The Open Agenda

Hi I'm Barney - the Behavioural Targeting Mutt

For a little over a year now Open has been vocal opponents of behavioural targeting. It seems now that the industry at large is right behind us.

Last night an interesting article came through from Media Post “Report: Two Out Of Three Web Users Don’t Want Targeted Ads”. Hardly a revelation in our opinion. I a study released yesterday by professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication and the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law debunks the notion that consumers don’t object to online ad targeting. On the contrary, the researchers found that two out of three Web users don’t want customized ads. You’ll find a copy of the study abstract below.

From our perspective, behavioural targeting sucks because it is lazy. Brands need to create content experiences for users and give them the choice to be part of it or not. There is simply no need to behaviourally target anyone when you content is made available everywhere and a user chooses to interact with it.

This implies of course that online ads need a modicum of utility within them to encourage users to interact – and more importantly re-interact.

The Open IMU format drives genuine user engagement and repeated interaction, without the need for any Behavioural Targeting bollocks. Our latest campaign, for Vodafone Mercedes McLaren, seen here in the RHS column, has been a resounding success.

6 months ago we wrote an article outlining our contempt for Behavioural Targeting. At the time it caused a bit of a storm – but my, how the tide has swung!

Behavioural targeting is poor old smelly dog that follows you down the street. You just wish it would go away. Any way you cut it – behavioural targeting sucks.

Abstract:
This nationally representative telephone (wire-line and cell phone) survey explores Americans’ opinions about behavioral targeting by marketers, a controversial issue currently before government policymakers. Behavioral targeting involves two types of activities: following users’ actions and then tailoring advertisements for the users based on those actions. 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.

Contrary to what many marketers claim, most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages – between 73% and 86% – say they would not want such advertising. Even among young adults, whom advertisers often portray as caring little about information privacy, more than half (55%) of 18-24 years-old do not want tailored advertising. And contrary to consistent assertions of marketers, young adults have as strong an aversion to being followed across websites and offline (for example, in stores) as do older adults.

This survey finds that Americans want openness with marketers. If marketers want to continue to use various forms of behavioral targeting in their interactions with Americans, they must work with policymakers to open up the process so that individuals can learn exactly how their information is being collected and used, and then exercise control over their data. We offer specific proposals in this direction. An overarching one is for marketers to implement a regime of information respect toward the public rather than to treat them as objects from which they can take information in order to optimally persuade them.

Keywords: Behavioral advertising, online advertising, privacy, transparency, consumer protection

Tags: No Comments