[shawkinaw]

You can have ads without tracking. Print, radio, TV all do this.

[sofixa]

You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet when that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per thousands of ad clicks, which would make most websites financially unviable.

[reaperducer]

You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet when that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per thousands of ad clicks, which would make most websites financially unviable.

I do, and the amount of money webmasters made back then was much better.

Some of the sites I ran got $10-$15 CPM. Ad campaigns targeted to my sites' niches could be up to $25 CPM.

Ever since Google introduced AdWords and its race to the bottom, content-heavy web sites are lucky to get 10¢ CPM.

But since the new kids on the block have never experienced a profitable web without tracking, they don't know any better and think it didn't exist.

[readams]

But AdWords isn't a race to the bottom; it's the opposite. Google's ad business is so big because Google drives so much more value than other ad targeters.

[reaperducer]

For Google is a race to the top. But for publishers, all we get is crumbs compared to the old days.

[dleslie]

That was a lovely time to be on the internet: there was greater incentive to create interesting and focused niche content.

[hobs]

And you can justify all sorts of economic activity based on deeply unethical behavior, but should you?