What's your opinion of behavioral ad targeting? Love it or hate it, anonymous cookie-based targeting often works quite well without much consternation on the part of publishers, advertisers, or users.
But sometimes we come across interesting departures that shine a light on issues (or sometimes, non-issues) in the online advertising industry.
Earlier this year, my company started some media buying for an advertiser who helped men with hair loss. One of the sites they wanted to test out was Facebook. They created text ads, targeted to men 25 and older, with headlines like "Losing your hair?" and (very small per the Facebook spec) images of various men before and after their treatment. To our surprise these ads were initially rejected by Facebook. The reason, which I found out via knowing someone who works there, not through the official channels (this was not in violation of any of their publicly stated guidelines), was that these type of ads "imply that the user is losing his hair (which is considered a poor user experience)."
It appears that, since users upload lots of photos that could include themselves losing their hair, some users might believe that Facebook is somehow actually targeting them based on their lack of hair. Facebook was fine with ads for men's hair loss, but the question headline format was out: It drew attention and implied (to Facebook's mind -- perhaps since a few users at some point had complained) that the user was losing his hair. We might call this "assumed targeting." This combines cheap, untargeted or relatively untargeted media with an ad intended only for a select few viewers. For example, bank or credit-card email spam phishing where some percentage of people really do bank at Bank of America.
One problem is that we are really not sure the extent to which a broad range of people really care about targeting, whether real or assumed. Consumer survey results lend themselves to a variety of conclusions based on how questions are phrased. TrustE commissioned a study by TNS that makes fascinating reading, even when just dissecting something like this:
50.5 percent of respondents say they're uncomfortable with advertisers using their browsing history to serve relevant ads, even when that information cannot be tied to their names or any other personal information.
"Browsing history" -- does this mean a database that contains the entire history of the sites I visit (in which case that might concern me) or do you mean just the fact that I visited certain sites that all have their own somewhat limited visitation information about me that could be used for this purpose? As a former researcher myself, it is difficult in a survey to get across ideas to users that would be very relevant like persistence (i.e., How long is the information retained? Is it stored on their end or just on your computer?) and whether data can easily be cross-referenced to create a larger map of your behavior. And although they seem clear-cut, lines from the survey such as "my name or any other personal information" could mean different things to different people. What might someone consider personal information? Are messages I send to people on a social networking site personal information? What about music I like? And, so on. It's not simple.
It appears that I as a consumer am used to the idea that if I visit a site about hair loss, I will see ads related to hair loss, but seeing ads for hair loss on a completely unrelated site (perhaps as a result of the hair loss site having cookied me) may, to some people, seem potentially dicey. I personally am in favor of a layer that could be added to any advertising that uses visitation or registration data (including some offline ads) and allows users to get more information about how and why they are seeing a particular ad and perhaps set the record straight if that information is off. An example would be a "Why did I see this?" button. But implementing such a scheme would be very difficult, take a long time, and require adoption on many sides.
Still it is valuable to think laterally here: Boiling it down to opt-out versus opt-in oversimplifies the issues and could kill a very new and growing industry just starting to help the 71 percent of people who are currently annoyed by advertising not relevant to their wants and needs.
Marketers should take note though: Until we have better choice and preference solutions, perception will remain reality.
Well, I didn't say it is working how it should (I'm just saying that I would like to see ads of things I'm interested in than random things).
There are several types of ads, one that introduce you to a particular brand and/or products. Those are the ones you are talking about, but I'm more interested in ads that tell me when Canon has a lense sale, etc.
Those ads can't be the same everyday since the sales change.
Companies need to make money, and some of them operate solely on advertising revenue. I'd rather them make money by not annoying me every time I happen to log onto their site and find ads that have absolutely nothing to do with me. Facebook Ads are far from perfect. Despite all the information they gather on its users, they still cannot manage to "get it right". While I imagine improvements are on their way, it's important that people either vote for their ads as either good or bad (thumb up or thumb down options on the site) if they want to see any improvements in the advertising they are presented with.
No, the point is, it IS targeted enough, but why do I want to look at advertisments of things I am already familiar with and know about, which is almost always what is there. How is that of interest or use to me or using the advertisers' dollars properly?
Or how about getting the same ads over and over again, with nothing new added, which also seems to happen quite a bit. On one of my email acounts that has this "targeted" marketing, I have been seeing the same ads for months. A few ads I have been seeing for almost a year, continually. I don;t need to see it on a daily basis, much less everyday for a year. And it is the EXACT same ad, with the EXACT same info and the EXACT same web. The first time I saw it, I did look at it as it was one of the few targeted ads that was showing me something new. Now, it is just annoying.
For me, the point of advertising is introducing someone to something new or announce old product or service improvements. I'm not going to look at ads for products and services I'm aware of already, unless they are offering something very special or new. If you really want my attention, show me something new that I might not look at or even know about if it were not for the advertisment. I'm not saying the ad needs to be way out in left field somewhere, but at the risk of repeating myself over again, show me something I'm not already aware of. And if something is in my field, I am usually aware of it already.
Target marketing definitly has it's place in business. We all use it and need it. But if all you show people are things targeted exactly to their interest, then how do you generate new customers? How do you hit new markets who might never have thought about using your product because they are actually not part of the "targeted market? (And many, many products end up being good for other than what they were created and marketed for.)
I guess I like the outside of the box approach more.
You are less interested in 'targeted' advertisement? Then it is not targeted enough (or at all).
Regarding Facebook, the job is done. I have on my profile page all the info about me you would need. What are my interest, what music/movies do I like, where do I live, what's my profession, etc.
No need to see the cookies, history, etc.
I would like to see targeted ads instead of random things, but that's just me.
I find that I don't care for targeted advertising. Not only do I not like the tracking of my steps, but I have noticed that I actually look LESS at targeted ads than say randomly placed ads.
Targeted ads don't usually pique my interest. I'm more likely to look at an ad when about something I'm not familiar with, rather than something I am already familiar with.
Also, sometimes I might go to a website thinking it is about one thing, when it is actually about something else I didn't want or had no interest in. If ads are sent to me based on that particular search, they most likely will never be looked at by me.
Michael - I agree that saying something is "inherantly difficult" to explain, therefore we won't even try is just shameful and degrading to the few or many who actually may just understand it. Such shoulder shrugging should really be looked at by the company -
About privacy statements: yes, if it involves your privacy it should be contained in this document. Read it or not, accept it or decline it - that's your choice. But to exlude it? Honestly!
Well I think we're arguing a not totally dissimilar point - make it clear what's happening and how, in plain language, and do it in a way that is actually able to be accessed from the element that is using their data.
I would love to see ads have information in them about how the user was targeted, and then allow them to opt out of it, or selectively opt-out of those things. Right now for example bluekai.com sells a lot of data online, and partners with publishers to do so -- and you can selectively opt out of categories they've put you in. Visit http://tags.bluekai.com/registry to see what they have on you. You can also opt-out altogether from their system if you like. BUT what you don't see is the other side of the transaction, where ad networks are buying that data and using it to target ads to your past searches or sites you've visited.
It would be great for them to be able to have a corner of the ad have a question-mark that says ? why? and allows you to see how and why you saw this ad, maybe even give you a link to a site like Bluekai's where you can adjust your preferences, etc.
The reality is that publishers will not be able to give content away forever - as we are seeing, there need to be other ways to monetize things. A paywall is not going to work for everything, so some subtler ways of monetization which are already operating today will need to be tried, and with consumers being able to see and make their own judgements on a value-provided basis (gee, I keep seeing these irrelevant "targeted" ads, let me tell them more to make them work better, or let me opt out all together if I really don't feel they're useful) instead of on a "scary this stuff is all very opaque basis".
NebuAd/Phorm etc. are scary exactly BECAUSE they are opaque and it's an all-or nothing. There needs to be a balance between the 0/1 kind of opt-out and the line-item everything approach, and this the point I think smart minds should be thinking about.
"May also do consumers a disservice because it is inherently difficult to explain what precisely is being done with their data."
"Inherently difficult" is not the consumer's problem. I believe if you asked upper management at Phorm and NebuAd, they would agree thinking that way was their downfall.
A standard set of privacy practices is all well and good. Google has something like that in place, but with no oversight it's useless. Check out the Charlie Rose interview with Eric Schmidt. Charlie asked Schmidt how they protected everyone's personal data. Schmidt's reply was: "Trust us".
As for opt-out/opt-in being confusing, I have heard that before. It wouldn't be a problem if advertisers were honest about what they are doing. I can give you example after example of where advertisers and Web hosts have not informed the Internet consumer. For instance, the UC, Berkeley report mentions that of the top 100 Web sites using Flash cookies, only four mentioned it in their privacy statement.
@Michael: I think that Flash cookies do potentially muddy the waters if they are used in (as it appears in this case) a way that is incongruent with the privacy policy and/or NAI terms.
My point on the simple opt-in or opt-out is that a simple on or an off switch may also do consumers a disservice because it is inherently difficult to explain what precisely is being done with their data. One thing that could help would be to have a standardized set of privacy practices that are human readable (sounds a bit like P3P which we talked a lot about 8 years ago I recall - which was browser-readable privacy) and standardized and get wide adoption. Even opt-out standards vary and are confusing - you need to have cookies enabled to opt-out, so if you delete your cookies as some people who would tend to optout today would do it may not work, and there are different levels of cookie persistence on opt-outs etc.
I think that the debate should bring other ideas in about how to be more consumer transparent about what data is used, how and where, instead of trying to say it's a yes or no proposition. Sunlight.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
When we chose to develop a new logo for our company, we decided to use the Website 99designs.com to have multiple designers compete with ideas for our logo.
As we well know, the online echo chamber and its increasingly viral and social components can magnify the propagation speed and distribution of stories and rumors, whether true or false.
Compared to other types of media, the Internet still appears to lag behind in the United States in terms of amount of revenue generated per user hour. I looked i nto the question and what I found surprised me a little bit.
From Possible to Proven: Driving Business Value through Smarter Analytics IBM's Smarter Analytics approach enables organizations to align their processes around valuable information, both inside and outside of their networks, and to use that information to anticipate, predict, and shape business outcomes. Let's take a closer look at how organizations can start anywhere, based on their business needs, and become transformed outperformers by applying Smarter Analytics. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Facebook has more than 5 million deceased members and policies for how to handle their accounts. But, one problem: After people pass away, it's too late for them to decide whether they want their social media accounts preserved, "memorialized," or deleted.
The US government is funding controversial projects to collect daily Internet activity, including Web searches, Twitter messages, Facebook and blog posts, and the digital location trails generated by billions of cellphones. Its goal is to map these interactions to predict social behavior, such as protests.
The US boasts a commitment to "Internet freedom," but in practice that commitment falls short. What Internet freedom really means is freedom of the mind.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Huawei has become a key supplier of networking equipment to telcos. The company is now gunning for enterprises and may represent the most significant threat to Cisco since its inception. Huawei has set a goal of $15 billion in enterprise equipment sales by 2015.
Self-driving cars are being tested in Nevada, but can this technology work optimally without Internet integration, and can we offer integration without improving security considerably? In fact, all M2M is a potential risk until security is tightened.
Email This
