Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy The Internet The Media Your Rights Online

Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads 404

Posted by timothy
from the might-prefer-them-to-endless-tampon-ads-though dept.
itwbennett writes "A survey by the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California Berkeley School of Law and the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania finds that US residents do not want to receive Web advertising tailored to their interests. 66% of those surveyed said they don't want tailored, or targeted, online ads and when asked if online ad vendors should deliver targeted ads by tracking customers' behavior across multiple Web sites, 86% of the 1,000 respondents said no. 35% of respondents said executives of companies that use personal information illegally should face jail time, and 18% said those companies should be put out of business. 'While privacy advocates have lambasted behavioral targeting for tracking and labeling people in ways they do not know or understand, marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible,' the study said. 'In high percentages, [US residents] stand on the side of privacy advocates.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads

Comments Filter:
  • And.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakin020 (980931) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:02PM (#29609383)

    Do you think the Marketers give a rats ass?

  • Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HogGeek (456673) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:03PM (#29609395)

    Wy do people think things like TiVO, Hulu,... are so successful?

    I believe the general public is tired of be bombarded to "BUY MORE!"

  • by kipin (981566) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:05PM (#29609407) Homepage
    To make people aware of what they don't necessarily know about or necessarily need/want. Doesn't targeted marketing miss out on this aspect of advertising?
  • by thisnamestoolong (1584383) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:06PM (#29609425)

    marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible,'

    Did I just read that right? Americans want advertisement? Yeah, I want advertisements, just like I want another hole in my dick. What sort of a psychotic, delusional dream world must whoever this quote was mined from live in?

  • The Questions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:09PM (#29609477)
    I would love to see the wording of the questions because, honestly, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to see ads (assuming you have to see _an_ ad) that is targeted at their interests rather than just any random ad. Now, I understand people wanting their privacy respected and that's why I want to see the questions because, given how lopsided the responses seemed to be, I suspect the questions were phrased in a way that made them more about privacy and less about targeted advertising.

    Yes, I realize there is a connection between the two but that's not the point - the poll appears to have been about targeted advertising and not about privacy and, as I said, I can't imagine people not wanting to see ads that are focused on their interests.
  • by keatonj (940527) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:10PM (#29609487)
    Two problems.. The population seems to think the automated systems care more about their privacy .. they just want to sell you stuff, not sell the history off to some PI that your ex hired .. And it's a loaded question. Article headlines saying Americans don't want targeted ads, but really it's Americans hate getting spied on. Had you have simply asked the question at hand "would you like advertising that is more likely to be involved or associated with your interests or your current activities." Arguably they could say your not allowed to show ads about football, when your watching the football game. Cause after all that's targeting your advertisement ..
  • Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by negRo_slim (636783) <mils_oRgen@hotmail.com> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:11PM (#29609509)

    Do you think the Marketers give a rats ass?

    Nope, and neither will consumers if advertisers can get something like this going under the radar. They'll just get used to it, like so many other things.

  • Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:11PM (#29609513) Journal

    And if customers are going to get some ads, targeted are a way better - atleast its some interest to them then. Just aslong as the advertisement platforms dont break privacy too much. On that note, i'm not worried about Google's AdSense, but rather about their Analytics code being all over the web (which is *designed* to gather all the possible info about users)

  • They're Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by plaxion (98397) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:14PM (#29609551)

    What most of us want is NO ADS. They're annoying, distracting and whole purpose for being is to manipulate people.

    If we are in the market for said product we'd go shopping. There has yet to be a commercial that has moved me with their... oooh, shiny...

    CAPTCHA: cringe

  • Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrMr (219533) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:18PM (#29609625)
    targeted are a way better - atleast its some interest to them
    That's a common mistake, the problem is the targetting always seems to work like this:
    Hey you bought a PC yesterday; so you're in the PC buying demographic; so we'll serve you a dozen ads for the last thing you will need for the next couple of years...
  • Well duh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:19PM (#29609631) Homepage Journal
    Of course Americans don't want targeted advertising. They know it will just result in more advertisements for porn, penis pills, and 'personals' sites (quotes because we all know they are just the www version of 1-900 numbers).
  • by Tekfactory (937086) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:20PM (#29609647) Homepage

    If I must have ads, I would rather have targeted ads for something I might actually want or use, than things I do not want or use.

    Lessons we could learn, at Amazon or Netflix if I say I am not interested in Season 1 or CSI: Anywhere, DON'T offer me season 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is a Circle of Hell reserved for recommendation systems that offer me the same product over and over in different colors.

    If I bought a new Lens Kit for my Canon DSLR, then you offer me a Canon DSLR and I say "I already got one" don't offer me a Nikon DSLR.

    Somehow they need to find a way to tag their products as Series, and also Durable Goods vs Accessories or Refil kits, not just as a bunch of tangentally related SKU#s that this customer or that customer bought.

    Maybe as with Tivo we need Ad filtering devices that can Blacklist Ads we don't like, for products we don't need. This is really the only way to keep your "preferences" data at home and not have it abused.

  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nedlohs (1335013) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:24PM (#29609703)

    Americans don't want their web usage tracked.

    They likely do want targeted advertisements. But the dislike of tracking wins out. Of course 90% of them signed up for a supermarket discount card and pay for everything with a credit card so they don't really care, they just think they do.

    I'd rather see an ad for a video game than for tampons. Of course I'd prefer not to see an ad at all, but that's irrelevant.

    I'd also prefer that any random web advertising company can't see all the things I've purchased and web sites I've visited.
     

  • People Lie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:29PM (#29609751)
    Ask someone "would you like me to constantly monitor your life and give you adds based on what we learn about you?" and you'll get "no" every time. If you ask "would you prefer that adds be relevant to your life?" and you'll get "yes" much more often.

    Add that to the fact that people will say "I hate that idea" but then if you were to have them browse with targeted adds and without (and distract them by telling them it's a study about a new web browser, but just use IE with a skin or something) and ask them after which one they thought handled adds better, they'd pick targeted adds without knowing why. A survey is not scientific, and a good pollster can make a poll say what they want it to say, and in this day and age, often they are trying to show a result rather than learn something.
  • Re:Um, Duh! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:35PM (#29609817)

    I believe the general public is tired of be bombarded to "BUY MORE!"

    As I see it, the problem isn't seeing ads; it's when I see them that determines my level of irritation. For instance, while I'm reading the news or streaming a show, the ads are a total pain in the rear and irritate me plenty (especially when I'm at work and some "bra sale" ads decide to pop over whatever site I happen to be reading at the moment). Conversely, when I'm at home browsing amazon for movies, I actually *like* being able to see comparable products, and have quick access to comparisons between them. Arguably, the "those who bought this also liked..." thing amazon does is a form of advertising competing products, and I've often been glad for it.
     
    So, when I'm out shopping I take little issue against relavent targetted ads. When I'm doing anything else, keep them away please.
     
    captcha: bagels

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:37PM (#29609843) Homepage Journal

    What sort of a psychotic, delusional dream world must whoever this quote was mined from live in?

    The same dreamworld all the sociopathic CEOs and marketers live in. The world where they think it's OK to use up 1/3 of my TV screen with an ad while I'm actually watching a show; the world that has almost nothing but "paid programming" on Sunday morning TV, the same world where they think annoying me will get me to buy their crappy product, the same world where it's OK to annoy you with blinking, moving ads when you're on the internet trying to read.

    The same world where the people responsible for ruining the economy are rewarded with bailouts; the same world where a CEO who ran his business to the ground is rewarded with a golden parachute and an even better paying job at the next company he'll ruin.

    The same world where the former head of NASDAQ is arrested for a sixty billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

    The world that is run by sociopaths who don't give a damn about anything but themselves and their money.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ElSupreme (1217088) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:39PM (#29609883)
    Pretty much. Consumers do not want 'targeted ads'; consumers are more likely to buy productst in targeted ads. The targeted is for the advertizer not the consumer.
  • by TrumpetPower! (190615) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:43PM (#29609931) Homepage

    thisnamestoolong wrote:

    marketers have defended the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: advertisements and other forms of content that are as relevant to their lives as possible,'

    Did I just read that right? Americans want advertisement? Yeah, I want advertisements, just like I want another hole in my dick. What sort of a psychotic, delusional dream world must whoever this quote was mined from live in?

    It was written by a marketer who was in the act of marketing the profession of marketing. Need I write more?

    Cheers,

    b&

  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1729 (581437) <slashdot1729@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:44PM (#29609941)

    No sane person wants any kind of ad, targeted or not.

    I find the targeted ads on Google searches to be useful. When I'm searching for information on Product X and there's a sponsored link along the lines of "Buy Product X here for $...", I'll often click that link if the stated price is reasonable. Well-targeted non-intrusive ads can be quite helpful for comparison shopping.

  • Re:Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loteck (533317) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:51PM (#29610023) Homepage

    I'm going to comment instead of mod, since this topic is so dear to my heart. Let me wholeheartedly agree and go one step further than bashing targeted ads.

    I'm against ads, period. Advertising has gone beyond informing me of a product to the point where advertisements, especially in TV and Radio, are manufactured specifically for the purpose of manipulating me into desiring the product being advertised. It is no longer, "Hey, buy this product if you're in the market". It is now, "Hey, watch as we manipulate you with images and sounds that play on your politics or emotions so that we can manufacture a desire for you to buy our product that you do not need."

    Not only is this manipulation occurring, but many times it is occurring so blatantly and unabashedly that I become offended that the ad is being shown. Think: Chevy's ads juxtaposing classic Americana and John Mellencamp to sell their trucks (link [youtube.com]). That I, as a watcher/listener of that show/channel/medium, am considered to be so stupid that I will bite on their emotional/subliminal advertising garbage, is so enraging to me that I will completely disassociate myself from the show/channel/medium in order to get away from advertising.

    So I have abandoned commercial radio and television, and, frankly, I don't miss it. Advertising has gone from annoyance to something that I consider to be unethical and a serious contributor to our problems as a consumer society.

  • Re:Yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Abcd1234 (188840) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:55PM (#29610057) Homepage

    But more importantly, I don't think I, or the majority of people, like knowing that a company is rifling through my 'personal stuff' to find out what I like and dislike.

    You may not like *knowing* it, but *they're already doing it*. How do you think those direct mailers figure out where to send their advertisements? Well, for starters, they go to a company like Experian, which knows an unbelievable amount about you thanks to things like credit card purchases, club cards, and so forth (including fun stuff like whether or not the lease on your car is about to expire). They then tell Experian "Hey, dudes, I want to target single males 18-25 who make between 50k and 75k who live in or around Washington DC", and they get back a list of addresses.

    In short: you're already being tracked. You been tracked for *decades*. The only difference is, people are actually paying a bit of attention. Unfortunately, they're missing the forest for the trees.

  • Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by religious freak (1005821) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:55PM (#29610061)
    I'd go further and say consumers actually DO want this (i.e. the benefits it provides) - but just won't admit it.
  • by value_added (719364) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @03:59PM (#29610105)

    Americans want advertisement? What sort of a psychotic, delusional dream world must whoever this quote was mined from live in?

    The same world where the majority of the population identifies themselves as "consumers"?

  • Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Korin43 (881732) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:11PM (#29610247) Homepage
    I'd like it if advertisers would allow us to give them information that they can work with. I mean.. I told Hulu that I'm a 20-something guy. You'd think they'd realize I'm not worried about my "inadequate lashes" or wrinkles..
  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gnick (1211984) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:20PM (#29610367) Homepage

    That's not necessarily how it works - At least not if the folks serving ads are worth their salt.

    "Hey, you bought a motherboard yesterday - Do you need a graphics card?"
    "Hey, you bought a DVD player yesterday - Would you like a Netflix subscription?"
    "Hey, you bought a tent yesterday - Would you like a lantern?"

    It's slightly more complicated than "Sell PCs to the guy who buys PCs," but it's not rocket surgery.

  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bit01 (644603) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:23PM (#29610415)

    I'd go further and say consumers actually DO want this (i.e. the benefits it provides) - but just won't admit it.

    "Targeting" means that 2 ads in 10,000 is "useful" instead of 1 ad in 10,000. "Targeting" is a scam, just one way marketers try to rationalize their pathetic, parasitic existence.

    ---

    Marketing = information pollution.

  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aywwts4 (610966) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:27PM (#29610451)

    Indeed, everyone including the original article has a strong bias against targetd adds, but lets ask the question in a different way. They asked would you like this concept, the proper method would have been to do a blind trial, show untargeted ads to one group, show targeted ads to another, and quiz them on their annoyance rating, all ads are annoyances, its the tradeoff for free content, some much much more annoying than others. Something tells me the results would be the opposite of this studies findings.

    Dear Slashdot, are you annoyed at the constant advertising for Trucks and SUVs that make claims about fuel efficiency that hurts your brain? Being pitched the newest speed/caffeine cocktail not yet banned by the FDA marketed as a diet miracle? Bling it, Bling Anything!, BILLY MAYES HERE with Oxycut, you snort it and forget it. Tampons are great, I can go biking in a summer breeze! Coming up next on The Saddest Loser, Watch 10 contestants eat human feces for fifty thousand dollars. Step into fashion at the arbor day week long sale the Savings* are incredible. (*)people who can factor compound percentage discounts need not apply.

    Don't you wish instead of seeing 6 commercials this break you could see two, you just have to tell NBC you are a well paid male college educated nerd who makes IT purchasing decisions, enjoys SciFi and Video gaming on PC, Wii and Xbox?

    Then you get advertised by Intel, Sun, HP, IBM, Battlestar Galactica on Bluray, Nvidia, New games, etc, etc. If a new blade server comes out, it might be good to let me know. They don't need to advertise the newest smartphone with pop music and Whoopee Goldberg going 'Wow, you can the internet on this!' But instead talk about processing power and ram and what the latest firmware can do and how fast it's GPS can get a positional lock, and that it allows tethering etc.

    I spend a Lot of money on gadgets and electronics, the fact that I need to go out looking for new gadgets instead of having them fall into my lap strikes me as odd, people who buy trucks are always informed about the most recent ford truck, but tons of cool devices fall under my radar all the time.

    Nerds spend a ton of cash, just on completely different things, we are just smaller than the majority and therefore not economical to advertise in unfocused mainstream media. We aren't the only group like this, but its not hard to see the benefit, I would love it if I could watch TV without my brain hurting realizing that someone out there is persuaded by these advertisements.

    Hell have a button that says you are a CEO or high ranking member of a fortune 500, if advertisements on golf and stock shows are any indication there are a ton of advertisers who want to hit people who own giant corporations, so they advertise heavily on shows where they might make up .1% of the viewers in hopes they move their company to Oregon

  • Re:And.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:36PM (#29610551)

    Way to mistake marketing as advertising there genius. Advertising is a subset of marketing. Opinionated != Informed.

  • Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Requiem18th (742389) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @04:53PM (#29610767)

    BULLSHIT for 2 reasons

    Firstly, targeted ads won't make people more happy because they hate ads, period. The fact the ads are irrelevant just gives them more ammunition to complain about them but they'd still zap them if the can even if they are targeted.

    Secondly, ads are bad for consumers, (revenue not withstanding). I know this will be hard to get into some mind sets.

    Unlike genuine recommendations, or impartial review sites and product guides, ads are meant to either

    a) Make you buy a product you do not need or down right should not buy
    or...
    b) Make you choose a brand of a product you do need under false assumptions or wrong reasons.

    That sometimes you actually need to buy the product and that at least one brand is actually the best for you does not make them more honest, they are biased and should not be advising you which things to buy.

    Targeted ads are actually worse because they are more likely to trap you. This is specially obvious in the case where only the ad content is personally targeted not the product itself, example. Selling Pepsi to white adults using pop and using hip-hop for black kids (or kids in general). Since the targeted ad advertises the same product it's obvious that the only difference is the effectiveness to make you buy a drink you don't need.

    Do I see no room for ads in the world?

    Not at all, they are an excellent revenue source. As a consumer I want advertises to pay for ads, but as a consumer and a citizen I can only advise you to ignore them the best you can because they are never good for you.

    Since the content of ads is best ignored whether they are targeted or not is irrelevant, the fact that you are being tracked, however, is not. Therefore targeted ads are a net loss for you and for the whole of society.

    A case could be made that targeted ads are more valuable and thus advertisers will pay more for them, but this is mostly false, advertisers are not so much paying more for targeted ads as they are paying less for non targeted ones, if no ads are targeted the price of non targeted ads will rise.

    One could further argue that since targeted ads are more likely to trap consumers, advertisers are more likely to profit and thus keep paying for ads but this is false too, the price of an ad is mostly driven by competition among product producers, as long as producers have to compete they'll buy ads.

    I don't have hopes to convincing you, you probably are a glass house advocate.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:00PM (#29610877)
    While what you say is true, you seem to imply that the advertiser and customer interests are mutually exclusive. If a company offers me a product that I want, then I am happy to give them money and they are happy to take it from me. Everyone wins. I think most people would agree that they prefer to see ads for things they want to buy, and would prefer not to see ads for stuff they don't want to buy. The problem comes when your privacy is invaded to target ads. Or, more specifically, when the information used to target the ads is used in a way the customer does not approve of or is sold to the highest bidder.
  • Re:They're Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PitaBred (632671) <[gro.sndnyd.derbatip] [ta] [todhsals]> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:03PM (#29610909) Homepage
    And how exactly would you know that someone developed HD televisions without advertising? Or that the local store has them for sale for $X, which is right in your budget? Advertising isn't necessarily just to convince you to get something... it can be just to inform. If I'm in the market for something, I pay more attention to ads for that thing. I even seek them out. How is that a bad thing? They inform me about options, and help me get the best deal for my money, as well as telling me that brand X has all these features that are awesome, but I wasn't aware of and was about to settle for brand Y of the same thing. A capitalist economy can only function properly when all parties are fully informed going into any value exchange. That will never happen completely, but advertising helps.
  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:05PM (#29610943)
    Facebook is not a good example of what targeted ads should be. Google targets ads (though I do have problems with some of their ads, but in general they are OK. Hopefully in about 5 years or so they will get good enough that I will actually click on them when I see them). Facebook targets spam.
  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by More_Cowbell (957742) * on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:25PM (#29611205) Journal
    Gaa... was trying to hit preview...

    I don't click them either, but mostly for other reasons.
    1. Those ads cost the company money every time they are clicked, eventually raising prices for us the consumers, and
    2. Clicking on them reinforces to the advertiser that the ads work, thereby creating more ads.
  • Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:28PM (#29611249) Journal

    That's true. Personally, if I must have ads, I'd rather they be targeted. The problem is that I'm not sure I want to give up enough of my privacy in order to receive ads that are appropriately targeted.

    So there's the problem. I'd rather see ads for the next neat videogame than ads for Pampers. But, no, I'm not sure I want to advertisers that I'm childless in order to make certain that I don't see ads for Pampers.

  • by tommy (12973) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:35PM (#29611319) Homepage
    The article isn't so much about targeted advertising as it is how the user's data is obtained. What the article actually says is we don't want to be tracked across multiple sites. It doesn't mention targeted advertising using data acquired on a single site.
  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by martas (1439879) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:50PM (#29611497)
    true. personally, i'd gladly welcome targeted advertising under the following conditions:

    1) complete transparency of the way personal data is used that is subjected to scrutiny to make sure advertisers are adhering to their privacy policies (and, of course, some limits on what those policies can allow them to do)
    2) targeted advertisements that actually do a good job, for god's sake! i'll tell them anything they want - age, sex, occupation, movies i've seen over past 2 months, even the number of times i've ever shaved my private parts, if that's what it takes. but i want ads which really are interesting to me, 'cause IMO even gmail's ads usually suck badly at this. (in fact, i'd give anything just so i never have to sit through an overly-detailed ad about prostate cancer or tampons or menopause).
  • by logicnazi (169418) <logicnazi@NosPam.gmail.com> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @05:55PM (#29611547) Homepage

    Of course most people say they don't want targeted ads. I mean it's like asking "Would you like your taxes to be raised." Of course people say no because other things being equal people would prefer zero taxes and almost no ads. Of course if you asked whether you would prefer the government increase the gas tax or income tax, or whether a tax hike would be a worthwhile price to pay for universal health care you would get very different answers.

    In this sense ads are quite similar to taxes. We would prefer to get our government services for free and our media without any ads but since that's not possible question that matters is what tradeoffs you would like to make. I suspect if you asked people whether they would prefer to get tageted advertisements, a substantially larger number of untargeted ads or no longer get free webmail and the like I think you'll find many people take the first option.

    Also it's well documented that people seem to only really care about privacy/psuedo-anonymity/targeting when someone asks these kind of ominously phrased questions. I mean all the 'experts' go around saying vague ominous sounding things about losing privacy/etc so you ask people a question about privacy/etc.. and they think, "Hmm, I don't really understand what all the fuss is but it sounds kinda ominous and scary...you know I probably should be more responsible and worry about these issues." So your never finding out how much people actually mind losing their privacy and the like, they may not even notice. All you're really measuring is how much vague scary statements make people think they should worry about something.

    Ohh, and the fact that so many experts seem to take these concerns seriously is no more useful. If you dismiss a danger like that rather than looking thoughtful and concerned you appear less serious. I mean it's the same reason doctors and other medical experts in the mainstream media never get up and say, "Pshhaw, marijuanna use by teens isn't anything to worry about," despite having uncontrovertable data that it is way less risky that many other accepted activities. Once society views something as posing a risk and takes it to be a serious matter then any role models who refuse to treat it as a matter of serious concern are considered irresponsible and blamed for any harm that might have been avoided by being overly cautious.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Brass Cannon (882254) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @06:47PM (#29612009)
    Ha. Put your tinfoil hat on and read Scroogled http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-09-17-n72.html [blogoscoped.com]. This pretty much sums up what we 86% are worried about I think.
  • by MpVpRb (1423381) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @06:48PM (#29612013)

    Advertisers wouldn't pay for ads if they didn't work, at least not for long.

    They "work" in a crude, approximate, inefficient way. Kinda like spam.

  • Re:Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zuperduperman (1206922) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @07:14PM (#29612249)

    > since advertising works I must be in the minority

    Or more likely, it does work on you, and you just don't realize. Marketers are a bit more canny than people realize. They know that 95% of their ads generate sceptisim or worse in most critical thinking people. But they also know that underneath the conscious brain your lower instincts are slowly being reprogrammed even against your will. Even if you consciously hate a brand, they may be happy if you just recognize the name. They know that however much you hate it, if confronted with the brand you know and one you never heard of before you will choose the one you know. You can't 'opt out' of this. It's happening just by being exposed to ads and there is *nothing* you can do about it except avoid the ads.

  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by apoc.famine (621563) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (enimaf.copa)> on Thursday October 01, 2009 @07:37PM (#29612435) Homepage Journal

    It's a slippery slope, but I do wonder why advertisers don't at least put a "I won't buy this ever" button on ads. If you click it, you don't see an ad for that for a year or so. They then show you something else. It's not like there's a tiny pool of things to advertise to you.
     
    It's not truly targeted, but it would help cut down on missing your target audience completely. Of course it would be abused, but you might actually be able to collect some really useful data that way.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Valdrax (32670) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @08:00PM (#29612585)

    If a company offers me a product that I want, then I am happy to give them money and they are happy to take it from me.

    Personally, if a company offers me a product that I need, then I am happy to give them money for it. If it's merely a product that I want, and if that want is primarily born from the influence of their advertising on me and my peers, then I'm better off without it.

    Better not to face temptation than to have to overcome it.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BikeHelmet (1437881) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @08:34PM (#29612789) Journal

    I find the targeted ads on Google searches to be useful. When I'm searching for information on Product X and there's a sponsored link along the lines of "Buy Product X here for $...", I'll often click that link if the stated price is reasonable. Well-targeted non-intrusive ads can be quite helpful for comparison shopping.

    Not quite the same thing. That's targeted at the subject (what you're searching for) rather than you.

    To quote the article:

    Asked if online ad vendors should deliver targeted ads by tracking customers' behavior across multiple Web sites, 86 percent of the 1,000 respondents said no.

    So rather than displaying advertisements related to what you're searching, it'll display advertisements for things related to past purchases or stuff you might be interested in. I despise that kind of advertising and tracking. If I'm interested in something, I'll decide when and where I want to buy it - and it's Google's job to provide me with links and suggestions when I finally search it out.

    There's also potential for it going wrong. If it tracks only one online purchase that I make - for tampons - then it might keep displaying tampon ads to me. That's despite me being a guy. (And yes, I did purchase tampons once. I am the most computer savvy person in this household, after all.)

    Anyone remember that slashdot article about camera facial recognition for targeted marketing? You're female, with a short person next to you, so tampons and kiddie toys must be for you! Doesn't matter that you're a war vet, or just incredibly short. And actually, the guy next to you is a guy, but he has to wear shiny-clear lipstick stuff because of an illness that dries out and cracks his lips, and then he gets sores all over them - but I'm sure he'll want some tampons.

    Don't target ads at me, or whatever it thinks makes me "me". Just give me something related to what I'm searching, and that's it.

  • Re:Um, Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ceoyoyo (59147) on Thursday October 01, 2009 @10:45PM (#29613461)

    It's a great theory, but I'd like to see the controlled studies on it.

    I can't think of a person I know who dislikes a brand who would choose it versus the unknown. I can think of many people who I've witnessed do the opposite though.

  • Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dcollins (135727) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:50AM (#29613971) Homepage

    I'll say this: Slashdot is the only place that I ever see anyone praising/welcoming targeted ads, and I'm always mystified by it. For example, when I informed my college computer class just today that Google scans their searches, gmail, etc., for content to serve them targeted ads, the response was uniformly outright horror. Most people both (1) loathe ads, and (2) loathe the idea of companies tracking their behavior, so why anyone would expect them to like both at the same time is beyond me.

  • Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cerberusss (660701) on Friday October 02, 2009 @05:47AM (#29614935) Homepage Journal

    When I informed my college computer class just today that Google scans their searches, gmail, etc., for content to serve them targeted ads, the response was uniformly outright horror.

    Well, half of these people [adwork.com] don't even know the difference between paid apps and normal search engine results. So while they display their utmost horror to you, they also do not care to inform themselves about it.

  • Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday October 02, 2009 @07:48AM (#29615279) Journal

    Exactly. People want 'pull' adverts, they don't want 'push' adverts. If I express an interest in a product or service, then I want as many companies as possible to compete for my business. If I don't have an interest in a product or service then I don't want companies trying to artificially generate this interest. I no longer own a TV because I got fed up with watching irrelevant ads[1]. I now rent DVDs and stream video from the iPlayer. My time is more valuable to me than it is to an advertiser. Given the low probability of generating a sale from any given advert, this has to be the case. I'd much rather pay with money than pay with my time for things like TV shows and films, because I get better value.

    [1] Really. I am never going to be the target market for feminine hygiene products. If I am ever in a situation where I need to buy them, I will expect to have been told exactly which brand to buy. I also don't care about car insurance (I don't have a car), how to get out of debt (I'm not in debt, largely because I'm not stupid enough to buy the kind of financial products these people are offering), and so on.

  • Re:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday October 02, 2009 @07:58AM (#29615309) Journal
    There's a difference between the effect and the mechanism. I like the idea of targeted ads, but not how they are currently generated. I would like to be able to broadcast some public information saying 'I am currently in the market for a product in category X' and have companies that produce products in this category solicit my business. I do not want companies collecting information about me and using this to spam me with potentially relevant things.

You are an insult to my intelligence! I demand that you log off immediately.

Working...