Initially, we had static sites with static advertising.
But to manage the quantity of ads and their changing nature, we had to implement dynamic adservering tools.  This brought us flexibity and control.
Now, we have exerted similar mechanisms to control content.

Here's a brief history of advertising:

	* static managed, statically served, statically targeted, static ads
( gifs )

	* dynamically managed, statically served, statically targeted static ads
( realmedia adserver )

	* dynamically managed, dynamically served, statically targeted static ads
( realmedia OAS )

	* dynamically managed, dynamically served, dynamically targeted static ads
( net gravity, double click )

	* dynamically managed, dynamically served, dynamically targeted dynamic ads
( net gravity + shosckele? )

I would suspect content will follow the same progression, and to great effect, but there are some questions that arise from the spread of dynamicism.

How will users react to a fully dynamic personalized site?

	* Filters may make the site seem sparse.  Possibly, the answer is to use PZN to prioritize content, not filter it.

	* users may feel that their privacy is being infringed upon.  Perhaps the dynamic aspect should focus on functionality not tied to a single identity.


How will advertisers react to a fully dynamic personalized site?

	* Overly targeted ads may not reach many people.  The nature of the individual needs to be taken into consideration - is it more important to get the message out to a broad audience, or are click-thru rates the most important?



How will editors/webmasters react to a fully dynamic personalized site?