Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I'm delighted to announce the results of our first national telephonic survey of US internet-using adults on consumer privacy! The Times has coverage and the full report (Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activities that Enable It is available here. Here's a summary:
This nationally representative telephone (wireline 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 year-olds 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.
Technology
Information Science
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Posted by: phisrow | September 29, 2009 8:50 PM
Did the survey attempt to compare between dislike of invasive advertising and dislike of other advertising features that are often considered obnoxious? E.g., how did the results for the question “Please tell me whether or not you want the Web sites you visit to give you discounts that are tailored to your interests.” compare to a question like “Please tell me whether or not you want the Web sites you visit to have flashing banner ads.” ?
Posted by: hibob | September 29, 2009 10:01 PM
@hibob, nope, it did not probe on that level. C
Posted by: Chris H
| September 29, 2009 10:22 PM
One comment we consistently receive about the privacychoice service is that consumers are amazed at the sheer number of companies that are tracking them across all of the popular websites.
See for yourself:
http://www.privacychoice.org
Posted by: Jim | September 29, 2009 11:02 PM
Isn't that kind of necessary to get some kind of baseline opinion on advertising?
Posted by: Treppenwitz
| September 30, 2009 12:53 AM
Well, we weren't trying to assess individuals' attitudes towards advertising generally. We were looking mostly at privacy attitudes, and as part of that, asked a series of questions about behavioral targeting where the results were so interesting that we decided to lead with them. We also asked Americans whether they'd accept anonymous tracking in exchange for free content, and that was strongly rejected too.
Posted by: Chris H
| September 30, 2009 10:02 AM
Chris,
Curious what you're reaction to Matt Cutt's response to the study is:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/studying-a-study/
Posted by: Patrick | September 30, 2009 2:25 PM
Snort.. Paranoia...
But, then, even if most Americans are not into the whole, "the anti-christ will know every brand of underwear you buy!", BS, which logically isn't even fracking possible for one person, or even an agency, to keep useful track of, other than for something like this targeted advertising, most never the less have grown up with the concept.
Here is another good one.. Right wingers hate the census, not because they don't like data being collected, but because they data is then run through "statistics" to get usable results. They want to force the census to change things, to only the "raw" data is provided to the public. Sort of like how Andy Schlafly doesn't like the official paper on the development of Citrate consumption in Ecoli, but instead wants all the "raw data".
Seriously, this is all bloody fracking stupid, privacy, of the sort we are talking about is overrated, the people they worry might be looking at it have better things to be doing (or, if they don't, then we have far bigger problems than they imagine we do, since any government that paranoid about tracking what toothpaste you buy is probably close to implosion anyway), and the only people that fracking care are the ones trying to sell them a new book on Amazon, based on their prior buying habits.
You want to do a good study? Find out how many of these people appose it based on *exactly* the sort of conspiracy theory BS and bad logic some of the stuff here and on, Swallowing the Camel, post about. Because, its not based on rational considerations, or any sort of "real" invasion of privacy, and some of them may be handing out far more critical, detailed, and important stuff, every day, on Facebook, than ever lands in the lap of some random company, as a result of them storing the fact that they bought toe nail clippers from wallmart.com.
Posted by: Kagehi
| September 30, 2009 4:12 PM
I don't like being tracked, but I don't care about tailored advertising because I don't read it, listen to it, or watch it anyway. On the rare occasions that I talk to marketing researchers, I explain that I am quite proud of my ability to filter out their dreck. If I need to know about a product I research it; I don't rely on random junk the sales deparments may send out. I remember enjoying a pollster who was askng me about automobile manufacturers' slogans. I only recognized "Drivers wanted" because I often see it on the back of semitrailers.
Posted by: barkdog | October 1, 2009 6:18 PM
Here is another good one.. Right wingers hate the census, not because they don't like data being collected, but because they data is then run through "statistics" to get usable results. They want to force the census to change things, to only the "raw" data is provided to the public. Sort of like how Andy Schlafly doesn't like the official paper on the development of Citrate consumption in Ecoli, but instead wants all the "raw data".
nice
Hosting
Posted by: Hosting | October 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Jim: thanks for the link, i had no idea you could opt out of that garbage. :-)
totally awesome and cool.
Posted by: genewitch | October 3, 2009 4:17 AM
WE can conclude from this news that marketers need to find more sophisticated ways of marketing tailoring for their customer. Nevertheless the great portion of marketers use old fashioned marketing strategies
Posted by: diyet | October 3, 2009 6:07 PM
Very interesting article. I think all marketers must read it.
Posted by: cilt lekeleri | October 3, 2009 6:38 PM
I suspect that companies will continue to do this because it will be effective. Just like people say they want politicians to "be real", but they end up voting for the ones that play it safe and keep a firm eye on demographics (not that this is necessarily bad...)
People will say publicly that they hate these new ad techniques but this doesn't really concern marketers. Their only concern is the effectiveness of such advertising and if they are pursuing it then it is probably effective regardless of what anyone actually says. Basically money talks and BS walks. If people want to stop this, then all the have to do is boycott marketers employing this tactic.
Posted by: John | October 9, 2009 12:12 AM