Yesterday I posted about my My rai·son d'ê·tre -- the relationship between new media, new media infrastructure and the "Future of Advertising." A conversation worth having here on ELLO. See my earlier post for details.
I want to talk about this: Consumers should have a choice to pay for the media or to opt for "free" ad supported content and to "flip-flop" between between the two systems as often as they desire.
There are two linchpins needed here: Media that is available to consumers and advertisers AT THE SAME or similar PRICE and better contracts between all parties.
Today I'll address the issue of contracts and my general belief in parity between consumers and advertisers. When most advertisers purchase traditional media (ads) they buy through a contract standardized by the AAAA; this avoids huge waste of effort and $$ spend on lawyers.
It would be in the best interests of consumers (and ultimately web site owners) if the aspect of their site terms and conditions that relate to user privacy, user targeting, databasing and the monetization of user data was used the exact same terms, conditions and definitions hammered out for us by a group like the ACLU or the EFF.
A single contract by country (US) or region (EU) would help consumers while lowering costs for operating web sites. Such a contract could be backed by rules, treaties and regulations. Such a contract could have stiff penalties for misuse and misrepresentation. The fear of a major class action lawsuit by every member of a web site should help keep site owners interests aligned with consumers. In the US, multiple parties who violated the contract might find themselves looking at a RICO action. IANAL...
I know some people would like to keep ads out of everything... but even that needs to contractual.. and binding and uniform from site to site. It's nice to have ELLO's founders word of honor, but a binding contract would be nicer.