Studies show that non-tracking ads pull in 96% as much revenue per impression as tracker-based ads.
Is the 4% boost really worth chasing away users, adding cookie popups, etc? Also, it's possible for users to unblock non-tracking ad networks. If 4% of your audience does that, then you end up making more from them.
Finally, with ads that target content, any extra revenue due to premium audiences goes to the content publisher. For ads that target end users, the premium goes to the ad network.
If you're placing user-targeted ads on anything but bottom-tier content, then you are squandering your monopoly access to your readership. That's why this ad network specializes in just developer sites -- some advertisers will pay a premium to reach developers. Others will pay a premium simply to avoid being displayed next to toenail fungus and celebrity wardrobe failures.
Because in my first hand experience in ad tech and running an ad-monitized site, the net effect is that CPMs on Safari and Firefox (no 3rd party cookies) are about 60-80% lower than that of Chrome and Edge.
Is the 4% boost really worth chasing away users, adding cookie popups, etc? Also, it's possible for users to unblock non-tracking ad networks. If 4% of your audience does that, then you end up making more from them.
Finally, with ads that target content, any extra revenue due to premium audiences goes to the content publisher. For ads that target end users, the premium goes to the ad network.
If you're placing user-targeted ads on anything but bottom-tier content, then you are squandering your monopoly access to your readership. That's why this ad network specializes in just developer sites -- some advertisers will pay a premium to reach developers. Others will pay a premium simply to avoid being displayed next to toenail fungus and celebrity wardrobe failures.