A couple of questions that the survey should have asked, but didn't, include: "Ok spunky, for over a decade you've been getting the vast majority of your internet content free. That is coming to an end real quick like. When all of your favorite sites start offering you a choice between paid content or highly discounted or free content that includes ads, whatcha gonna do?"
"Smart choice. Now you wanna see more of those smack the monkey or rotating-flashing-Xmas-lights ads from the moral equivalent of discount mortgage brokers, or ads from brands you trust and like?" Thought so, now about those tracking cookies...
If you look at the stats from the study it is clear that younger folks - let's call them "tech-savvy" shall we, are not nearly as concerned about tracking cookies as are older folks (let's call them "the Cold War generation") for whom I am sure "tracking" smacks of the KGB and Big Brother. Hell, young adults, teens and increasingly kids post more personally identifiable information on their Facebook pages than any cookie can deduce. Meanwhile, Cold Warriors are pretty convinced that every time they use an ATM, there is a guy down the block with binoculars recording their secret passwords.
I strongly suspect that 99 percent of the internet users out there - of any age - can't explain the difference between tracking cookies, malware, viruses, worms, botnets, or phishing. All they know is that there are guys in Eastern Europe and Africa working 24/7 to steal from them using the internet as a way get at their indentifies (and eventually their money). Hollywood uses the internet like they used to use Nazis (and before them, Indians) as the root of all evil. No wonder most people don't want to be tracked online.
I just paid $370 bucks to renew my dead tree subscription to the Wall Street Journal (you are welcome, Rupert). I didn't hesitate because they know my name, home address, phone number, e mail and whatever else they can deduce about me when I am reading stories on All Things Digital or WSJ.com or Barrons.com. If the end result of all that knowledge is that they put ads online or in the paper for stuff I can afford instead of NetJets and watches that cost more than my Dad paid for this first three houses (combined), then I win. I'll start to worry when they send me an e mail telling me my e mail has won $2.5 million in a lottery.
"I strongly suspect that 99 percent of the internet users out there - of any age - can't explain the difference between tracking cookies, malware, viruses, worms, botnets, or phishing."
I strongly suspect you are correct. Nice work--thanks for adding this fuel to an increasingly assassin fire!
I, of course meant "sensible fuel" to an otherwise asinine fire.
That is what I get for commenting before coffee and trusting spell check :)
'alleluyah ! Wouldn't you rather be eating that cookie? their cookies?
It is instructive that a new age professional as yourself feels that the paper version of the WSJ is such a superior user experience as to warrant a $370 annual expense...further evidence that though print is in retrenchment it is a viable entry against the right targets. Media mix rules.
Bob: as I have said in this column and elsewhere, I think we have to support exceptional newspapers like the WSJ and the NTY. I don't like the ink stains, but I can't imagine life with out the content.
Cookies and milk go together. Cookies are the digital currency you pay to get your milk -"the internet". No cookies, no milk.