Pro (Advertising) Choice

A couple of weeks ago, I came to a realization: I was becoming more and more reluctant to click on advertising banners because I feared I being digitally tailed for the next few months. When I mentioned this to friends, I noted that I was not alone. Everyone had their example of ads that, once clicked, become as sticky as the proverbial band aid. This could be the result of exploring a product (read my own experience testing an app), or occasional research on a subject… Your online behavior — queries you send, ads you click on — draws your marketing profile, enabling brands to deluge you with “targeted” ads. A shoe freak will be swamped by shoemakers ads, someone who intends to buy a car will be targeted by automakers and dealers. (I always wonder how the web page of someone afflicted with an embarrassing disease looked like…)

Once you’re caught in the behavioral targeting net, you’ll have a hard time cleaning up your surfing. I recently tested a utility for my computer — a poor quality product I quickly dumped — and ended up having to spend time removing the offending cookies with metaphorical tweezers. Now, I sacrifice a “polluted” browser (and a specific email account) which I use to click on ads, download products or marketing information, and do my best to keep my other browsers clean.

Why not flush the hundreds of cookies piled up inside my browsers, you might ask? Good question. In a file on my two computers, I keep almost 200 encrypted passwords, ranging from subscriptions to various publications, accounts to e-commerce sites or business online services. I don’t want to re-enter these codes each time I get rid of unwanted cookies. Hence the “dirty” browser.

The conclusion is obvious: behavioral advertising is backfiring. The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in order to avoid aggressive tracking. For advertisers, this is the exact opposite of what they meant to achieve. And I take the trend will accelerate. Marketers have more sense of efficiency than of measure; they were quick to embrace these clever technologies without considering they might end up killing the golden goose. It is happening much earlier than anyone has anticipated.

The debate around the Do Not Track (DNT) system epitomizes this trend. The idea originated at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC): it devised a piece of software embedded in a browser or an application, able to send a signal instructing a web site not to inject a tracking cookie in the user’s computer. After that, it is up to the website to comply or not. Mozilla quickly included the feature in its version 9.0 of Firefox, and Twitter followed.

Early june, Microsoft added fuel to the fire by announcing the DNT feature will be turned “on” as a default on its new Internet Explorer 10 browser set to work with Windows 8. This is by no means unimportant: the vast majority of users do not change default settings in their software. As a result, a sizable percentage of web surfers could end up automatically asking web sites to forgo any tracking. A potential catastrophe for the advertising industry: while most ads are purchases in bulk, at heavy discounts, the industry relies on behavioral targeting to increase the efficiency of ads — and of their resulting margins.

Intense lobbying on behalf the ad community ensued.

First, the definition issue, As viewed by the FTC :

An effective Do Not Track system should go beyond simply opting consumers out of receiving targeted advertisements; it should opt them out of collection of behavioral data for all purposes other than those that would be consistent with the context of the interaction.

Naturally, marketers are in favor of a much narrower definition, excluding the data collection process. In other words, OK for not targeting users, but their personal data must be ours.

In this story, Atlantic’s senior editor Alexis Madrigal makes the following point:

No one understands the industry’s definition because it deviates so far from the standard english definition of the word ‘track.’
Stanford’s Aleecia McDonald found that 61 percent of people expect that clicking a Do Not Track button should shut off *all* data collection. Only 7 percent of people expected that websites could collect the same data before and after clicking a ‘Do Not Track’ button. That is to say, 93 percent of people do not understand the industry’s definition of DNT.

Eventually, Microsoft had to backtrack under pressure from the Digital Advertising Alliance. The DAA is a one-year old body that defines itself as the “Self-regulatory program for online behavioral advertising”; it lines up all the major players in the business, including Google, Apple and Microsoft. The DAA fired a first shot by saying that the “on” default setting envisioned by Microsoft was going way beyond FTC’s definition as well as the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)’s DNT recommendation. The DAA suggested DNT activation ought to be left to users — for instance, when they launch their browser for the first time. As a consequence, Microsoft’s IE10 featuring a DNT set to “on” as a ‘‘factory default’’ would be seen as “non-compliant” and the no-tracking signal sent to websites could be legally ignored.

The battle is just starting. It is unclear if Microsoft will fight the non-compliance issue and what kind of compromise will be reached. (The DAA’s final position will be disclosed in a few months.) In the meantime, digital kremlinologists will keep dissecting Microsoft true motives. After all, according to eMarketer, this year, in the US alone, the Redmond giant will make $700 million in advertising revenue:

This chart also clearly shows what’s at stake here. With DNT-as-a-default, Microsoft is obviously aiming Google and Facebook — and their higher advertising income. Both rely heavily on data-collection to serve relevant ads. It is even a crucial part of Facebook’s business model (see this previous Monday Note: Facebook’s Bet on Privacy) based on people giving up personal data in exchange for its service. A bet increasingly at risk.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Be Sociable, Share!

Related columns:

  1. Advertising: The trust Factor TweetThe digital advertising equation is outlined in the Nielsen graph below. The Global Trust in Advertising survey released this month (summary on Nielsen site and PDF here) underlines one key finding: For the vast majority of digital users, trust lies first and foremost in recommendations and opinions from their peers. As for the bulk of [...]...
  2. Mobile Advertising:
    The $20B Opportunity Mirage
    TweetThere are a lot of questions left to be answered about Facebook’s IPO fiasco, but one thing we know is this: As consumers shift their use of Facebook from PCs to smartphones, investors worry about lower mobile advertising revenues. Is this a temporary situation that will be remedied when usage patterns settle, or do investors [...]...
  3. The lethal self-complacency of advertising TweetIs advertising the next casualty of the on-going digital tsunami’s? For now, advertising looks like the patient who developed an asymptomatic form of cancer without realizing how sick he is. Such behavior usually results from excessive confidence in one’s body past performance, mixed with a state of permanent denial and a deep sense of superiority, [...]...
  4. Advertising: real change must happen TweetThe brutal recession reveals how flawed the current Internet business model is. As advertising-only business models are falling apart, even the Google ecosphere is under stress. The search giant’s preservation of its margins at the expense of its media partners’ revenue stream could be shortsighted.  –First of two parts. Sorry to be blunt, but Internet [...]...
  5. Video will be the online advertising engine TweetLast week, Akamai quietly rerouted loads of its client’s traffic to deflect Wikileaks related attacks. The company, based in Cambridge (Massachusetts), had a surfeit of busy days fighting massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. These raids were directed at companies seen as too complacent with the US government (the so-called “Wikichickens”, as coined by [...]...

8 Comments

  1. Antoine
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 3:48 am | Permalink

    Thanks for this note Frederic.

    Conceptually, better targeting should lead to more useful (user perspective) and efficient (advertiser perspective) ads. This is even applicable to the DNT question: “conceptually”, the ad is targeted differently depending on whether the user wants tracking or not (why show you an ad that you find annoying). The problem you are mentioning is very much an execution problem (as well as a game of opinion manipulation by the large players).

    Regarding what is really at stake revenue-wise, it would be interesting to see the sensitivity of these players display ad sales to the ability to track user behavior. I would not be surprised if it were not significant. I would be more worried if I were a specialized retargeting player.

  2. Posted June 11, 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    There is a fundamental difference between how we, as readers, perceive and pay attention to online ads, to how we see / attend to them in print — and I’m not sure that it is being acknowledged. (And it’s not about placement on the screen.)

    Print ads cannot NOT be seen; they are part of the composed page and we acknowledge them both unconsciously and consciously. With the loss of print, advertisers lose the medium where ADS CANNOT BE TURNED OFF, which TV lost a long time ago. Digital ads are not recognized as part of the image we are focused on (the words/content) — they are seen as separate-from, and can therefore be ignored.

    When you are reading online, ads are a nuisance because they stop you from doing what you are doing — reading (retrieving information at your own pace) — and interrupt you to do a different activity — watching (receiving information at someone else’s pace).

    In the online world, Text battles Images because we (older generation only, maybe) don’t expect images on a screen to be passive, but animated, and so they require a different kind of attention, and we have to decide which kind of attention they require (passive/active), which takes time & is distracting & exhausting.

    Perhaps the secret to successful online ads is compelling text-rich ads — things to be glanced at & read at the readers choice — things that appear congruent with the content — and not interruptions, objects that require watching.

    Perhaps for online ads to be effective, they should be consistent in asking for the same kind of attention & engagement the consumer has already “turned on”.

    The event of a double-screen tablet (that opens like a magazine) would help in this, too. If we could approximate the old spread of a magazine, advertisers would gain much of the real estate they lost online, and readers would be able to absorb content + ads again.

  3. Marius Waldal
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Install LastPass and put your passwords in there instead. You can flush your cookies then, as LastPass will keep (and autofill, if you so choose) your passwords for you. It will even provide them between browsers.

  4. Mike van horn
    Posted June 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    We’re being overfished! Just visited the magnificent Monterrey Aquarium. Many exhibits on the impact of overfishing the open seas. A resource thought to be inexhaustible is rapidly diminishing.
    Our “eyeballs” are the new fish. Because the web advertisers show no sense of proportion, they risk making the resource they depend on an “endangered species.”

  5. Posted June 14, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    Great article and timely too. I’ve repeated considered an online subscription to the NYT newspaper. I pretty much abandoned all hope after I read the terms and conditions (in three separate documents: Terms of Sale, Terms of Service and Privacy Policy!). However, if I subscribe through iTunes instead, I believe I am offered the option of not providing personal information to the NYT. It’s all too restrictive for me and enabling for the NYT. Not happy at all since I’d like to support quality journalism.

  6. Sean M
    Posted June 14, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    A really interesting article. I suppose Microsoft is indeed trying to get at Google and Facebook, under the excuse of providing a much needed service for customers. In the end, it is a story we all know too well: people (advertisers, in this case) get greedy and the greed backfires. Not only the nuisance of seeing ads everywhere, but especially the feeling of uneasiness you get once you realize you are literally being followed around the web. I think they should blame themselves and nobody else. Still, there are still options left on the growing mobile and apps market, so I presume we will see a major shift in the next couple of years – until they will overdo and clog that market too, of course :)
    When it comes to privacy though, I think Mozilla still provides quite a few useful instruments to the more tech-savvy in order to avoid the big chunk of ads and cover at least some of the tracks. But of course we can’t expect everybody to spend hours researching for applications and pimping their browsers.

  7. Julian Robinson
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Tracking and consequential targeted adverts is ludicrous and short sighted because (and if only) it mostly has no way of knowing when and if you have satisfied the interest or desire it has interpreted. Example … I recently bought a new car. Since buying I am still being bombarded with car adverts which are completely irrelevant to me so ignored. This is not just annoying to me but is a complete loss of focus and revenue to the advertiser. It is touting to the person who is absolutely NOT going to buy a car and at the same time excluding most other ads that might actually be relevant to me. So lose, lose. lose. Loss to me because it’s annoying. Loss to the advertiser because their premium cost advert (targeted advert) is wasted entirely with less impact than a random untargeted advert, and loss in the end to the medium because people will realise both previous facts and stop advertising by that means.

  8. Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Sweet post, behavioral Targeting as a marketing discipline can be applied to any online property, product, or agency: first that the visitor’s experience is improved by it, and second that it benefits the online property through improved conversion and spending.

6 Trackbacks

  1. By Aktuelles 12. Juni 2012 on June 12, 2012 at 7:02 am

    [...] Pro (Advertising) Choice | Monday Note "The conclusion is obvious: behavioral advertising is backfiring. The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in order to avoid aggressive tracking. For advertisers, this is the exact opposite of what they meant to achieve. And I take the trend will accelerate. Marketers have more sense of efficiency than of measure; they were quick to embrace these clever technologies without considering they might end up killing the golden goose. It is happening much earlier than anyone has anticipated." [...]

  2. [...] Monday Note | John Battelle’s Searchblog Frédéric Filloux says users are becoming so irritated with the flood of targeted ads that they’re deliberately not clicking on them: The more experienced users become, the more cautious they get in [...]

  3. [...] challenges. I watched it in HD on my iPad, in exchange for my email address (the one I’m dedicating to marketers). It’s a huge, multimillion video production, with scores of the helicopters [...]

  4. [...] Frédéric Filloux – Monday Note [...]

  5. [...] users around the world? Let me explain you by sharing an example, read this post written by Frédéric Filloux (  General Manager, French ePresse consortium). A possible reason why he wrote this post could be, [...]

  6. By Advertising’s New Hope « brandpost's blog on October 8, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    [...] challenges. I watched it in HD on my iPad, in exchange for my email address (the one I’m dedicating to marketers). It’s a huge, multimillion-euro video production, with scores of the [...]