slop “doctors” and the attribution cartel

Previously: More attribution cartel Q and A

One of the points that has come up in defense of the attribution cartel is, well, at least it’s better than nothing. If some people choose not to consent to turn off non-cartel tracking, but are subjected to cartel tracking because the cartel claims the right to do it without consent, then the attribution cartel is in a position to use information on some activity that wouldn’t otherwise be tracked.

But is it, really? An attribution system that’s designed to back up whatever ad placement decisions “Performance Max” and the other Big Tech algorithms make—even when that ends up supporting the lawful but awful content that tends to drag down brands—could be actively harmful.

Rick Bruner, CEO of Central Control, writes,

Budgets flow toward whatever gets credited. If dominant platforms shape the crediting system, then legitimate media companies can be systematically undervalued even when they create awareness, trust, brand preference, or future demand. Quality journalism, premium entertainment, audio, television, and independent publishing all risk losing revenue to environments that are simply easier for the platforms to count.

And I found another example of this kind of craving for bogus data: Half of AI health answers are wrong even though they sound convincing by Carsten Eickhoff. The chatbot habit is catching on with many people, even for medical advice. When you ask a chatbot about something you know, or can look up, you often get wrong answers. But the feeling of having a conversation about an issue, for those who can get that feeling from a chatbot, can be valuable, too.

It’s safer and more reliable to seek medical info at the public library, where the person in the loop is bound by the code of the librarian, not the inexorable imperatives of the trust collapse bubble. But the chatbot is right there and provides that conversational experience, at least for some. Going to the librarian takes more effort, and a librarian won’t provide medical opinions or affirm your medical opinions, just recommend legit sources.

For measuring advertising, the more correct but less convenient alternative is the kind of scientifically designed research, independent of media owners, that Central Control does. Central Control offers Experiments as a Service—and doesn’t depend on the kinds of individualzed tracking or “privacy-enhancing” obfuscation methods that feed into Big Tech centralization.

Because getting the right answer is a little less convenient—research has to be independent, not just another screen on the Big Tech ad portal—then real ad measurement will turn out to be something that marketers can build skills in. The attribution cartel vision is something like economic central planning, where a de-skilled marketer simply dumps data and money to Big Tech. Alternatives to the attribution cartel tend to push decision-making out to the edges, free market style.

More: How the attribution cartel misleads advertisers: Q&A with Rick Bruner

Bonus links

Update on CC Signals: What Changed and Why from Creative Commons. We assumed that a carefully calibrated, norms-based approach would move the ecosystem in a better direction. But as we began consulting with our community, it became clear that this approach was not enough. The feedback was direct and consistent in stating that preference signals without enforcement do not meaningfully shift power. Signals alone cannot create agency in a system that many people did not choose to participate in.

China Builds 80% of the World’s Audio Gear Including Heritage Brands You’d Never Suspect, Says Top Hi-Fi Insider by Colin Toh. Many heritage Western names are now owned by Chinese companies with deep manufacturing roots…. Ownership, production, and brand identity are no longer aligned the way they once were.

How Digital Marketing Technology Broke Democracy: by Judy Shapiro. Advertisers hold the ecosystem’s purse strings, making them the single most powerful lever for change.