Only 9% of Visitors Give GDPR Consent To Be Tracked (markosaric.com) 33
Marko Saric, a digital marketing consultant and blogger, conducted his own experiment to find out how many visitors would engage with a GDPR banner and grant GDPR consent to their information being collected and shared. For his study, Saric used Metomic for his GDPR consent banner and tested it on two different websites during June. "Site 1 was a site about a tech topic with the majority of visitors coming from Google organic search (60%) and browsing from laptop or desktop devices (60%)," writes Saric. "Site 2 was on a lifestyle topic with the majority of visitors coming from organic social media (70%) and browsing with mobile devices (70%)." Here's what he found: I assumed that having a GDPR compliant consent banner carries a very high risk of visitor refusal as most people don't care enough to engage with your banner and those who do mostly do it to get rid of it. And if you give them an easy way to ignore your banner or to say no to be tracked, most of them will simply do that. With almost 19,000 unique visitors between those two websites, 48% engaged with the banner. 19% of those who engaged with the banner gave their consent which means that 9% of total visitors gave their consent to be tracked.
A higher percentage of visitors engaged with the banner on a mobile device (59% versus 40%) with a lower percentage of them giving consent (16% versus 22%). An obvious explanation is that the banner is more prominent and takes a larger percentage of a mobile screen than a desktop screen so the visitor interacts with the banner to remove it from their mobile screen.
A higher percentage of visitors engaged with the banner on a mobile device (59% versus 40%) with a lower percentage of them giving consent (16% versus 22%). An obvious explanation is that the banner is more prominent and takes a larger percentage of a mobile screen than a desktop screen so the visitor interacts with the banner to remove it from their mobile screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Stripe, meanwhile, is probably barred from doing business with anyone in the Bitcoin world by their bank. They're required to enforce their bank's rules, or the bank will shut them down.
Telegram links your account to your phone number, though I wis
Shocking. (Score:2)
Shocking I say. It's as if people don't want to be tracked like prey.
No, that's just the simplistic explanation. People actually *love* being tracked! It's just that the banners are not user friendly. Yeah, that's it.
Re: (Score:3)
Shocking I say. It's as if people don't want to be tracked like prey.
What's REALLY shocking is the (probably) very high percentage of those people who used Facebook and the like before the GDPR came along, without giving the matter a second thought. It's not as though there wasn't lots of publicity about Facebook's privacy-raping ways much earlier. It's as if people will pick the option of not being tracked like prey if it's easy and convenient, but are otherwise quite content to surrender their privacy for the bit of shiny represented by social media.
Re:Shocking. (Score:4, Insightful)
People are dumb, willfully ignorant and easy to fool.
The point of the GDPR is to make people give (moderately) informed, active consent. Facebook is very good at hiding their privacy raping ways. This extends to what little negative publicity manages to get through.
Oh, someone harvested our database and used it to manipulate voters? That's absolutely against our terms of service! Someone should go to jail!
What, someone scraped pictures off our site and used them to make a massive facial recognition system? Violation of our terms of service! Not our fault at all.
Very, very few of those stories point out that Facebook's entire business model is predatory stalking. And any story that *does* point a finger at Facebook focuses on some incidental detail, like the existence of a gay white supremacist advertising category.
Re: (Score:2)
They still don't give it a second thought. IIRC the law says that the default value has to be opt-out, in other words, they just click the nuisance away. I bet a lot more would "consent" to be stalked if the default was opt-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking I say. It's as if people don't want to be tracked like prey.
No, that's just the simplistic explanation. People actually *love* being tracked! It's just that the banners are not user friendly. Yeah, that's it.
GDPR only applies in the EU, If I was outside of the EU and there was an election coming up I'd demand of my candidate that they supported similar protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Most sites have taken the safe approach and implemented GDPR banners for everybody. Other countries following suit is a great idea though.
Re: Shocking. (Score:2)
Some sites have decided to block EU members. 'This site isn't available in your country.' Is a way too common message today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fine by me. NEXT!
It's not like there's any content out there anymore that's in some way exclusive. And if there is, well, there's VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shocking. (Score:3)
My take on the banners is that I hide them with the adblocker because I don't even want to share my decision.
NOT Shocking (Score:2)
Only 100% of visitors (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They meant, 9% of Visitors didn't understand (Score:5, Funny)
What they were being asked, and answered incorrectly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I have often misclicked on the huge button labeled "Confirm and accept (all)" instead of the tiny button labeled "Confirm and accept (selected)".
Even with the laws (which are written by people who don't understand the limitations of the technology), companies who don't care will find a way around them.
The laws quite clearly makes that illegal. Of course enforcing that is harder since the fine is soo tough that it will only be used on much more blatent disregards.
Re: (Score:3)
Most GDPR cookie notices are not compliant. They are supposed to ask for freely given consent so anything that even slightly encourages the user to accept is not allowed. Even just making the accept button larger or easier to see is not allowed, and the ones that make you do several clicks certainly aren't.
The problem as you say is enforcement. Maybe next time I'll see if I can be bothered to make a complaint.
Re: (Score:3)
This happens even more on touch screens and the smaller the touchscreen the worse. Browsing on a phone can result in such an annoying experience with banners/messages popping up towards the end of a slow loading page. Too often I've touch the wrong area because the page content shifted just as I touched the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I click accept just to get rid of the message, safe in the knowledge that my browser will erase all the cookies and other crap a few seconds after I close the page and that my IP address is a shared VPN.
Good. Now prosecute. (Score:2)
While this is fine and all, it's time for the EU to actually do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
*No the fact he needed some kind of tracking to know 9% doesn't count as it's essentially anonymous data so GDPR doesn't apply.
Re: GDPR? (Score:2)
East Germany had the acronym GDR in English and DDR (which I thought of as Deutsche Diktatorische Republik) in Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
It stands for General Data Protection Regulation
Wait a minute (Score:1)
So this guy tracked the people who didn't give consent to being tracked just to find out how many of them actually gave the consent to being tracked?
Re: (Score:2)
I can confim this (Score:5, Informative)
When one of my internationally-based website customers needed a GDPR-compliant consent box, I added anonymous logging to count all of the possible responses:
The number of "Yes" responses averages around 9% (e.g. 6% - 12%, depends on the month)
Re: I can confim this (Score:5, Interesting)
How many of those answering yes were bots?
The other 91% (Score:2)
Continue to be tracked illegally.