NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Database marketing / invasion of privacy
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Database marketing / invasion of privacy
Kenneth C. Jenks (mindseye_at_tale.com)
Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:58:28 -0500
Mark Dolley <mark_at_zapworks.com> asked:
>Are people likely to come to accept what they perceive as invasion of
>privacy, as ads are targeted according to strict profiling?
Yes, they do accept it -- if you guarantee their privacy by using an
anonymous profile. We require profiles from users who want to read our
sponsored content, and we've had a very good success rate when we don't tie
the profile to a name or e-mail address.
>Or will this be seen by users as the straw which breaks the camel's back,
>unleashing a wicked backlash against those who gather intimate details
>about our everyday lives, and against those who use that information?
I think you've noticed that this backlash is already occurring.
>And can we get close enough to the accuracy of profiling with buys on ad
>networks, choosing targeted sites who have established their user
>demographics?
It depends on how close is close enough. If you only want to show your ad
to married women over 35, and anybody else is a wasted exposure, then you
must advertise on sites which require profiles or you waste your
advertising dollars.
ROBFRANKEL_at_aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 10/20/97 9:33:52 AM, mark_at_zapworks.com wrote:
>>Are people likely to come to accept what they perceive as invasion of
>>privacy, as ads are targeted according to strict profiling?
>
>Bad question. No, people will not accept an invasion of privacy, but they
>WILL accept invasion of privacy if it is labelled as something else.
>Something like, "custom profile" will fake them into divulging their life
>stories.
Personally, I don't want to fool people into anything. I want to be honest
in every way to all of my customers. (I fear I disagree with almost
everything else Rob Frankel said, too.)
Adam Boettiger <ab_at_exposure-usa.com>
>At 03:26 AM 10/20/97 -0700, Mark Dolley wrote:
>>Are people likely to come to accept what they perceive as invasion of
>>privacy, as ads are targeted according to strict profiling?
>
>Only if they are given a reason to accept it or a perceived benefit from
>it. If I put myself in the shoes of someone who is viewing the ads instead
>of someone buying them, I wouldn't be interested at all in filling out
>information about my income or interests so that a particular banner can
>be served to me. After all, I don't surf the Web for the specific
>purpose of looking at advertisements so why should I take the time to
>make sure they are advertisements that I am interested in unless the
>advertiser makes it worth my while?
That's why sponsored content and sponsored service sites do give some value
to their customers. Take HotMail and Juno, for example. They require a
customer profile before giving away their services. They use this profile
to help advertisers target their users. The users get something else out of
the targeting deal: they don't have to look at ads which don't apply to
them. For example, tampon ads are totally wasted on me. With perfect
targeting, I'd never see them.
>I know that in most profiling surveys I fill out, I am
>a 98 year old woman making over $100,000 a year as a homemaker, so
>how accurrate are they?
Many people lie in profiles, but the sponsored content site can give
inducements to tell the truth. See <http://tale.com/profile/>
-- Ken Jenks, Editor-in-chief, Mind's Eye Fiction
http://tale.com/ Short stories on-line
MindsEye_at_tale.com
Advertisers wanted: Target your full-page ads by
age, sex, income and/or zip code. Better than banners!
