Somewhere between a third and half of your visitors decline tracking, and then they keep browsing, comparing, and buying. Your analytics shows none of it. So consent looks like a pure loss, the banner gets blamed, and someone proposes making the reject button harder to find.
HeySignal gives you the honest alternative: measure the gap itself, without touching anyone's identity.
When the gate blocks an event, we don't store who it was. An allowlist stripper at the edge discards IPs, user agents, cookies, and every identifier, keeps only coarse facts (an hour-rounded timestamp, a country code, a rounded order value, a referrer domain), and feeds them into aggregates protected two ways:
The methodology has a written privacy impact assessment behind it. Show it to your DPO before they ask.
DISCARDED IP · user agent · cookies · every identifier
KEPT hour-rounded timestamp · country code · rounded order value · referrer domain
No fallback pixels for opted-out users. No "anonymous mode" that quietly follows people who said no. No individual-level backfill. The people are gone from the data; only the aggregate shape remains, and the math guarantees it. That is the point, and it's why you can put these numbers in front of a regulator.
As far as we can tell, nobody else ships this. Monitoring dashboards that count consent signals exist. Revenue measurement of the denied side, under differential privacy, does not.
The pipeline is built for GDPR Recital 26 anonymity: identifiers never persist, aggregates carry statistical noise, and small segments are suppressed. A written privacy impact assessment documents the reasoning.
No, by design. Not in the dashboard, not in the API, not in our database.
Because that noise is the privacy guarantee. It is calibrated to leave segment-level truth intact while making individual presence mathematically deniable.
Fix the things that legitimately raise consent: banner clarity, trust signals, timing. Then track the lift honestly, in the same dashboard.
BRAND