I opted out of interest based ads from the very beginning.
It seems to be even worse:
The actual question "Would It be OK or not OK if these ads were tailored for you based on what you did on other websites you have visited." [page 15 of the report] Seems very relevant to Adsense interest based ads. And the rejection was far higher than the 66% that doesn't want any tailoring of ads, it was at 84% ...
I did opt out of it -as far as one can get out- from the beginning as well. I'm quite unsure it's legal for me to participate in this due to our strict privacy laws (Belgium).
swa66 you mean you opted out as a searcher or as a site(s) owner ?
Given the parallels between your laws ( Belgium ) and mine ( France ) I agree that as site owners we may well be required to opt out by our national laws ..or produce privacy pages megabytes long and full of legalese ..and even then the CNIL ( french data protection authority ) doesnt give the USA a green light to transfer or aid in transfering personal data ..it considers that the USA is OK only under certain conditions ..breaking the data protection rules here carries heavy fine for first offence ..google appears to be an approved organistation under "safeharbour" for transfer of employee data ..but customer/searcher data is not mentioned in the text at the safeharbour site ..the site *https://www.export.gov/safehrbr/list.aspx* ( copy/paste then take off the *'s )also times out heavily when one tries to search it from France ..The only page I can get to open in any browser is that one ..from there everything else times out ..
I opted out of interest ads in the adsense account (as a site(s) owner).
I guess all publishers in the EU should worry to a point as directive 95/46/EG (24 october 1995) forces member states to create local legislation protecting the privacy of individuals.
FF + NoScript + CookieSafe + BetterPrivacy ...
edit: fixed confusing mistake
[edited by: swa66 at 2:54 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2009]
|I opted out of contextual ads in the adsense account (as a site(s) owner). |
I don't get this, isn't all adsense contextual? I didn't know you could turn off that feature. What ads do you get then?
I would love to see the questions in this survey. People are certainly negative towards the use of personal information and so in that respect it's not surprising; but on the other hand, it seems odd - to say the least - that people don't want ads that are of particular interest to them. After all, that's basically what "niche marketing" is, and it's been around a lot longer than the internet.
The questions are in the report [graphics8.nytimes.com], together with the multiple choice answers and the way their sample out of the general population was created.
The questions are in tables starting on page 15.
[edited by: swa66 at 2:49 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2009]
Presumably swa66 meant interest based ads. I believe the opt out prevents visitor information from your sites from being used on other sites, but doesn't prevent interest based ads from being displayed on your site.
I opted out too - apart from the privacy why would I want to share my advertisers with other sites?
I obviously meant interest based, sorry; just went back and fixed it there to prevent more confusion.
Thanks, I didn't even know that "interest based" ads are turned on in my account. Just stopped them.
It is my understanding that most ad companies are doing some sort of interest based data collection whenever they show an ad on your site. We see cookies from every provider dropped on our clients.
Some are more open about it (Google), others I "think" have been doing it for years.
We as consumers just have not been aware of it. Ever notice the creepy ads in Facebook? ;-)
|I believe the opt out prevents visitor information from your sites from being used on other sites, but doesn't prevent interest based ads from being displayed on your site. |
correct ..although ASA did have a go at rewording and selectively quoting passages from the relevant paragraphs in googs privacy pages to try to say different ..
But ASA gave up when it was pointed out that GOOG themselves say in the same privacy page that if the surfer has not opted out from "interest" based ads ( and GOOG also admits that all surfers are opted in secretly by default by GOOG just by visiting a GOOG property such as search ) then interest based ads will be displayed to them on your pages even if you have opted your site out ..
faced with GOOGs own privacy pages for proof ASA beat hasty retreat ..:)
It's cookie based ( you get them from GOOG properties ..like cooties )..and GOOG writes some very very very persistant and long lasting cookies..
Ps ..I already have the use of "cooties" for bad cookies covered :)
People don't even know the difference between a search engine and a browser so how can you expect them to properly understand how web privacy and ad tracking works?
Well said - 99.9% of people have no idea. My mom and pop won't search out the privacy page hidden away on the site, and even if they do it would be a full time job to understand and opt out of all the things swa66 seems to be trying to avoid.
My worry is that people will become scared of things like cookies - but cookies can be very helpful to the user. I use them on forums to keep people logged in, and on a shop so I don't forget what it is that people have spent time adding to their baskets (all the other shops seem to forget me when I press the back button).
But cookies can be abused, and the behavioural stuff stretches the line for me - I deny coonies (sorry) from selected sites myself, but what can we do about the loss of confidence the press will give people?
Because the majority don't have the understanding it's going to end in legislation. That's never helpful. But without that, or better a code of practice, the boundaries of decency are getting stretched.
I just wanted to start a thread about the effects of behavior targeting in CTR and EPC.
I opted out short after the start
I started October 1st 10pm MET an experiment to opt in.
It would be good, if stats would show 3 categories
Consumers do not want normal ads either, and wish everything was free.
Seriously ..unfortunately we all know..
Average consumers wouldn't know what a normal ad was unless it jumped up and bit them in the neck ..( and even then they may think it was a test for their eligibility for reality TV show )..eg ..J goody
They do think it is all free ..( good soylent green needs a source culture ..so why waste a good resource ) ..
However when someone explains in short words ( less than 3 syllables ) to them how it really works then they get "outraged" ..and having expressed their "outrage" they go right back to twitter , youtube, facebook, surfing pron , downloading warez or exchanging animated 3d smiley add ons to their messenger 2009 ..
1)however they do have money to spend ..so need watching closely ..:)
2)the watching ( and what we do with it ) may enable us to improve however marginally the contents of the gene pool and thus hopefully reduce the number of pre qualified contenders for the Darwin awards :) ..
Damn ..now I've lost focus and can't remember wether I was posting as me ..or posting my CV application for management level jobs at the plex ..where I know GOOG will be watching ..or if I just went clear thetan ( nope not the latter cos I didnt plug my book :) So I must be still somewhat in control..:)
Yes NEO ..you must choose between the two pills ..
( ) - ( )
( ) _ ( )( )
Soi.."u iz followin wabbitz"
or your "choice" will be made for you ..via "auto opt in"
think carefully ;)
|Consumers do not want normal ads either |
And I read it all by now: they didn't ask if they disliked all ads.
That said the respondents did clearly change their response once they heard how behavioral actually works and hated it even more (66 -> 86% disapproval). So putting them under a clueless label is probably not the right picture either.
Also they disliked even discount coupons and news being served based on behavioral properties and that too went up as they heard methods of how it is done ...
|Consumers do not want normal ads either |
Really, is that really true?
Or is it just the result of some other poll?
I'm more likely to think people object to off target ads.
Does the average surfer know the difference between a text link and a text ad?
If they are on a widget site, do they object to links to other widget sites?
If they are on a widget site, do they object to text ads that take them (via a link) to other widget sites?
If they are on a widget site looking for info on widget repair, do they object to display ads for widget parts or for widget repair manuals?
Like polls? Ask your top competitor to poll your customers to see what they want fom you.
|That said the respondents did clearly change their response once they heard how behavioral actually works |
They'll probably avoid sausages too when they realize how it's done, but they'll get over it ;)
I think behavioral ads are a bit icky but as long as it's not some database with my name and social security number shared by powerful marketing groups, just anonymous cookies used for better targeting... meh. At worst, these can be cleaned up every now and then.
Now pop-ups, or spam, on the other hand, are truly evil.
A poll will have the results the people conducting or paying the poll want it to have.
Most consumers have no idea how GAS works. An ad is an ad. But once you start to talk about the inner workings and use words like "tracking" etc a certain amount of paranoia will crop in.
I have not opted out, as I see no reason to. And as for 66% hating this decision because they are against such ads, then I doubt any of them will ever know, and the few that do are probably so tech savvy they probably would not be clicking an ad anyway.
I stoped my experiment after 24 hours.
When I look on every day CTR since September 1, the CTR was in the lowest range if this time.
So even when the result would be exactly the same result, I would opt out, because I want promote products introduced by the content of my sites.
Thursday was very good, Saturday develops very well,
only Friday with the behavior targeted ads experiment was below average.
Asking people often does not give a picture of reality. Its necessary to watch the actual behavior of people, to be able to conclude what they "want".
I agree with Visit Thailand, it always depends /how/ you ask, and you will get the required result.
|it always depends /how/ you ask |
The how they asked is in the report ...
Having gone away and read the report a bit it comes across as a good solid study by academic types. I didn't notice any motivation other than them wanting to carry out such a study in an academic way rather than leave it to the people with all the motives.
It would have been interesting to ask the group if they objected to advertising on websites on the first place. That would have helped weed out those who haven't considered that paying for those sites from their own pockets would end up being the alternative. But there is some very interesting info in there even after that omission.
For example the figures in the report suggest that the percentage who are happy for the website they are on to tailor itself to them is twice as high as the figure that don't mind that info being shared between sites.
Personally I wouldn't have been in either of those camps. I'm with the ones who don't like any malignant behavioural stuff at all, especially that which might appear to a spouse when she uses the PC. Surely I'm not the only one who sometimes likes to look at or buy things on the net without anyone else finding out where I've been?
I do approve of internet advertising as a whole - it's my main source of income. Worries me that privacy concerns could reduce that income if people knew what was happening behind the scenes.
Some of the U.S.advocacy groups that claim to be First Amendment and privacy supporters need to rethink which they are. The U.S. Constitution unequivocally recognizes the right to free speech and a free press. There is no such recognition of the right to privacy -- and it is, pardon my saying so, un-American to advocate the squashing of free speech in favor of an imagined right to privacy.
Web publishers need to speak up about this and remind the EFF, ACLU, Public Citizen and other advocacy organizations that -- just like the movie, recording and print publishing industries -- our content is not free for the taking. The implied contract in most Web sites grants the reader access to the material in exchange for viewing the ads.
Those who don't like that should restrict themselves to looking at government sites.
Sorry... privacy is a big issue in the US (and most countries as well). Opt in is one thing. Collecting data without revelation is something else. Just correcting one comment. I'm in the privacy camp running all the goodies that ban everything except what I allow.
Heck, even my 76 year old mother knows the difference and runs Noscript, too! :)
|The U.S. Constitution unequivocally recognizes the right to free speech and a free press. There is no such recognition of the right to privacy -- and it is, pardon my saying so, un-American to advocate the squashing of free speech in favor of an imagined right to privacy. |
Not sure what free speech has to do with privacy.
As far as the US Constitution and privacy rights, the majority of US citizens would disagree, as do any number of legal scholars. The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law offers one good discussion of the issue. [law.umkc.edu]
|The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. |
The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.
| This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 (  2 ) > > |