×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Says Targeted Ads Gettin' a Lil' Creepy

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the your-mom-knows-what-you-surf dept.

Advertising 241

eldavojohn writes "Ever load up a completely random webpage to see an advertisement at the top for products related to what you're reading about? What about the advertisement with binoculars that says your green denim jacket doesn't really go with your eyes? Well, a recent marketing study (PDF) is saying that making a highly visible advertisement content aware is too much for consumers. It seems that to optimize clicks and purchases you should use a highly visible ad or a more diminutive ad that is content-aware, but not both. For marketers, this report talks about the consumer having this crazy notion of privacy and at some point they start to feel like you're crossing the line."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

Really?? (1, Offtopic)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563604)

I love them!

Re:Really?? (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563706)

Ad:
Hey, dimethylxanthine ... you know what goes great with an article on Slashdot? A cup of tea with synthetically prepared xanthine derivatives. It'll calm your central nervous system, cardiac muscles and bronchodilators. That'll help you deal with annoying posts and ads.

Re:Really?? (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564022)

Has sarcasm suddenly gone out fashion??

Whoooooo - oh forget it... (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564126)

Sometimes I wonder if people are so dense even a good whooshing wouldn't get through.

Re:Whoooooo - oh forget it... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564466)

Sounds like you need a Cluebat(tm) friend! If someone just doesn't get it no matter how many times you explain it then Cluebat(tm) is for you! Cluebat(tm) is made of the finest, grade-A, pressure treated hickory wood and comes equipped with a state of the art, non-slip, non-staining, shock dampening ergonomic grip. Designed to drive your point home through even the thickest of skulls. Cluebat(tm) comes with a full money back guarantee. If you are not completely satisfied with Cluebat(tm) for any reason simply return it within 14 days for a full refund!

Call 1-800-GET-CLUE today! That's 1-800-GET-CLUE!

Re:Really?? (0, Troll)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564328)

Has sarcasm suddenly gone out fashion??

Must be that or people don't remember what sarcasm is used for.

I think the wrong people are getting mod points these days. I've seen so many posts inappropriately modded down lately that it amazes me. I haven't had any mod points for months.

Re:Really?? (4, Interesting)

RobDude (1123541) | more than 3 years ago | (#32565086)

I actually *would* love them. If they didn't suck.

I'm willing to acknowledge the fact that virtually everything I get 'for free' from the internet is, ultimately, either created by people for free, or by people getting paid through advertising revenue.

I don't go out of my way to block ads because ads support the websites I love. Even running a personal site has costs associated with it. If someone can recoup some of that with a banner-ad; more power to them.

And if the banner-ad could be stuff I actually want.....wow, even better. Now I'm shopping for things I need, while supporting the websites I like, win-win.

But, in practice, those ads always suck. Here is how it goes.

1.) Decide I need a new X
2.) Find a new X on the internet
3.) Order X
4.) Spend the next month or so seeing ads about X, something I'm not interested in, because I just purchased one.

It's annoying. Far more annoying than random ads. I just purchased a new bed, I don't need a new bed anymore. Not for *years*. If the ads were smart enough to wait 5-6 years and remind me of the age of my bed, that would be awesome. But showing me ads, particularly, ones for THE SAME product I purchased, it's just stupid.

Ugh. (-1, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563638)

Another story about Marketing? I'm staying out of this one.

Re:Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563742)

In the words of Bill Hicks:
 
 

By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself.

No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself.

Seriously though, if you are, do.

Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers. Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself.

Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke..." there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a Yank friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking makinations. Machi... Whatever, you know what I mean.

I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart."

Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags!

"Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing."

Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags! Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!

"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that."

God, I'm just caught in a fucking web.

"Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..."

How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?

"What didya do today honey?"

"Oh, we made ah, we made ah arsenic a childhood food now, goodnight." [snores] "Yeah we just said you know is your baby really too loud? You know?" [snores] "Yeah, you know the mums will love it." [snores]

Sleep like fucking children, don't ya, this is your world isn't it?

Re:Ugh. (3, Insightful)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564960)

No substance, just a rant. And yet, it seems to resonate with some people here at /. The fact is, if something is free** it is either paid for by advertising or tax dollars. The following are a couple of my favorite free things: my content on the internet (with the exception of netflix). If you hate advertising that much, be prepared for the alternative when you get your wish,. Pay-walls everywhere.

Re:Ugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564648)

Another story about Marketing? I'm staying out of this one.

What do you think most Apple stories boil down to?

I love it when ads use keywords from articles (5, Funny)

VMaN (164134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563642)

like this classic example

http://www.ntk.net/2001/07/06/dohburn.gif [ntk.net]

Happens all the time, actually (2, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564244)

That kind of thing happens a lot, actually, if you actually look at the ads. Mind you, keyword matching has never yet given me a single ad I was interested in, but I still occasionally look at the ads because of gems like these:

- I'm looking up the lyrics of a goth kinda song, you know, about death and suicide, and it mentions eternal sleep. An ad on the side dutifully offers to sell me sleeping pills. (Not only morbid, but I really don't think that they want to become known as the company desperate enough for a sale that they'll even offer to sell a means to commit suicide to depressed teens.)

- I'm looking up the meaning of the word "insipid." Of course, a lot of the words in the definition have to do with taste and cuisine. An ad on the side (or was it two?) point me at some traditional Jewish cuisine cookbook. (I figure having that as an illustration for "insipid" in the dictionary isn't exactly an inspiration to buy it, you know?)

- I'm looking up the meaning of the word "sycophant". An ad on the side points at some book for children about how one can become president. (I guess it would explain Dubya;)

Re:Happens all the time, actually (4, Interesting)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564412)

Nobody is really offering a means to suicide are they. The problem with keyword matching on a webpage to a particular ad is that it's not context sensitive. That page had used the word sleep or even more likely 'eternal sleep' as a phrase and the highest paying match was for sleeping pills.

And thats not even what the article is about. What you described is simple keyword matching of the webpage you are viewing. What the article is descibing is an ad system which has nothing to with the webpage you are visiting and everything to do with you and your previous web browsing habits. For example, you browse information on unwanted pregenacy on one page, then a few days later on a car selling site you get an ad for aborbtion clinics.

Re:Happens all the time, actually (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564560)

Yeah, I know. The actual post I was answering to was about keyword matching, though, and I answered to _that_.

To answer your point, though, well, that's why you have some control over the cookies in your browser. Unlike many other privacy problems on the Internet, this is trivial to solve. Simply disallow third party cookies and block Google and some of the other egregious unrepentant trackers from storing any persistent cookies at all in your browser. Problem solved.

Re:Happens all the time, actually (0, Flamebait)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564568)

That page had used the word sleep or even more likely 'eternal sleep' as a phrase and the highest paying match was for sleeping pills.

Really? You think that that phrase was MORE likely to have been used by the drug company than sleep? Seriously? Oh never mind, you were just typing shit. Right. You never even looked at what you said before hitting submit. we don't blame you for being a fucking idiot.

Re:Happens all the time, actually (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#32565104)

The problem with keyword matching on a webpage to a particular ad is that it's not context sensitive.

On the contrary, that's what gave us these masterpieces of unintended comedy.

Re:Happens all the time, actually (2, Funny)

axx (1000412) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564948)

Similar thing happened to me.

I was reading through an animal rights related newsletter, and Gmail's contextual advertisement located at the top of the screen thought it matched pretty well this offer for a second hand pig slaughter machine.
Up to 45 pigs an hour!

Nice.

Re:Happens all the time, actually (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564986)

Then there's words that mean different things in different languages. You're no doubt familiar with "Gift" [vqronline.org].

Naturally... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563664)

Diminutive is better.
But in general, if I have to see ads at all I'd prefer them to be relevant for me.

Re:Naturally... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564032)

Gotcha - ads for dwarf porn. Next time you visit expertsexchange.com you'll get your ads for dwarf porn.

Re:Naturally... (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564140)

hey, enjoy all the relevance you want. I prefer no ads. There is no reason to *have* to see ads.

Re:Naturally... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564248)

Diminutive is better.

Your mom says otherwise.

Well, no shit (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563672)

About the time I added "Brooks Brothers" to my 'interests' sections on Facebook and started getting Brooks Brothers ads on every website that I visited after that, is when I started to feel violated. Not sure why FB kept trying to sell me Jewish dating websites, when my profile clearly indicated that I was not Jewish... an Anglo-Norman name, 'Zen Buddhist' as my religion... seems like they missed the mark with that one. However, now I just run ABP and I don't ever have to see ads anymore either, and I took out nearly all the information from my FB profile. I'd just get rid of it if not for the fact it's my main method of keeping in contact with a lot of people I'm actually kind of fond of. It still feels very stalkerish.

Re:Well, no shit (5, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563758)

...and I took out nearly all the information from my FB profile.

Don't worry, it's still stored permanently.

Re:Well, no shit (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564076)

Whew. Im glad to know that privacy is still dead. Seriously though, I'd rather have advertisments targeted to my interests than some random bs that I have interest in.

Re:Well, no shit (2, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564514)

C'mon, how seriously do you think anyone takes that lie, I would rather have adds targeted at my personal interests. If you know want you want you don't need adds, and targeted is only post date, not what you are interested in but what you were interested in. They are not selling you knowledge they are selling you product. When you do searches to buy product, the current, by the time they align you have already decided and that would have been based on the content your sought which is where the adds should have been.

The reality is it cost more to align adds with web content than in does to spread the marketing deceit of targeting people with adds for things they were interested in buying yesterday and already purchased.

To really aligned adds personally, they are not talking about your interests but you psychological weakness, what adds styles (not content bur form) are you a sucker for, what add style can manipulate the choices you think you make and that is disgusting.

Align adds with content is far more logical, catch is someone, in fact two people the add buyer and the add seller, need to review the add and content to make sure that they align, continuously day in and day out and that costs a lot of money, especially reviewing quality of content and add placement price. The big reason to align add to content is because it is the product purchasers current interest. There is no point in targeted people with adds for a new car the day after they buy one just because the data mining says they 'were' interested in buying a car.

There are tricky adds placements like news but then they are obvious add placements for insurance for bad news and for good news entertainment.

So the new add agency, people that continually reviewing web content and place adds live, people reviewing placements, add placement bidding for hot content, add placement history and substantiation and add agency track record for returns on add placements. Some automation, some regular space buy in, and quite of bit of live active placement for the best returns, all based on content value (a value at competition to how much content space has been taken away for add space.

As for invasion of privacy, psychological profiling, choice manipulation through subconscious targeting, that will come to a legally enforced end. The extra money will have to be spent are accurately aligned adds with time critical content (when the content is at it's best sales value), globally. A whole bunch of webheads monitoring the pulse of the web putting their customers adds at the best web locations at the best time and content producers working to attract those webheads eyes and add placement dollars charging top dollar for current hot content. People watching web click counters like stock brokers watch stock tickers.

Re:Well, no shit (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564856)

You buy some sexy lingerie for your current girlfriend online. In 6 months you break up. You find yourself another lady but she refuses to wear such things however for the next 20 years you get ads catalogs and emails all for you to buy lingerie.

Targeted ads have unlimited shelf life. You have a phase were you like one particular "brand,item,design" and you get advertising for that. Even if you are no longer interested in it anymore. There is no way to tell them to stop.

Sidenote Amazon bases it's advertising to you based on buying history. Currently my amazon history is 12 years long, you don't have to keep tax data that long, why should amazon keep that data that long?

Re:Well, no shit (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#32565004)

C'mon, how seriously do you think anyone takes that lie, I would rather have adds targeted at my personal interests. If you know want you want you don't need adds, and targeted is only post date, not what you are interested in but what you were interested in.

That's a false dichotomy. There isn't a simple choice between:

a) Know everything you want to buy, and never deviate from that list, and
b) Not knowing what to buy at all, and being influenced by ads

In fact, very, very few are even close to either of those extremes. Most people have an idea of what they like, but not the specifics of what they want. So, in fact, if advertising is targeted well, most people it targets would appreciate the information (even if they object to the way it's delivered).

Re:Well, no shit (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564198)

If you are planning to 'remove' your data from facebook, don't simply 'delete' your account. Slowly over a period of about a month or so replace all of your data with incorrect data. Things that are unlikely to change like your sex should probably stay the same until the very end so it doesn't raise any red flags, but by the time you are finished everything should be different. Then 'delete' your account.

The idea being that of course they are not actually going to delete anything, but at least this way they don't know what is truthful and what isn't.

Re:Well, no shit (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564386)

I don't use social networks (no friends) but i assumed the information would all be false, or at least flattering, anyway.

Re:Well, no shit (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564458)

Well true enough. I guess the idea is mainly to make it useless as well. What people put down as their interests (music, movies, etc) is likely to be the most valuable information facebook can get.

Re:Well, no shit (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564456)

> Slowly over a period of about a month or so replace all of your data with
> incorrect data.

Why would you ever put any correct data in to begin with, except for stuff that is already a matter of public record or that you see no reason keep private?

Even if Facebook could be trusted to keep your secrets your "friends" cannot.
 

Re:Well, no shit (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564564)

Don't ask me, but judging by the number of people I know that at one point did have facebooks, but have recently 'deleted' their accounts, I'm guessing many people do.

News at 11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563796)

It still feels very stalkerish.

Most people don't like being stalked! News at 11!

Seriously, makes you wonder why people can make money with these trivial kinds of studies. Then again, they can cater to retards in marketing and management departments where having no common sense is an entry requirement.

Re:Well, no shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563816)

That's the kind of targeted advertising that makes no sense to me. If you've already indicated an interest in Brooks Brothers, why advertise it to you? Isn't advertising supposed to be attracting new customers? Go evangelize the unconverted heathen!

Re:Well, no shit (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563820)

Yeah, it does feel stalkerish, and very fake.
I love when I see ads that say - "Are you a 30 year old systems engineer who is also father of 2 children and enjoys the outdoors? Find out how you can get over $500 in Providence, RI area coupons!"
Ah, so close, looks like they got the Geo-IP wrong.

Re:Well, no shit (1)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564508)

Speaking of Geo-IP, why do they assume every Comcast IP in Illinois is Chicago (specifically Naperville)? It's like they are unaware that there is anything but Chicago in IL. Ah, well, if the politicians in my state can make the same mistake, maybe I can forgive the marketers too.
(don't rile me about being a Comcast customer, not like I had a choice. Sympathy though, is highly appreciated)

Re:Well, no shit (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564658)

I think it has to do more with up-stream registration of the IP blocks. My office is in VA Beach, and we have fractional DS3 over Cavalier/Verizon, maintain our own border routers, announce our own routes over BGP, etc. All that good stuff. the other end of our leased line is in Norfolk, and that's where the /24 on that link was registered, so any time I visit a GeoIP-enabled site from the office, it claims I'm in Norfolk.

the aggregation point for Comcast in IL is probably in this Naperville place.

Re:Well, no shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563866)

Another website ads are for this Jewish dating site and then for a Muslim dating site. Covering a few bases?

Re:Well, no shit (2, Funny)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563962)

Not sure why FB kept trying to sell me Jewish dating websites, when my profile clearly indicated that I was not Jewish... an Anglo-Norman name, 'Zen Buddhist' as my religion... seems like they missed the mark with that one

That creeps me out even more!

(Not the religion-centered dating sites. Those too, but just a little)

Showing me less, but better targeted ads should be a win-win situation. (Sometimes you don't mind spending money on something you saw in an ad)

But beeing presented with not just a random ad, but with an ad and the knowledge that someone thinks you would be intrested in it clearly is something different.

Might lead to this little gem...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118655/quotes?qt0367869 [imdb.com]

I'd have to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563714)

Steve if this is OK, he is the only one with the answer.
Perhaps it is just being misinterpreted and is simple just magical.

Privacy... (2, Insightful)

iScotty (1796334) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563754)

Lol, privacy on the internet, come on consumers.

Re:Privacy... (4, Insightful)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564204)

Indeed! I'm still trying to figure out how to promote my campaign to educate people on a nice subtlety:

Privacy: doing something that other people don't know about. This is inherently impossible on the internet, because in order to do anything on the internet, you have to send data to or from somewhere - someone else knows what you're doing.

Anonymity: doing something but people don't know that it's you that's doing it. This is really what people are after, not privacy. People talk about "privacy" for many things, such as GPS for fuel tax in their cars, or speeding or whatever. The complaint there isn't privacy: anyone who has eyeballs can see that there is a car driving around. The complaint is anonymity: drivers don't want others to know that they are driving to a particular place or in a particular manner.

So, please help fix this argument: the internet cannot ever have privacy, but please let's keep it anonymous! All the things like Facebook, etc. are inherently non-anonymous, because people are volunteering identifying information. I suppose there's an argument about protecting who has access to the identifying information, but that's a different facet of the argument.

Re:Privacy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564382)

I think there was a TED talk on this recently. Given by a guy calling himself 'Mute' or something.

Oblivious (2)

Mike Mentalist (544984) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563766)

I barely even notice most adverts really. It's either some annoying pop-up style advert that annoys me enough to close the window down immediately (so I don't really look at what is being advertised) or I just filter them out like I filter out background noise.

No (5, Insightful)

Stele (9443) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563768)

"Ever load up a completely random webpage to see an advertisement at the top for products related to what you're reading about?"

No. Thanks Adblock!

Re:No (2, Funny)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563844)

"Ever load up a completely random webpage to see an advertisement at the top for products related to what you're reading about?"

No. Thanks Adblock!

What are this ads you talk about?

Privacy may not be the issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563788)

I skimmed over the paper and I'm not sure it's privacy that reduced the effectiveness. I think it's more out of annoyance.

Lets say there are two types of people that click on ads: People that are actually interested in get more information provided by the ad and people that just click on the ad on an impulse. Now consider if someone is going to an auto web page to do some research on cars they might want to buy.

If they get some giant random ad about about guitar lessons or whatever then most people will probably just ignore it and continue on (they're doing car research after all). In that situation the people that would click the ad would be the impulse types (maybe from people not all that interested in actually doing car research at that moment). On the other side, if there is a small targeted ad about cars then people would either just ignore it because it's small or click it because they want more information (they are doing car research after all).

Now consider the situation where a giant targeted ad pops up. This is basically a forced distraction. You're looking at doing your own research and the site is trying to forcibly tell you what you want. That would piss people off because it's forceful (giant ad) and targeted at the subject they were trying to research on their own.

Re:Privacy may not be the issue (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563894)

I skimmed over the paper and I'm not sure it's privacy that reduced the effectiveness. I think it's more out of annoyance.

Lets say there are two types of people that click on ads: People that are actually interested in get more information provided by the ad and people that just click on the ad on an impulse.

Yes I've had that annoying advert, that looks as though its got exactly what you want "Advanced Vina lessons in Leeds". When you click on it it is the Leeds section of some classified site, with two adverts; one for a used Sofa and another for gardening services!

Oblig XKCD (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563790)

http://xkcd.com/713/ [xkcd.com]

I've always felt that these ads aren't just intrusive, they're -lying- to me. There isn't actually a ton of hot women in this town looking for a nerd to comfort them at night. It's ridiculous. In fact, for that scenario, there's -nowhere on earth-.

It got to the point a few years ago where I just ignored anything that had the name of my town. Why? Because I found a 'news article' that said the writer was from my town. This confused the hell out of me, because it was extremely unlikely. Then I realized the 'article' was just a fake and was really an advertisement.

Re:Oblig XKCD (5, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563954)

It got to the point a few years ago where I just ignored anything that had the name of my town. Why? Because I found a 'news article' that said the writer was from my town. This confused the hell out of me, because it was extremely unlikely. Then I realized the 'article' was just a fake and was really an advertisement.

Yup.

These days I assume that anything that looks too personal must be garbage. I live in a small town... Unless I'm reading the local paper, I'm not going to see references to anything that local. If I do, it must be some kind of geo-targeted advertising.

Interesting how the hooks they use to try to get your attention have instead become keywords that signify that I can safely ignore something.

Re:Oblig XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564624)

Interesting how the hooks they use to try to get your attention have instead become keywords that signify that I can safely ignore something.

Like the good old "Low prices on $item, shop $item at $dipshit_fake_search_result.com!" Google results from sites that don't even have $item.

Re:Oblig XKCD (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564058)

Yep. I actually feel belittled. Essentially, they believe that I'm dumb enough to fall for it. 1 day, I might start clicking on ads, just to make them pay for it. It'll waste my time more than their time, though.

Re:Oblig XKCD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564272)

1 day, I might start clicking on ads, just to make them pay for it. It'll waste my time more than their time, though.

I already do that with ads that are obnoxious or obvious scams. Just click via middle mouse button to open them in another tab you don't even have to see and you waste pretty much 0 time.

Re:Oblig XKCD (1)

cgomezr (1074699) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564278)

I don't know where you live, but it's even more ridiculous if you are in a country where most women are brown-eyed brunettes with relatively dark skin and most people speak crappy English, and they show you four or five blonde, blue-eyed, fair-skinned pretty girls with their nicks in English. Oh, and all of them from a 1000-people town near you.

Come on, they go too far, they would earn more money by trying to deceive people a bit more subtly!

Privacy matters..? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563798)

"Our results show privacy matters in something of a subtle way in online advertising," says Goldfarb. "Sometimes privacy violations are fine, sometimes they're not."
Nice to see what costumers like to project onto consumer rights :)

Obvious research is obvious (1)

ollie231 (1745048) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563862)

Surely everyone already knew this? In any case, they wont be going away any time soon. Just look how much money Google makes off targeted advertisements.

Not that obvious (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564316)

Seems you missed the point. Targetted works, super targetted doesn't. Advertising housing to me when my mail box is filled with housing related mails works. Advertising that a girl is living next door who sells services I might be interested in considering the images I am downloading... well that is just creepy.

I think it's just great (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564602)

The targeted ads have gotten much more accurate.

I've noticed that I don't get penis enlargement ads any more. (*shoots cuffs*)

The ones that get me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32563880)

.. are the ones relating to nothing on the page you are currently on, but stuff you have recently been looking at.

For instance, I just bought a puppy recently.. and quite frequently now I'll see ads for obedience training.. while looking at computer parts.

I'm actually perfectly cool with how this is pulled off.. but it is still a little weird!

Re:The ones that get me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564408)

I see the ads for obedience training when I'm on the dating sites, and I click on all of them but always get dissapointed when I find out they're for pets only.

what ads? (0, Redundant)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563898)

i haven't seen anything aside from text ads from google in years. it's called ad block, and the more desperate ad companies get the more i lol.

No! Really? Who would have thought? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563902)

People do not like the idea that you come to their most private place, their home, unasked and uninvited, and try to force them to buy your junk. Who would have tought that they do not like that idea?

Now, you say, ads have been our companions for decades, if not centuries. Why suddenly that rejection? We should be use to them by now. And yes, we are. But these ads are different.

So far, we had ads that yelled at you, in the equivalent of a street hawker. He yells out what goods he has, come and get 'em! That's basically what TV and radio ads are like. They do not talk to YOU. They talk to, well, anyone listening. Targeted ads are more like the guy at your door trying to sell you some magazine subscription, only that he also happens to know a lot about you. He knows your hobbies and he offers you magazines related to your hobbies, with the undertone of "this has to interest you, I know it".

And people don't like strangers to know their private details. Especially if those strangers try to sell them something.

And people don't buy from people they don't like.

Re:No! Really? Who would have thought? (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564502)

People do not like the idea that you come to their most private place, their home, unasked and uninvited, and try to force them to buy your junk. Who would have tought that they do not like that idea?

This is one of my major points when someone argues with me regarding the use of adblocking software.

A door-to-door salesman comes to your hosue. Do you:
a) Wait for him to finish his pitch and consider buying?
b) Listen politely, tell him no thanks, be cordial?
c) Slam the door in his face?

If you answered other than c), now imagine that when you opened the door to let in a friend, the salesman walked in too. He is now walking around your living room looking at your furnishings, which cleaning products you use, inspecting your rubbish, and going through your underwear drawer reading all the labels. He's reading all of your receipts, checking out how often you buy sanitary products, and of which brand. In 3 days time, he'll come back with a truck full of flyers for products related to what he found out about you, and put them over every window, through your letterbox, in your mail (because he's affiliated with the post office) and your newspaper will now be 200 pages thick, 150 of them being adverts.

Now, how about we install a peephole in your door so you know not to open it up when the salesman comes around? That's Adblock.

Re:No! Really? Who would have thought? (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564770)

Nicely said, both of you. I'll use what you've said when I tell friends, family and coworkers about my own anti-advertising philosophy.

Re:No! Really? Who would have thought? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564974)

now imagine that when you opened the door to let in a friend, the salesman walked in too. He is now walking around your living room looking at your furnishings, which cleaning products you use, inspecting your rubbish [...] , how about we install a peephole in your door so you know not to open it up when the salesman comes around? That's Adblock.

And leave your friend outside with the salesman? That's cold, dude.

Banner ads are disease nr. 2, text ones are worse (2, Interesting)

dragisha (788) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563916)

Ever tried to search for something linux related, and found tens of mailing list aggregation sites, each one differing from others slightly, but mostly in URL and placement and quantity of AdSense ads?

Is there some way to blacklist such sites and share blacklist info through some firefox extension?

Re:Banner ads are disease nr. 2, text ones are wor (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564132)

Almost as irritating are the shopping sites that sell the same products, at the same prices, with the same inventory, but different site names and slightly different layouts or colour schemes for the stores. It's highly irritating when you search for a particular product, and have to wade through all of those.

Best I can tell, these sites operate from one place (looks like Florida), but have "operators" all over, whose contribution is to take orders by phone and pass them on to the "parent" store.

Because of this irritating practice, I refuse to buy anything from any of these stores, even if they should have the best price or availability.

Re:Banner ads are disease nr. 2, text ones are wor (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564446)

That's a good idea. There are recommendation sites for music (last.fm), films (filmaster.com) and so on. There should be an equivalent for search results. I.e. if you blacklist expertsexchange and scribd, then it finds other people who did the same and uses their preferences to modify your search results.

Google had a thing where you could delete search results for a while, but I don't know if it did anything like that and it seems to have disappeared.

Ha (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#32563918)

Back in the '90s everyone surfed nekkid, and you didn't have to worry about them guessing the green denim jacket.

For and Against... (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564030)

I actually like ads to be catered to my tastes, it seems like a more useful use of screen real estate. So if there was some sort of central repository, say Google, that housed what ads fit my shopping habits, I'd be for it. However then there are the cons. I don't really want them sending me ads for things that might be private. So I searched something for a health concern, I need to be able to remove that from my "ad profile". But if they want to show me ads for all the new video games coming out, things for my favorite sports teams, movies I might like, etc; I have no problem with them profiling me for those.

Re:For and Against... (4, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564738)

I actually like ads to be catered to my tastes, it seems like a more useful use of screen real estate.

Years ago, I worked doing p-shop for advertising, and my boss taught me something important about marketing: The people paying for the ads want those ads to go to peope who aren't already interested. They want to reach people who have no interest in the product, and to alter their minds.

It's a waste of money to pitch to someone who's already sold. In other words, advertisers want to advertise to you the opposite of what you want.

Re:For and Against... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564876)

Exactly... Pitch me COD ads, not the latest Herpes meds... doh!

Same Ad on Multiple Sites Is Creepy Too. (2, Interesting)

Klinky (636952) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564064)

I am finding it kind of annoying/spooky that the same ad seems to follow me around to different websites via DoubleClick. Yes I was looking up information on stock photography, now stop showing me the exact same ad twenty billion times on 50 different websites. I am not going to click it.

Re:Same Ad on Multiple Sites Is Creepy Too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564170)

I read that as "stock pornography" and thought "no wonder!"

because size matters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564162)

> ...a more diminutive ad that is content aware but not both. For marketers, this report talks about the consumer having this crazy notion of privacy and at some point they start to feel like you're crossing the line.

Right-o. Because it's a privacy violation when the ad is large, but not when it's small, apparently. Less personal information collected for the smaller ad, ya know, coz not as many pixels to render.

WTF?

Would you be interested in (1)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564164)

I like the targeted ads that are a little too dumb, like you get targeted ads for the company you work for. It's like they say "Hey! We see you work for this company, would you be interested in buying products from that company!?"

The ones at Engadet are pretty bad, surf from like an apple store you get ads for apple products. Or you get ads trying to sell you internet access from your provider.

Woman enjoy your inflamed meat pole (5, Funny)

blue l0g1c (1007517) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564176)

I remember the feeling of paranoia wash over me when I first began receiving the penis enlargement emails.

The paranoia has returned, but mostly because of the herky-jerky ads showing pictures of my penis and the names of ex-girlfriends.

You guys getting those?

Pandora (3, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564196)

i've been noticing this on Pandora.
i'll glance down at my iphone and notice adds that are just way too taylored to either me or the song.

the creepy part is when i send an email to a friend saying i need new trim and to repaint parts of my house, then start getting adds for house paint.

the funny one was when listening to pink floyd's the wall, and they starts adds for a new private school for my kids shortly after the line, "Teacher, leave those kids alone".

but yeah, they've long past up creepy.

Try reverse psychology on the advertisers (1)

Panther Silverelf (978198) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564220)

I have made it a point in my life to let advertisers know if I see their unwanted ad when surfing, I refuse to click the ad and will most likely not deal with the company the advertisement is for in the future. I use ABP also. If the masses as a whole would just stop clicking the ads, and make it a point to block as much as possible, maybe the marketing scum that thinks this stuff up will finally get a clue. -- "Couldn't get a clue during 'Clue Mating Season' in a field of horny clues."

Crossing the line (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564228)

They'll know when they cross the line... or rather, they'll find out...

I remember browsing Amazon for wheel rims at some point, and one of the suggestions for "other people who viewed this product also bought" was a fleshlight, picture and all. Needless to say, I stopped browsing wheel rims... didn't want to become associated with one of those people :-P

Re:Crossing the line (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564552)

one of the suggestions for "other people who viewed this product also bought" was a fleshlight, picture and all. Needless to say, I stopped browsing wheel rims...

I take it you started browsing fleshlights?

We will get used to it (1)

rebmemeR (1056120) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564232)

Tastes and cultures change over time. As more advertisers practice targeted advertising, the more we will get used to it. I'll bet at some point, we'll even start to get offended by ads that should be targeted but aren't. You can say now that you abhor these ads, but all things change with time. Not too long ago, americans weren't comfortable with top-level athletes wearing logos. We used to think rock music was edgy. We used to think NPR was ad-free.

For those who use AdBlockers (4, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564240)

and a blacklisted hosts file, or whatever, just a word of warning.

Be prepared the next time you browse the web on a strangers machine, or a public machine.
It happened to me recently, and it scared the crap out of me. Adverts EVERYWHERE and some of them were shouting at me.

I would liken it to a BBC viewer having to sit through American cable television for an hour.

It's not pleasant.

Advertising (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564254)

If only, on a gaming page: [bigfont]"I herd u liek mudkips. My pokemanz. Let me show you them."[/bigfont]

Don't shatter the consumer's pink glasses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32564266)

Problem: your ads make consumers aware they've willingly given up their privacy, and they hate it. We can't have that.
Proposed solution: be more subtle about using the information we have about them. Besides, it's more effective.

Nag ads (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564676)

About a month ago I went to the Serif web site to read about their DrawPlus software. Since then, I'd estimate that around 25% of web sites I visit have an advert of some kind for DrawPlus.

Now, I assume this is cookie-related. But who baked the cookie? Maybe it was Serif. Maybe it was Google, because I used Google to search for DrawPlus. But it feels a little creepy when you look at a product once and then get nagged to buy it all the time.

Shared computer (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564754)

How about when you share a computer, like my wife and I do? We don't close the other person's session, we just open a new tab. I almost wish didn't run adblock. What demographic does titanium billet, computer parts, + (whatever girly stuff my wife is into at the time) put you in?

Nevermind, I'm on Slashdot. Duh!

A little too targetted? (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#32564980)

Are you lonely?
Have you spent half your life in bars pursuing sins of the flesh?
Are you sitting in a bean bag chair naked eating Cheetos?
Do you have the urge to get up and send me a thousand dollars?

It *is* creepy, and counterproductive (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32565088)

I was looking for replacement temple pads for a pair of glasses. Now I get sidebar ads about eyeglasses, sunglasses, precriptions, Lasix, you name it. I'm not a candidate for Lasix, but the ads keep coming. I found the pads, but the ads keep coming. I even have new glasses coming, but the ads also keep coming.

I was looking for a new electric shaver. Guess what ads are coming up now? No, not shavers for the blind, but close.

It is apparent that anything you search for more than once seems to come up as an ad for you sooner rather than later. And it's not just creepy. For me, it hurts the advertiser.

Not just the Google ads that offer to find you the best price on root.apk (funny), but the ads that clearly knew you were searching for something. It makes my wife wonder how they know that. When I try to explain, she rejects such a notion as just plain 'wrong'. Then she gets it. And it is even more 'wrong' to her. I pointed out to her that I was seeing ads for a women's clothing chain pretty regularly a couple of months ago. Since I don't crossdress, she gave me a pass. And realized she had been looking at both their site and a competitor's looking for a particular piece of clothing. She's creeped out.

I get entirely turned off by these, and the retailers that sponsor them I avoid if possible. I can tell you that their return rate on me is less than .01% over the years, since this is not really a new phenomenon. That's a tenth of what they hope for. And good riddance.

We may have to have this fight in the courts. At some point, we may want to tell advertisers that they can collect a lot of data on us, but sharing or selling it without our permission is unacceptable. We may even want to tell them how long they can keep it. But Congress may not do this for us. After all, they get paid by the corporations.

So we may see that corporate campaign finance reform is the first step. As in NO corporate campaign financing.

Having an argument through gmail.... (4, Funny)

Orga (1720130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32565118)

I remember finding it a bit creepy/amusing when I was having an argument through gmail with my ex and ads for counseling and relationship therapy were appearing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...