Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads 404
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.'"
And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think the Marketers give a rats ass?
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Funny)
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..
You didn't mention that you where a member of slashdot did you???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You get that a lot, too? I honestly don't see why that's so hard for Hulu OR the leash company to understand.
This is why I think the surveys are wrong: while people don't like ads in general, they dislike ads that are unrelated to them more. Sure, targeted ads take a bit of information, but nothing I'd consider personal (age, sex, basic interests like games, clothes, movies, cooking, etc.). I'll ignore most ads, but it's far less of a nuisance if they at least feature explosions more often.
Last week I was
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
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:And.... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd go further and say consumers actually DO want this (i.e. the benefits it provides) - but just won't admit it.
AKA the rapist defense. She said no, but we both knew she really wanted it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:ads and do it yourselfers (Score:4, Insightful)
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:And.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:And.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
atleast its some interest to them then.
If it were perfectly targeted. yes. The trouble is, a system that can figure out what the viewer wants would figure out that what the viewer wants is to continue doing whatever they were doing, which, in many cases, was not watching ads or shopping.
Of course, that means that the only place it actually makes sense (for most companies) to place advertisements are price comparison, consumer info and shopping sites, which in turn creates somewhat of a problem for newspaper
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:And.... (Score:5, Funny)
RAT'S ASSES 50% OFF
Hemorriod cream for rodents www.ratsass.com
Does your rat have irratable bowel syndrome? Take this test today!
RATS AND DONKEYS on sale now!
Rattan chairs at WHOLESALE PRICES!
Litter boxes for all kinds of animals
Sassy Rats, get yours today!
Re: (Score:2)
*golf clap* Well done, sir. Well done.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads or not, requirement for me to spend my cash is easy. As long as the product is good and cheap. That's why i use services such as slickdeals or woot. Yes, given the incentive, we actually go out of our way and find ads. What these people don't understand is the fact human beings are hunter/gatherer since the ancient times. We look for what we want, and when we get it better and cheaper, it gives us a sense of accomplishment. On the other hand, if it is simply dished in front of us, we'll just brush it of
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they don't care. While consumers give the obvious answer that they don't like things more targeted, the unfortunate truth is that these ads are more effective. Just ask anybody who runs contextual ads. If it performs better than people will continue to use it, period.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I don't click on any of the ads on Google searches. Call me jaded, but I don't feel like being redirected to a site which redirects me to a site which redirects me to a site which is a spam site of some sort. I don't trust the ad links, and I don't click any of them. I don't even click the sponsored link. Ever. I've just become too jaded to any kind of commercialism online to ever bother rewarding a company(which I might very well be searching for to begin with to purchase from) to buying ad space. This goes for YouTube ads(the embedded ads that I immediately X out of. And no, I really don't believe that anyone on YouTube should be paid for making videos and posting them online.
To summarize: If I come across an ad/sponsored link in my online travels, I refuse to click on it. Not because I necessarily hate the company, but because I neither trust the ads I come across(spamming/phishing possibilities) nor do I wish to reward a company for intruding into my private life. Of course, I hate 90% of ads, period(Internet, TV, newspaper, magazine, billboard). However, Super Bowl ads do occasionally make me laugh.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Exactly (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen. The summary says Americans don't want targeted ads--which is quite a different statement from the much clearer statement further down that we don't want targeted ads created from following our behavior across the internet.
I *do* want targeted ads. When I sign up for a store's loyalty program (like I did last week), I *don't* want five ad emails from the company in the next seven days pushing me clothes that have no relation to my purchasing habits (which is exactly what happened). It should be no surprise that I'm a fan of "permission marketing" as espoused by Seth Godin. If Netflix can do such a remarkable job of guessing my preferences with a handful of data points, these stores should too. And don't bother me otherwise.
The part of the survey scenario that's creepy is the single entity tracking my viewing habits across multiple sites.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
No sane person wants any kind of ad
There are some exceptions.
I own and operate a movie theatre, and I print and mail out several thousand flyers each month listing the movies that will be playing for that month.
I hear complaints from customers every month if they don't receive the monthly flyer in the mail for whatever reason.
I also have a mailing list of people who I send the flyer to that live outside of the "general distribution" area. I don't even advertise that "service" in any way; people ask me if I can mail them the flyer, so I do.
So again, there are always exceptions; it depends on the type of advertising and what's being advertised. If you're genuinely interested in my flyer, then it becomes useful information ("What should we do tonight?") and not just another ad.
On the other hand, I'm a big believer in Privoxy, Noscript and cookie management on my computers.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wy do people think things like TiVO, Hulu,... are so successful?
I believe the general public is tired of be bombarded to "BUY MORE!"
Re:Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
This is not at all new. Go listen to the radio ads of the 1930s and 1940s, or watch some of the sponsored programs of the 1950s. Look at newspaper ads from before those eras.
Advertising has been about manipulating people into buying things for much longer than you seem to think. Why else do you think breakfast cereals have had mascots for so long? Manipulate the kids into begging for it enough, and a lot of parents are going to break down and buy it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> So I have abandoned commercial radio and television, and, frankly, I don't miss it.
And, of course, they won't miss you, since it sounds like you were never a potential customer of their direct customers, the ad agencies, or their indirect customers, the advertised companies.
> Advertising has gone from annoyance to something that I consider to be unethical
> and a serious contributor to our problems as a consumer society.
So, how long have you been in recovery from your Home Shopping Network addicti
Re:Um, Duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
In the perfect world, a customer is in the market for a product or service. The suppliers make their pitch, the customer chooses the best match of product to requirement.
As it currently exists...Advertisers use sophisticated psychological warfare to make you feel good about buying a crappy product you don't need or want.
Re:Um, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
"Bra sale" ads, eh? Which sites are you browsing at work? ;)
Isn't the point of advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's targeting.
More so with websites. If the ad software knows you just came from a used car website, it can give you a different ad then if you just visited some other site.
Most don't even care about that much personal information, most right now are happy if they get gender. Bonus if they can guess age group.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of advertising is not to inform, it is to induce action. Buy stuff, visit a website, vote a particular way.
Informing can do that, but implication or outright misinformation generally works better.
Re: (Score:2)
To make people aware of what they don't necessarily know about or necessarily need/want
Actually, I'd wager at least half, if not most advertising is really all about brand recognition. After all, when you're in the grocery store looking at a wall of paper towel, you're far more likely to pick brand X if you saw it on TV recently.
Yes and No (Score:5, Interesting)
When given the choice between targeted and non targeted advertising, I would pick targeted. When given the choice between any form of advertising and no advertising, I would pick no advertising.
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. It gives you a feeling of having your privacy invaded. Just a few hours ago I wrote my wife to say I had gotten a stain on my shirt from lunch, and google was nice enough to put up a stain remover advertisement right after I fired off the email. It is a little bit off putting.
Re:Yes and No (Score:5, Funny)
I want to ridicule you for leading the most boring life imaginable, but we're both posting to Slashdot, so I will welcome you as a brother..
Re: (Score:2)
Just a few hours ago I wrote my wife to say I had gotten a stain on my shirt from lunch, and google was nice enough to put up a stain remover advertisement right after I fired off the email. It is a little bit off putting.
Hell, what's scaring me more is just where some of them are even getting their information. I started getting into guitars a while back. I bought a guitar off of Amazon.com as a result, and I'd joined a few online forums on the subject. Hadn't really mentioned much about it elsewhere.
Shortly afterwards I log into Myspace and I'm seeing mostly guitar-focused ads. Hadn't mentioned a thing nor done anything related to them actually on myspace, but they had to have some type of information sharing arrangeme
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Just a few hours ago I wrote my wife to say I had gotten a stain on my shirt from lunch, and google was nice enough to put up a stain remover advertisement right after I fired off the email. It is a little bit off putting.
Target (no pun intended) does something similar with your credit card.
I used to chug antacids before switching to a healthier diet. I used to buy them at Target along with other stuff because the store is in a convenient location. Now that I no longer buy antacids, everytime I use my credit-card there, the register prints out a coupon for TUMS or some house-brand antacid. Technically I knew that stores track us by CC#, but this rather minor exploitation of that data is what it took to really drive it home
Jesus, what balls... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's a "+1 The Damn Truth" when I need it?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say they want advertisements in general, it says they think they wanted targeted advertisements. I think most people would say they want zero ads, but given a choice between random ads that don't apply to them (ads for diaper and tampons for young males for example) and ads that are targeted so that the majority of them will be for classes of items they buy (video games and porn sites for young males), most people would take the targeted ads.
People want to complain about ads, but give them a cho
Not part of your 95% (Score:2)
most people would take the targeted ads.
I don't know about most people, but I prefer non-targeted ads. I think they are far less likely to trick me into buying stuff. And, I really don't want to buy more stuff than what I come up with on my own. In fact, I would prefer to live in an ad-free world. I would even be willing to pay more for this better world. I find 99% of all ads insulting to my intelligence and mind-numbingly boring. I also view advertising in general as psychological warfare directed at me and have long ago conditioned myself
Re: (Score:2)
the problem was the deliberate wording where they don't ask the question about if people like advertisements. They only asked if people wanted targeted advertisements.
Whether they are targeted or not, people don't give a rats ass, they just don't want them.
Re: (Score:2)
Better framed.
1. You are going to be shown an ad (whether you like it or not).
2. Would you prefer it has anything to do with your life or not.
Do you think marketers are going to offer you of opting out of #1?
Re:Jesus, what balls... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Q: "Do you want to pay $1 from your wallet or give me $1 worth of eyeball time I can sell ads for?"
A: "Well you're sure not getting my money"
Q: "Ads are only worth something if they lead to sales, do you want tons of uninteresting ads?"
A: "Let's get this over wtih as fast as possible"
Of course you want it free as in beer and no ads and a free pony. But if you phrase is as "How do you want to pay?" not "Do you want to pay?" it's not that unreasonable a conclusion...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
thisnamestoolong wrote:
It was written by a marketer who was in the act of marketing the profession of market
Re: (Score:2)
In fact that would be ideal for advertisers, too. They are only interested in contacting people who will buy. That's why Microsoft and dice.com advertise here on Slashdot, while Lexus and people selling million dollar homes advertise in the Wall Street Journal. A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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"?
Don't you want to know? (Score:2)
damn straight! (Score:5, Funny)
No targeted ads!
Depends how people react (Score:2)
I suspect they will be able to identify two markets
A) those who react positively to targeted ads. Those they will target as much as possible
B) those who react negatively to targeted ads. Those they will target more subtly. IE follow the Steak ad with a soap ad.
They will use the targeting criteria to place people into pool A or B.
The Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
typical reporting - loaded questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You are right, we Facebook for that.
They're Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isnt about what you and I want. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If i had my way, I would never see an advertisement.
I listen to NPR or CDs when I'm driving. I don't have television service at home, and when I'm online, I use FireFox + AdBlock whenever possible. I'm not at the "never" stage, because there's nothing I can do about billboards on the side of the road, but it's pretty damn close.
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
I like my privacy but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This. It's another case where people say that want something that they really don't.
To put it another way, how many of you want to see ads for feminine hygiene products on /.? Just sayin'.
(Some places do go overboard, however, with the recommendations. I'm looking at you, Amazon. Really, I'm not going to buy a Nickelback CD. Ever. And I do buy a fair amount of things for other people. Because I bought a bridal book my fiancee wanted, doesn't mean that I want 800 wedding planning guides.....)
This needs to be shared (Score:2)
How about a "targeted" email of the results of this study to all online advertisers. Certainly it's important enough that they won't mind receiving 2 or 3 copies since it's "business relevant". We do want to make sure these people are inconvenienced, er I mean informed.
RTFA? (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
non-targetted ads helped me grow up (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't mind them, except... (Score:2)
... except that I do mind the means to get them targeted.
Otherwises, besides that, I of course want ads relevant to my interests like an offer to purchase the xkcd book, rather than Viagra and lottery ads. If you must get ads, that is.
I think pretty much everyone agree.
and when asked.... (Score:2)
and when asked if they were ok with getting 80% less advertising in exchange for the ads actually being about things they were interested in, consumers replied "lol wut?"
seriously people - ads pay for the crap you're looking at. Do you want half the page covered in ads? Your alternative is to have much fewer ads, but have them be about things relevant to you. There is no third "everything for free!!!!" option, no matter how strong your sense of entitlement is.
In principle ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bill Hicks said it best (Score:2)
18%? (Score:2)
18% said those companies should be put out of business
Cool, and i thought i was standing alone in that attitude. Nuke the damned companies.
Re: (Score:2)
My ISP does this (Score:4, Interesting)
And because they do it, and I work from home on a semi-regular basis (using VPN and OWA), almost all of the ads I get are for the company I work for.
It makes me giggle that they are wasting their money.
The title misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Fucking Dumb Question (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
But the fact is that those are the things that you can advertise to based on the general demographic of a large site. Without more specific information....yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1000 people isn't really a large pool to guesstimate the preferences of the American population.
Let me guess, you aren't educated in statistics, right?
As it happens, 1000 is roughly the magic number from which you can extrapolate meaningful statistics about a large population.
Re: (Score:2)