Tag: Phone Number List

Investment in advertising was one of the elements that was most notably affected by the coronavirus crisis. Advertisers cut back on how and where they advertised, fearing a future recession but also burdened by not being very clear on what to do and how. Of course, despite the fact that the situation was transversal and affected all areas, not all were weighed down in the same way. As the different studies have shown, the problems Pakistan Mobile Database have been more noticeable in certain settings and not so much in others. Traditional media have experienced a real drain, while digital media have fared much better out of the situation generated by the crisis. And, in all this, the big players have been those who have noticed the least impact. Facebook, Google and Amazon have been the big winners of the distribution of advertising investment in the year of the coronavirus. That is what the latest GroupM study makes clear , as collected in an analysis by The Wall Street Journal . The investigation of this newspaper starts from the numbers of the US market, but its conclusions make very clear the pattern that advertisers have followed during the year of the coronavirus.

From the outset, the investment has been directed to the digital environment. As explained by GroupM to the business community, “digital advertising has been the prominent bright spot in an otherwise quite dark year for the advertising industry.” Thus, 2020 will close as the year in which Brother Cell Phone List more than half of the advertising investment has gone to the hands of digital platforms. Taking out the investment in political advertising, 51% of the 2020 US advertising market has been digital advertising. For next year, it is expected to be 54%. Three years ago, digital advertising was a third of ad spend, similar in size to traditional media. Now, the sum of local newspapers, magazines, radios and televisions is 21% of the market.

And, of course and to continue, not all players have the same percentage of the distribution of the cake. Of this boom in digital advertising, the greats get the best part. The great beneficiaries of this situation have been Google, Facebook and Amazon. The accounts make it crystal clear: According to GroupM, nearly two-thirds of all digital ad spend this year ended up in the hands of these three giants. Why did this happen? These three giants have benefited from offering segmentation tools that allow them to reach very micro questions while doing so at a very low cost. The prices in advertising are not very high and that allows to carry out different campaigns and, above all, to reach a wider variety of advertisers. In a complicated year and with limited expenses, SMEs have chosen to advertise on the internet and on these platforms. Even for those companies, like Facebook, that have had a difficult year, things have not been so bad. Although Facebook experienced an advertising boycott in the summer, its advertising revenue in that quarter was up 22%. Of the entire US advertising market, Google already has about 30%, Facebook exceeds 20% and Amazon is already 10%.

In one of the last coffee meetings before the hospitality business closed in the city where I live, I had been participating in one of those hypochondriacal conversations in which they end up listing all the possible and terrible diseases that you can have. When I returned home and opened Oman Mobile Database the Twitter app, I was expecting an awareness announcement about a type of cancer. The screenshot of the ad garnered laughter on WhatsApp and at least an explanation of why he was seeing it. It was the day of that cancer, so awareness campaigns were to be expected. However, this was not the first time something like this had happened to me. Were the social network segmentation processes doing too well? (Taking into account that for a while I was haunted by an advertisement to become a police officer in the UK, perhaps not so much …).

Even so, and no matter how coincidental it was, receiving the announcement after that conversation was very disturbing. It was almost excessively invasive, as if Twitter had been listening to me and waiting to offer me announcements of what, after listening to my conversations, seemed that I feared the most. Internet companies have already actively Brother Cell Phone List and passively denied that they spend the day listening to what we are talking about to give us the ads that are more adjusted to what interests us (it would be a nightmare for them in terms of the European data protection law but also , they usually explain, would require an overly ambitious technological capacity). Even so, the thought that they listen to us to sell us things is one of the great modern fears. The phrase “Facebook listens to our conversations and what we say” gives nothing more and nothing less than 1,470,000 results on Google.

But, although they do not listen to us and do not use what we tell intimately to determine that perhaps this is the time to sell us material to make pastries or a new mattress, if it is true that they have more and more data about us, they can better adjust what it may interest us and how we are and with it they are getting closer and closer to being too disturbing with their ads. Instead of clicking on what they are trying to sell us and which is so appropriate, the knee-jerk reaction is one of rejection. It is too close and therefore too disturbing. When your room appears in an advertisement
One example of this is what has a reporter for the magazine Vice : just saw “his” room in an ad on Instagram. It’s not actually your room, but at first glance it might look like it. It’s the same bed, the same sheets, and the same nightstand. “We have never seen ourselves so reflected in an ad,” he writes in the article about how he and his girlfriend felt about the message from the home lingerie brand that was trying to sell them something via Instagram feed. From Facebook, they explained that this was a coincidence. And, as the same article explains, there are two clear reasons why you can understand why you saw your room in what it really wasn’t.

On the one hand, there is the association work that the brain does. First of all, it processes what you already know or what you are thinking about the most lately (it is what it does that when you buy a car, then you see it everywhere as the most successful model). On the other, there is the business of data and advertising. Everything is very close because companies have managed to accumulate a lot of data on how we buy and get to the essence of how we are and what we want. Not that they have actually seen your room, but they have made an informed approach to what they think your room may be.

The 6-second ads were born in the online video environment. The online platforms presented them as a new format that helped the consumer to better cope with the advertising load of online videos and that prevented them from Norway Mobile Database ending up skipping the message. ‘Traditional’ video commercials, with their duration similar to those of TV commercials, would end up falling victim to the ad skip button after five seconds. Forcing the viewer to see the entire ad was a drag on the browsing experience and content consumption. With the six-second format, that was avoided and the consumer could have to watch the whole thing. But did these new ads achieve the same results or even better than the ads that were served up to then in the videos? That was the big question and the element that marked a growing list of studies, analyzes and expert recommendations.

The most recent study, produced by IPG Media Lab and Magna, concludes that it is. 6-second ads are just as powerful as 15- or 30-second ads. Short ads, remember in AdAge , are present on many online platforms, which offer them to advertisers. Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter all have these types of ads. However, advertisers do not prioritize them and usually, point to the American medium, see them as a kind of extra, as something more. This occurs despite the fact Brother Cell Phone List that, as the IPG Media Lab and Magna study conclude, those ads do work. To demonstrate this, they used as a sample one of the platforms that offer them, Snapchat, as well as two video sources not identified by their brand (it is a video aggregator and a full episode service) and the response of consumers to those messages. According to their data, shorter-duration ads converted better. Comparing consumer response to the 6-second and 15-second ads, they found that the 6-second ads worked much better at convincing consumers to get hold of that product. They had better data in consideration of purchase. By percentages, and in general, 6-second ads achieve 9% brand favourability and 9% purchase intention among consumers aged 18 to 34 years. Compared to these data, those of 15 achieve a 2% of brand favorability and a 3% of purchase intention.

Among consumers between 35 and 44 years old, the data is distributed in 9% compared to -1% of those of 6 compared to 15 in brand favorability and 11% compared to 4% in purchase intention. The study data not only shows a better result compared to each other, but also indicates that the reception of very short ads has improved compared to its principles. “What we found is that short ads are actually much more effective than they used to be,” Kara Manatt, Senior Vice President at Magna , tells AdAge . Short ads achieve better data among both Zs and millennials in brand favourability and not just purchase intent. Of course, if the ads cannot be skipped and if they are served in long videos, the 15-second ads achieve better overall data.

The premise is clear. But, how do you ensure that video campaigns arrive properly in a digital environment as fragmented as the current one? Because, on the one hand, today we can enjoy audiovisual content from our smartphone , tablet, laptop, social networks, television and through multiple streaming content platforms . And on the other, because today’s digital video ad strategy is subject to fewer Nigeria Mobile Database time slots and GRPs than before. All this means that in the new ecosystem, brands are required to adapt so that their video campaigns are effective. How to do it? The rule of thumb is to consider the most attractive way to reach users based on the device they are on and the multiple video consumption channels they use. And along with this there are another series of key elements to take into account. The first is the content itself; the video itself, the sport, which must be the backbone of the campaigns that use this format. And this is something that favors the current environment, since users see the content they want, on demand and on demand, through different devices and are very familiar with video.

In addition, brands have to develop content with agile productions that allow them to reach all types of media so as not to restrict the opportunities to impact the audience. Therefore, it is highly advisable for them to have the creative team from the beginning of the planning process. Because the best results are achieved when creativity is involved in the initial strategic decisions. But along with the own content that brands develop to reach consumers, it is crucial for advertisers to know their behavior with respect to media consumption. And never like now must they be alert to the audiovisual content that comes to light, which is increasing and of great quality. Especially those offered by the many streaming platforms .

In line with the above, and due to the absence of comprehensive planning tools, it is capital for advertisers to determine their target audience and channel. Because budget allocation begins by allocating it where the audience Brother Cell Phone List reach can be maximized. This will mean that, for example, for many brands, especially the large ones, cable television will remain the basis of their plan and that digital television will supplement spending by reaching audiences that consume less traditional television. Something that will not happen, however, for smaller advertisers or those targeting a younger audience, because digital television, based on social media and mobile devices, is the right environment to focus on. video campaigns in your media plan.

Along with this, brands also have to firmly establish the pillar of having a technology powerful enough to simplify the execution of campaigns to the maximum. And that is also capable of using the appropriate formats and channels, promotes operability and has an independent measurement. However, as there is still no technology that brings together all these parameters, for the moment they will have to take advantage of the virtualities offered by the existing ones. And also related to technology, is innovation in measuring campaign results. In such a way that brands can measure the complete delivery of video campaigns, both on cable television, connected TV or digital.

This has been a difficult year for Facebook. He has had problems with public authorities and has had problems with advertisers. By 2021, things are unlikely to get any better for the social network. What is expected is almost the opposite could be said: problems await Facebook and they New-Zealand Mobile Database will come from all fronts. In the advertising market, you could be losing the trust of even those who are your most enthusiastic customers and those who have used the social network as a lever to reach their target customers. Direct-to-consumer companies are common in social media marketing and have Facebook as their main way of connecting with consumers, as their advertising investment patterns and the master lines of their marketing strategy have shown.

However, even they have begun to readjust their ad spend and have begun to reduce the weight of Facebook in their ad spend. They are moving some of their ad spend to other platforms and why they do so speaks volumes about how Brother Cell Phone List things are changing and how markets are readjusting. This pattern of change has been spotted by Digiday . According to an analysis, within media agencies, the great conversation they are having right now with their clients is to change patterns and diversify investment beyond Facebook. Why is this happening? As an agency manager explains to the British media, although Facebook is still the largest advertising space and is still used, “brands no longer trust it enough for everything to go to Facebook.

The reasons why marketers have changed their behavior patterns are varied and are mixed between system problems and prices. As they point out in Digiday, one of the main problems is in the prices of the platform. The CPM on Facebook has been positioned at $ 14-17 in recent months, while on other social networks (such as the emerging TikTok) it has moved between $ 3 and $ 5. Facebook is more expensive.

However, the price issue is not the only one listed by the marketers they spoke to in the review. There are also the technical problems and the reputation of Facebook when it comes to providing data. The Facebook Ads Manager has crashed, crashed, and randomly banned ad accounts. One of the advertisers points out that this has made buying advertising more difficult. And to that are added the effects of the summer boycott, which was joined by different brands and which has had an effect on the advertising strategy. Not only has it put Facebook’s reputation in question, but it has also allowed brands to try other advertising platforms. The experiments, says one of the marketers, worked and now brands are more open to trying other platforms and other activities. Snapchat, Pinterest or TikTok have benefited from this migration.

The change is not total, but it points in one direction
For now, marketers haven’t made a blackout on Facebook and haven’t even made it stop being the main element of the strategy. The marketers surveyed by Digiday speak of a scale of between 10 and 30% of the budget in the process of change. It is what they are currently taking away from Facebook of the advertising investment and taking it to other areas. However, this could point to a future direction. Those surveyed in the analysis acknowledge that they expect their clients to ask for more diversification in the future and less weight from Facebook (even though now the social network and Google carry the weight of the advertising investment).

Although they already seem very old news – that is the effect that the intense beginning of the year has had on the news news – the judicial crises of Facebook and the other giants of the network are not such old news. Facebook has been accused of monopoly in a judicial maneuver that Netherlands Mobile Database involves most of the US states, which portends complex problems for this year and the immediate future that lies ahead. But in addition to that is added an accusation launched by a group of attorneys general against Google. It has not achieved as much consensus as the attack on Facebook – in this case ten states are behind the lawsuit – but it does start from the same base and becomes an equally clear sign that the authorities are increasingly focused on the dominant role of big tech.

The accusation indicates that Google is a monopoly and that it has used anticompetitive practices in the field of online advertising, controlling prices and reducing the power of maneuver of small players. In addition, and this is where Facebook has become a collateral guest in the process, the plaintiffs also accuse them of having closed an agreement with Facebook when it entered the advertising market, an agreement that goes against free trade and in the they used – so they say – their power as a dominant player. Of course, Google defended itself against these accusations at the time and the process is still in the early stages, but the documentation that is becoming the epicenter of the judicial process is serving to see from the inside how the online advertising market works and the role of the big ones.

The New York Times has had access to the documents on which the prosecution bases its criticism of the agreement between Facebook and Google. Facebook was going to compete directly with Google for part of the digital advertising market but backed down, staying in its own area of ​​maneuver and  Brother Cell Phone List not encroaching on the terrain where Google dominates. It did, the documents now say, because the two giants struck a preferential deal. Google eliminated a potential competitor and Facebook achieved very advantageous conditions when managing ads in Google tools. The data to which the Times has had access paints a very flattering image for Facebook, so much so that its competitors are already talking about unfair treatment for them. They do it, yes, from anonymity, because they do not want it to affect their relationship with Google.

What exactly are Google’s other partners criticizing about the deal data made public in the Times investigation ? For them, the deal gives Facebook a significant competitive advantage over them. In general, the terms of the agreement with Facebook are much better than those of the general agreements that Google closes with its advertising partners. Thus, Facebook made sure thanks to the agreement that it would win a predetermined percentage in all the bids in which it participated. The other players did not know that this happened and, according to the accusations in the lawsuit, Facebook always won, regardless of whether another player bid higher than them (as a Google spokeswoman explained to the Times this is not true: Facebook had have to beat the highest bids to win them).

It is not the only benefit. It also had better bid times (300 milliseconds versus 160 or less for everyone else) and advantageous data terms. Facebook could directly bill the sites where its ads appeared, giving it access to pricing data (and taking it out of Google’s absolute control of pricing data), and it also had access to better data to understand. how the market works. According to the data collected by the Times , Google agreed with Facebook to help it better understand where ads should be displayed, something that does not happen with other partners.

When the coronavirus crisis erupted nearly a year ago, advertisers quickly made decisions about their advertising budgets and advertising actions. Some suspended the announcements entirely, in a kind of waiting time to see what the next weeks would bring. Others, although they kept Nepal Mobile Database the hype, made decisions about what to launch, where and when. Pandemic ads appeared, certain types of messages were paused, and new parameters were added to programmatic advertising. In this last area, the advertisers – hoping to recover in health – blocked all those keywords that linked to the disease and that were negative. Fearing brand safety and seeking to shield it as much as possible, marketers tried to prevent their ads from appearing in all the news items that touched on the virus. It was a way of not appearing on dubious sites that were taking advantage of the issue, but also a way to prevent their positive and bright ads from accompanying especially dramatic and tragic news.

And this was a very big problem for the media and for advertisers: for the former, all the news ended up being about the coronavirus and, for the latter, this meant that they were left out of content with a large audience and reference media. A June study found that 43% of the media recognized that keyword blocking had clearly become a problem . 23% even pointed to it as something “strongly” problematic. With the blockade, revenues were falling and the content that readers wanted the most at the time they were looking for it more and more was not being monetized. Estimates indicated that most online media had lost their programmatic advertising revenue.

Possibly, moreover, the advertisers had been overly cautious. Studies at the time noted, in general, that consumers did not reject advertising during those especially dramatic months of the pandemic. They understood that Brother Cell Phone List he had to go on because the world went on too. But, in addition, in general, marketers are mistrustful when it comes to media and programmatic advertising. That is, brand safety is a problem and an important one, but they are making the media pay for debts that do not belong to them. Internet users do not see the content served by social networks the same as those served by the media and what in one case is a complicated and toxic keyword is not in the other. That is what can be concluded from a recent British study .

The study was carried out by Reach, who studied how ads are perceived and what consumers believe. In general, Internet users trust the media more than they do other online channels. Thus, 73% acknowledge that they expect to see unreliable content on social networks, 43% on sites with user-generated content and 19% – much less – on news sites. The same happens with violent content and those that generate shock. 52% expect violent content on social networks and 44% on user-generated content sites, compared to 9% in the news media, and 59% do so with content that impacts on social networks and 47% in the generated by users, compared to 14% in news sites. In other words, the contents that weigh down the image of the brand and that become toxic do not usually appear in the media.

Millions of articles have been written since Apple’s announcement of the launch of its new iOS14 operating system. In these months, a kind of impenetrable forest has been built, as if there were no alternatives that respect that capital binomial on which the digital advertising industry is based, respecting the privacy of users, on the one hand, and optimization of digital campaigns through personalization, on the other. At the beginning of this entire journey, the ominous voices Namibia Mobile Database focused on the problems that the new operating system would bring to the digital advertising industry by positioning Apple as a leading brand of privacy and transparency of user data. In this sense, for example, Facebook, before the launch of iOS14, had anticipated a 50% drop in the revenue generated by its Audience Network, since it considers that a relevant part of iPhone users will prefer not to be tracked. Which would lead to a decrease in the use of data for commercial reasons, with the consequent damage to advertisers. But also for consumers themselves, since it would be more difficult for them to receive advertising for products or services that interest them.

The reality is that with iOS14 Apple has reinforced the Limited Ad Tracking function with which data collection is restricted, thus following a slogan that it launched in early 2019, and that it published in giant letters on an advertising poster that said : What happens on your iPhone, stays on your iPhone . The consequence is that now, expressly, each user has to accept that they can be tracked, making use of the consumer identifiers in the Apple environment, known as IDFA and which are prepared according to the use of the apps and tastes of consumers. This consent allows brands to collect data and generate profiles with which to better segment their campaigns.  At the same time, there are a couple more elements to take into account and perhaps less talked about. I am referring, first of all, to the nutritional label or labeling of each app with which Apple shows the user the type and volume of data that a given application collects from it. As well as if these are linked to them or if they are used for tracking. And along with this, the fact that developers, for updates to their apps or uploading new ones in the App store, have to provide information about the privacy practices used by each app, which must be absolutely respectful of the regulations in force.

To facilitate this entire process of adaptation to the new operating system, the digital advertising industry has taken important steps and is implementing solutions. Some top playersFor example, they are paving the way for brands that use their platform so that they are not adversely affected by the change. And it recommends, on the one hand, that they implement Brother Cell Phone List a new SDK (app development software). In this sense, he remarks that, if possible, always use the latest version published, since it is necessary that it supports the requirements of iOS 14 and adapts to the limits set by the Apple SKAdNetwork API in terms of monitoring and measurement. of the campaigns. As well as for another, create a separate account for campaigns targeting iOS 14 users. This mitigates the overall impact that iOS 14 limitations may have on performance.

For its part, Google has issued some recommendations for adapting brands to the new reality. Among them, update the latest versions of their SDKs: Google Analytics for Firebase SDK, Google Mobile Ads SDK and Interactive Media Ads SDK so that the integration with Apple’s SKAdNetwork is effective. At the same time reducing the number of campaigns in apps to less than a hundred, and that when these are app installation (ACi), they are between 10-20 in total. As well as prioritizing the scope of the campaigns over the return on investment, thus changing the objective of these and directing them to CPA (Cost per Acquisition).

The relationship between advertising and childhood is complicated. Different studies have shown the links between the content of advertisements and children’s eating habits. If the little ones have an increasingly less healthy diet and abuse so-called fast food products, such as snacks, it is, in part, because advertising has surrounded them with messages related to it. In addition, the advertisements do not always respect, as other analyzes have shown, protected schedules and certain child protection measures.

But, equally, the ads have a significant problem in respecting gender stereotypes. Advertising, in general, has tried to correct the way it represents both women and men in recent years. Ads have become more diverse and presentations less skewed. Thus, in recent years, they have become fashionable from the advertising of female empowerment or the one that Mexico Mobile Database represents parents without falling into the cliché of the ‘clumsy father’ who does not even know how to change his baby’s diaper. Several giants in the consumer products industry have already made public statements about how they want to change ads and how to destroy stereotypes. Unilever did even a couple of weeks ago a public promise to improve diversity and representation in their advertising. In addition to avoiding gender stereotypes, you will also increase diversity among the population groups your ads represent. They seek to be more inclusive at all levels.

But while all this is happening in advertising in general and especially in adult advertising (adults who, let’s not forget, are making consumer decisions based on how brands engage with different causes), what is happening with advertising for children? ? Are children’s products and their advertisements making decisions to bet equally on diversity and on eliminating gender stereotypes? There are success stories and concrete examples. The last Barbie campaigns have shown diverse Brother Cell Phone List profiles of women and have included children, going viral. The Toy Planet catalogs are also viral, which has been making catalogs for eight years away from stereotypes and which are going viral. “It is about breaking the sexist clichés in the toy sector and promoting the happiness of the little ones through play. Let them feel free to choose what to play with, what to play and who to play with!”, He explained this Christmas to El País Ignacio Gaspar, general director of Toy Planet.

These success stories, however, coexist with a less optimistic reality in the sector. Toy advertisements and the product presentation itself (and anyone who has entered a toy store in recent months will have seen it) continue to repeat gender stereotypes. A recent study by the Consell de l’Audiovisual de Catalunya (CAC), which has analyzed online toy advertisements, not only confirms the trend but also provides data that makes things even worse. Thus, almost 70% of the toy video advertisements published on the Internet not only perpetuate gender clichés, but also do so twice as much as they do on television. The investigation has focused on the toy ads served on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter and has taken the Christmas campaign as a brand. 68% of those ads repeated sexist views: 35% were on linear television. The data is also worse if you focus on just one scenario of online advertising. In videos featuring child influencers, 9 out of 10 pick up gender stereotypes.

Thus, these ads sell girls motherhood, care and a universe of pink and pastel colors, while for boys they sell worlds of action. The study has even noticed a divergence between how the protagonists of the ads are presented. If they are girls, they are overwhelmed by emotions (they laugh or cry). If it is them, they are ‘doing things’ (“they prepare, activate and win”). All this happens, they point out from the CAC, because of the control of what happens in internet advertising is much more relaxed than what happens in traditional media. “We see how advertising is moving from highly regulated media, such as radio and television, to a new digital environment,” says the president of the CAC, Roger Loppacher. “The result is that minors inadvertently receive an advertising impact of high intensity and a high presence of gender stereotypes, a fact that also has consequences in the perception that they may have in relation to male and female roles in our society, “he denounces. The analysis of the Catalan body is not the only one that has reached these conclusions. The Institute for Women has also presented a recent study that reaches very similar conclusions . In toy commercials, boys are policemen or pilots while girls are hairdressers. Boys are warriors and girls caregivers, repeating a classic gender cliché.

The regulatory changes that the European Union has implemented in recent years have made things more difficult for targeted advertising on the internet. Until now, the great success of these types of ads was in the fact that they used large amounts of information about consumer behavior patterns to offer them the ads that best suited their interests. The ads followed online browsing, crossed it with various data Malta Mobile Database sources, and very efficiently matched messages to consumer profiles. However, changes in privacy regulations began to make that more complicated. European data protection law limits what companies can do with information. Consumers must give their consent to receive messages from brands and they also have to ask for permission to collect information. That has put cookies, for example, under threat, but it has also limited how and how much the information can be used.

But the truth is that the limits on what can be done in online advertising are not going to stop there: it seems unlikely. The European Union is working on two regulatory packages that will affect what happens on the internet and what big technology companies can do . This can mean changes in areas such as payment for copyrights and what is considered subject to those rights, but also have effects in areas such as digital advertising and what brands do with them. For the giants of the network, personalizing as much as possible and segmenting everything possible could be destined to disappear.

The idea is not exactly new: a few months ago, it became known that the European Union was analyzing behavioral ads , to determine what impact they have. The European Parliament supported a petition in its legal affairs Brother Cell Phone List committee to ask for the regularization of these types of advertisements. What they wanted was for the rule to be much clearer and to limit what advertising can do with microtargeting. That is, they want it to be less obtrusive and less intrusive. Now, the European Data Protection Supervisor, Wojciech Wiewiorówski, has called for a ban on targeted ads based on monitoring consumer habits. It is the answer to the consultation of the parliamentarians of the Union and, as they point out in TechCrunch , it can become one of the starting points for one of the most important changes in European regulations in the digital field.

As they point out in the technological environment, the recommendation is a placeholder. That is, it is to position itself clearly and hard against the weight of the big tech lobbyists and their fight against the new regulations. The final rule may not be that harsh, but the supervisor’s conclusion serves to create context. The supervisor asks that the measures go beyond demanding transparency. “Those measures should include a phasing out leading to a ban on targeted advertising based on pervasive tracking, as well as restrictions on the categories of data that can be used for targeting purposes and the categories of data that they can be communicated to advertisers or third parties to allow or facilitate targeted advertising “, the supervisor points out in its conclusions.

To this must be added that the EU member states themselves have just shortened “a negotiation mandate for the revision of the regulations on the protection of privacy and confidentiality in the use of electronic communications services”, which will address privacy online in general and that will also have an effect on online advertising. The Portuguese presidency will now begin to negotiate with the European Parliament on what the new rule will look like, which will apply to all online services when their end users are in the European Union. All data will be confidential. The list will include information such as some metadata such as the location or time of the user, which they consider “may be as sensitive as the content.”