to target visitors and eventually optimize the way they use their money.

I wish DuckDuckGo starts its own ad platform, this would be amazing, and I am sure successful. Isn't there ad networks which are not tracking ? I remember reading that the makers of Ad block plus, wanted to do one. Media.net on twitter claimed they are not tracking, and do not rely on cookie, etc, but they do set a cookie when you insert their code, and no where they explain what it is...

[LifeinAsia]

OK, I'm going to be a dissenting voice. While I agree that some companies have gone overboard, I truly believe that some amount is good. Without it, you're not going to be able to deliver the personalization that today's users want (or even expect).

Let's say someone searches for "cars." If the ads are just based on the keyword, you'd only be able to show generic ads for cars dot com, Ford, Honda, BMW, Lexus, etc. Just knowing the person's location would allow you to show ads from local dealerships- more relevant to the user, more relevant to the advertiser. With some more tracking information, you could know if the person might be more interested in high end cars (past searches for cruises, hotels in Europe, high end wine, etc.- show ads for BMW & Lexus) or lower end models (past searches for motels in Albuquerque, used furniture, etc.- show ads for low end models of Ford and Honda or even Carfax)- again, more relevant to the user, more relevant to the advertiser. Based on prior click history, you could target the ads even further.

Oh, and if the person had been searching recently for Fleetwood Mac, Blondie, and The Police, you might want to serve ads for The Cars (band) memorabilia instead.

[engine]

Without it, you're not going to be able to deliver the personalization that today's users want (or even expect).

If the personalisation was good, some might accept that. But, I don't think it's good enough. Also, the creepy ads following you around is something I particularly dislike, especially if the item has been acquired.

The other thing is, if i'm logged out, i'm logged out for a reason, and wouldn't expect tracking.

The interesting thing is that DDG can make something of this, and it's a lesson for us all.

[iamlost]

There are three separate circumstances at play in this thread:
1. DDG as SE using the search query as minimal context to serve ads. Given their USP (unique selling point/proposition) of privacy this is about the limit available - the article is a solid exercise in marketing that limitation as a benefit.

2. a singular site or associated network of sites have the potential of associating greater context via referring sites/page history, visitor being new or return, visitor geolocation, prior click tracks from landing page, etc.

3. third party tracking that is being over applied by increasing numbers of sites (a couple of trackers? A couple dozen? How about a dozen dozen aka gross?)

And, besides the bandwidth and privacy issues, most/all third parties have no method of knowing when to stop - when the product/service is longer of interest. This critical disconnect is perhaps the greatest irritant. Especially severe on devices with multiple users.

I suspect that G and FB et al would love to close that gap. If they do the cure may well prove worse than the symptom.

[brotherhood of LAN]

@LifeinAsia

I think the crucial difference is attributing a cookie to an entity, a person.

Sure, some context of "previous serps clicked on" and "previous queries searched for" IMO is not invasive but improves user experience.

Storing every data point about you OTOH is probably what you're thinking about when crossing that line, which clearly Google does at present.

[browndog]

If the personalisation was good, some might accept that. But, I don't think it's good enough. Also, the creepy ads following you around is something I particularly dislike, especially if the item has been acquired.

And, besides the bandwidth and privacy issues, most/all third parties have no method of knowing when to stop - when the product/service is longer of interest. This critical disconnect is perhaps the greatest irritant. Especially severe on devices with multiple users.

I work part time for an optometrist and often use my iphone (no internet at work) to look up glasses/models and am absolutely bombarded with ads for sunglasses, despite not wanting to buy them. It drives me crazy. I don't mind ads at all (as long as they're not super intrusive on a page), but that is such a big bugbear of mine. I wish there was a 'don't show this ad again' option like FB has.