Study: US web users reject behavioural advertising Americans do not want to be given tailored advertising based on monitoring of their online behaviour, according to what its authors call the first independent, academically rigorous survey of consumers' views. Research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and the Berkeley Centre for Law and Technology has found that 66 …
To try to deny the supply facility, rather than steer IT, will result in wet feet as per Canute. You can't put the genie back in the lamp when the bottle is smashed to smithereens...... and Future Desires are so Lucrative and Dynamic AI Supply Scene for Present Placement Future Builders ..... Real Live White Knight Champions in Virtually Creative Constructions for Realisation...... aka Leaderships.
Whatever people say, they don't really care because:
(1) They don't even know this is happening.
(2) The results of the poll depend on the way the questions were asked.
(3) Most adults don't understand the difference between their computer and the websites. As far as they're concerned it is all "the computer".
(4) They'll still use Google, Facebook etc because having the service is more important than the privacy, Same deal as how they might object to having to show Id, but will happily drive around with license plates on their cars.
People are really too stupid to be allowed an opinion.
Peole don't like being spied on. Why does it need a survey to work this out?
I'm guessing its for the benefit of the marketing and advertising muppets ( and Government ministers) who haven't 'got' it yet.
Phorm learned the hard way, and next May, so will 'New' Labour.
So two-thirds of respondents didn't like targeted advertising without even knowing all the facts about how it is done ? Refreshing news indeed !
And more than a third want jail time for crooks who abuse personal data ? Well, seems that this year has good news at last.
I'll have to remember this survey for the next time that a marketeer tries to get my personal info.
There's little point in a survey about what sort of advertising people want or think should be allowed. The reason being that it misses the biggest issue: people would prefer NO advertising at all, so whether it is "blanket" advertising or "tailored" advertising is rather like asking a person if they're prefer to be eaten by a shark or a tiger.
What will happen is that the advertisers will adopt whatever methods prove[1] to be most effective in pursuance of their goat: getting people to buy stuff they don't want. Even if one technique or another is banned, the advertisers will still find loopholes, as there's too much money to be made to let it drop.
[1] here "prove" is used very loosely to mean "believe", given that it's impossible to tell almost anything about the effectiveness of any particular advertisement. Hence the old saying in advertising circles: "Half the money spent on advertising is wasted. Unfortunately, no-one knows which half."
"63% believe advertisers should be required by law to immediately delete information about their internet activity,"
63%? That's enough to make politicians sit up, take interest and stick it in a manifesto. I suppose that Google are now sending another few hundred thousand dollars to their lobbyists in Washington to ensure that this one gets thoroughly stomped on before anyone gets any bright ideas.
.... some of the stuff I have, I bought it *after* seeing a very *irrelevant* ad. Relevant ads are based on what I am looking at right now, what I looked at in the past, in other words, what I am interested in with my current *knowledge* of what is out there.
I currently have a small modeled helicopter that I fly outside the house, I actually love it and might get a bigger model soon (i dare say that it might soon become my hobby to "fly" modeled airplanes).
Why am sharing this hobby on an IT news site?! Simply put, because of the article, had every ad I've seen been based on what I am interested in, I would never have come across the ad for that helicopter and would most likely still be indoors during the weekend.
Of course it is because to marketers make up everything on the spot and call it self evident.
Scum buckets.
Slightly aside from this, i have taken to dealing with sales calls as basically as possible... the other day i had a person on the phone for 20 minutes before he said to me ".. so you dont actually have a house to put this double glazing on.. ".. 'no thats right, i rent.'
Users' data may technically be used anonymously, but they are not untraceable . They must save the IP address in order to target advertising.
If I'm the only person using my connection the IP address can be traced back to me, so I'm not anonymous.
If several people use the same computer or connection then ads targeted at one person could be sent to another. This could have unfortunate consequences which I leave the reader to imagine.
Congratulations! You win today's prize.
Occasionally I slip some deliberate misspelllings into articles and documents as a test to see if anyone ever reads them. Most pass unnoticed, such as references to the space scuttle, time is monkey and the famous (not by me) if you read this I'll give you £10.
When used at work no-one has ever claimed the tenner and almost never remarked about other errors. Whether you conclude nobody ever reads the documents I write, they die or boredom before getting to the offer, they have me sussed or just assume I'm being daft is anybody's guess.
What's the prize? well, don't hold our breath waiting for the tenner. However you are cordially invited to sit back, take it easy and reflect upon your superiority. At least until the boss comes back from lunch.
The solution will be ISPs offering a premium service; where for an extra few quid a month, you can get advertisements blocked -- by means of a proxy server, special DNS or just fancy routing tables.
Once this two-tier arrangement is up and running, it would be easy enough to start allowing "premium" customers access to downloadable media files, inclusive in their bandwidth bill. Yes, there's a vague possibility that they might upload what they've downloaded somewhere else; but that's what the A in ADSL is for.
A lot of things are "evident" to marketers, but that's because they're a bunch of lying cheating self-deluding swindling charlatans fakers and crooks.
To the rest of us it is self-evident that Bill Hicks was right. Go on, DO IT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Maybe it's just me, but I can only remember (and that dimly) one or two instances where any online ad looked like it was worth clicking.
I'm not rich, but I have pretty much everything I want. I suppose from a marketer's point of view, I have a character flaw that needs forcible correction for the safety of the economy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
