# data[].attributes.headline
Privacy Implications of Advertising Directed at Children

# data[].attributes.subject
Privacy Implications of Advertising Directed at Children

# data[].attributes.body
Children are increasingly consuming content through social media, mobile apps and games directed at children over a variety of digital devices. Media and advertising industries are creating new ways to track their behaviors and target them with personalized content and marketing messages based on individual profiles.

# data[].attributes.body
Initiative launched by the Digital Advertising Alliance which enables consumers to control advertisements they see online.

# data[].attributes.body
Do the benefits of personalized ad content outweigh the privacy concerns? How digital advertising provides for people's needs while also intruding on personal life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The battle for your privacy as a consumer is underway. That is if you consider it a battle.

At a fundamental level, we all need to be aware of the fact that everything we do online leaves a digital trail. Every website you visit, search you conduct, and link you click is associated with your IP address, social media accounts, or cell phone number.

This is inescapable. There are no digital erasers.

At the heart of the matter is what happens with this data. Advertisers see it as a window into consumer behavior. Should this window be open or shut?

Privacy for Sale

So what are ISPs and advertisers planning when they talk about selling and using your data? Here is a good review from the Washington Post:

This is a huge issue right now because the government just repealed the rules requiring ISPs to get your consent before they sell data about your browsing activities to advertisers.

For most people, that means that of this writing in March 2017, advertisers are following their online browsing history.

Comcast knows what you've been up to...and they're selling that info to Home Depot, Kelloggs, Nike, and Apple.

Pros and Cons

For everyone who read George Orwell's novel 1984 (back on the bestseller list in early 2017), these events seem ominous. There is something inherently disturbing about large telecommunication corporations tracking and using data from your internet usage.

After all, a great deal about your life can be gleaned from the websites you visit.

For example, I need to watch my blood pressure, so I sometimes research lifestyle changes that can help me keep it lower.

This means a pharmaceutical company or healthcare organization can get this information and start sending me personalized ads for products I might be interested in to improve my blood pressure.

On the one hand, they are peeking into my personal life without my permission. I don't like it.

On the other hand, if advertisements are going to be there anyway, is it such a bad thing that they connect to my actual needs and interests? What would I rather see, an ad for salt-free seasonings or one for a trip to Las Vegas I'm not planning to take?

As some of the ISP representatives and politicians in favor of these repeals argue, the intent behind these moves is not all nefarious. We live in a consumer-driven society, which advertising and marketing are part of.

Also, it's a misconception that all the news, social media, and gaming we consume online is free.

Facebook is not free, nor is Google - even though they don't charge your credit card. There is a transaction involved for use of these services. You surf and share what you want, and in exchange the platforms record it.

Somebody has to pay for all that content. Your privacy is part of that collection.

The New Privacy Paradigm

A lot of people didn't like the way President Trump and the Republicans "slipped" these changes through the back window.

But you know why they did it that way. There is something inherently spooky about the idea you're being spied on. You don't really want Google to know where you are. It encroaches on your sense of freedom.

But say you're about to walk into Texas Roadhouse to eat and suddenly a buy one beer get one free coupon pops up on your phone. Are you going to be that disturbed? This is free beer we're talking about here.

One way or the other, consumers must come to terms with the fact that the concept of "privacy" will change. You can't just disappear and be anonymous; you connect to the internet.

Like walking through fresh snow, you'll leave a track. You have to consider this as a consumer and citizen.

The Commercial Break

For years, most of us lamented the commercial break interrupting our sit-com or ball game. Fake happy people appearing before us, trying to sell us cars, soda, and vacation deals - when you can't afford a car, don't drink soda, and are a year away from your next vacation.

Advertising based on internet and shopping histories will know when you're shopping for a car or planning a vacation. They'll know you drink beer instead of soda. And they'll advertise based on that knowledge.

This battle will go on for a while. We'll debate the pros and cons. In the end, technology will come around to people's needs, providing privacy when we need it, and opening the window when we prefer it.

But it will always be the case that internet access is a glass window. You can see through it from either side.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet Privacy Debate - A View From Both Sides of the Window - Marketing 360®

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The battle for your privacy as a consumer is underway. That is if you consider it a battle. At a fundamental level, we all need to be aware of the fact that everything we do online leaves a digital trail.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the industry will Change if Privacy Efforts Increase

# data[].attributes.subject
How the industry will Change if Privacy Efforts Increase

# data[].attributes.body
Digital advertising change will be driven by regulation on privacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Podcast | After Privacy Meltdowns, Can Digital Advertising Avoid Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the latest episode of eMarketer's "Behind the Numbers," Principal Analyst Lauren Fisher examines the effect of the data privacy debates on the digital ad business. How much change will be driven by regulation, and what changes will marketers impose on themselves?

# data[].attributes.headline
People Are Worried about Privacy on the Internet

# data[].attributes.subject
People Are Worried about Privacy on the Internet

# data[].attributes.body
Through surveys, Americans strongly agree that people have lost control over how much information is taken and used by multiple entities on the internet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amid public concerns over Cambridge Analytica's use of Facebook data and a subsequent movement to encourage users to abandon Facebook, there is a renewed focus on how social media companies collect personal information and make it available to marketers.

Pew Research Center has studied the spread and impact of social media since 2005, when just 5% of American adults used the platforms. The trends tracked by our data tell a complex story that is full of conflicting pressures. On one hand, the rapid growth of the platforms is testimony to their appeal to online Americans. On the other, this widespread use has been accompanied by rising user concerns about privacy and social media firms' capacity to protect their data.

All this adds up to a mixed picture about how Americans feel about social media. Here are some of the dynamics.
People like and use social media for several reasons
About seven-in-ten American adults (69%) now report they use some kind of social media platform (not including YouTube) - a nearly fourteenfold increase since Pew Research Center first started asking about the phenomenon. The growth has come across all demographic groups and includes 37% of those ages 65 and older.

The Center's polls have found over the years that people use social media for important social interactions like staying in touch with friends and family and reconnecting with old acquaintances. Teenagers are especially likely to report that social media are important to their friendships and, at times, their romantic relationships.

Beyond that, we have documented how social media play a role in the way people participate in civic and political activities, launch and sustain protests, get and share health information, gather scientific information, engage in family matters, perform job-related activities and get news. Indeed, social media is now just as common a pathway to news for people as going directly to a news organization website or app.

Our research has not established a causal relationship between people's use of social media and their well-being. But in a 2011 report, we noted modest associations between people's social media use and higher levels of trust, larger numbers of close friends, greater amounts of social support and higher levels of civic participation.
People worry about privacy and the use of their personal information
While there is evidence that social media works in some important ways for people, Pew Research Center studies have shown that people are anxious about all the personal information that is collected and shared and the security of their data.

Overall, a 2014 survey found that 91% of Americans "agree" or "strongly agree" that people have lost control over how personal information is collected and used by all kinds of entities. Some 80% of social media users said they were concerned about advertisers and businesses accessing the data they share on social media platforms, and 64% said the government should do more to regulate advertisers.

Another survey last year found that just 9% of social media users were "very confident" that social media companies would protect their data. About half of users were not at all or not too confident their data were in safe hands.

Moreover, people struggle to understand the nature and scope of the data collected about them. Just 9% believe they have "a lot of control" over the information that is collected about them, even as the vast majority (74%) say it is very important to them to be in control of who can get information about them.

Six-in-ten Americans (61%) have said they would like to do more to protect their privacy. Additionally, two-thirds have said current laws are not good enough in protecting people's privacy, and 64% support more regulation of advertisers.

Some privacy advocates hope that the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect on May 25, will give users - even Americans - greater protections about what data tech firms can collect, how the data can be used, and how consumers can be given more opportunities to see what is happening with their information.
People's issues with the social media experience go beyond privacy
In addition to the concerns about privacy and social media platforms uncovered in our surveys, related research shows that just 5% of social media users trust the information that comes to them via the platforms "a lot."

Moreover, social media users can be turned off by what happens on social media. For instance, social media sites are frequently cited as places where people are harassed. Near the end of the 2016 election campaign, 37% of social media users said they were worn out by the political content they encountered, and large shares said social media interactions with those opposed to their views were stressful and frustrating. Large shares also said that social media interactions related to politics were less respectful, less conclusive, less civil and less informative than offline interactions.

A considerable number of social media users said they simply ignored political arguments when they broke out in their feeds. Others went steps further by blocking or unfriending those who offended or bugged them.
Why do people leave or stay on social media platforms?
The paradox is that people use social media platforms even as they express great concern about the privacy implications of doing so - and the social woes they encounter. The Center's most recent survey about social media found that 59% of users said it would not be difficult to give up these sites, yet the share saying these sites would be hard to give up grew 12 percentage points from early 2014.

Some of the answers about why people stay on social media could tie to our findings about how people adjust their behavior on the sites and online, depending on personal and political circumstances. For instance, in a 2012 report we found that 61% of Facebook users said they had taken a break from using the platform. Among the reasons people cited were that they were too busy to use the platform, they lost interest, they thought it was a waste of time and that it was filled with too much drama, gossip or conflict.

In other words, participation on the sites for many people is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

People pursue strategies to try to avoid problems on social media and the internet overall. Fully 86% of internet users said in 2012 they had taken steps to try to be anonymous online. "Hiding from advertisers" was relatively high on the list of those they wanted to avoid.

Many social media users fine-tune their behavior to try to make things less challenging or unsettling on the sites, including changing their privacy settings and restricting access to their profiles. Still, 48% of social media users reported in a 2012 survey they have difficulty managing their privacy controls.

After National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden disclosed details about government surveillance programs starting in 2013, 30% of adults said they took steps to hide or shield their information and 22% reported they had changed their online behavior in order to minimize detection.

One other argument that some experts make in Pew Research Center canvassings about the future is that people often find it hard to disconnect because so much of modern life takes place on social media. These experts believe that unplugging is hard because social media and other technology affordances make life convenient and because the platforms offer a very efficient, compelling way for users to stay connected to the people and organizations that matter to them.

Note: See topline results for overall social media user data

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Americans' complicated feelings about social media in an era of privacy concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The trends in Americans' views of social media tell a complex story. Read about the dynamics of Americans' feelings toward social media.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was too opinionated that you should stop companies from retrieving any data at all costs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The internet has shaken up so many parts of our lives, from media and manufacturing to mattresses, makeup, and making out. It's weaponized our narratives, created heroes and villains, brought us closer together, and, in some cases, driven us further apart. It's also created a lot of collateral damage, especially when it comes to privacy.

Over the last decade, we've watched a major battle play out. On the one side, privacy activists view freedom from surveillance as an inalienable right, essential to the healthy functioning of modern society. On the other side, people insist that, for our own good, governments and corporations should be allowed to track and monitor our most private information.

That battle has been won by the companies and the surveillance state. The Snowdens and Mannings and Winners and thousands of unsung heroes put up a great fight, but in the end, Goliath prevailed. Our secrets used to be our own. Now they're owned by the platforms and the databases where we store them, and those are easy to penetrate. If telecom firms have it-and they do-the government now has the ability to get it. As Alan Davidson, the former chief lobbyist for Google, once put it, "If you keep it, they will come."

We gave up our privacy, but we also allowed law enforcement officials to solve more crimes and disrupt terrorism.

Most of us have been willing collaborators in this privacy invasion. We confess our mental-health problems on Facebook, tell advertisers how many kids we have, and happily allow weather and traffic apps to know where we are at all times. That's not totally unreasonable. Sure, we've given tech companies unlimited access to our data, allowing them to sell those insights and earn money from adverts, but in return we've received wonderful services such as email, intercontinental video calls, social media, and better weather predictions. We gave up our privacy, but we also allowed law enforcement officials to solve more crimes and disrupt terrorism, exposed more political corruption, fueled social movements, and helped topple totalitarian regimes.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, right? As Henry Drummond says in Inherit the Wind, the classic 1960 courtroom drama about the Scopes Monkey Trial:

Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, "Alright, you can have a telephone, but you lose privacy and the charm of distance...Mister, you may conquer the air, but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline."

So, is privacy the price we need to pay for progress?

Not so fast. We don't have to accept its loss. We can still actively protect it.

The language of political philosophers and international lawyers can be useful here. They talk about two kinds of freedoms. The first are positive freedoms-the perform an action, access a resource, or control and direct one's own life. For conservatives, these include things like the right to bear arms and the right to assemble and speak freely; for progressives, they include the right to safe reproductive care, the right of sanctuary for refugees, the right to receive equal pay, and the right to unionize. The second are negative freedoms- freedom from external interference that causes you harm. These include the right to live free from socioeconomic insecurity, the threat of environmental disaster, or the hazard of preventable injury and disease.

Most of the interesting stuff in politics happens when either one or both kinds of freedoms are lacking, or are at odds with each other. There's a great moment in The Handmaid's Tale, for example, where Aunt Lydia says to Offred, "There is more than one kind of freedom. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don't underrate it." Over the course of the novel, the truth is revealed to be the exact opposite: It turns out there's no point in having freedom from harm if you don't have the freedom to make your own choices.

If we want access to digital tools that allow us to remain incognito, then we have to understand that the same tools can be used by criminals, terrorists, and shady politicians.

Right now we still have the freedom to make our own choices when it comes to our digital lives. However, that kind of freedom-the freedom to actively protect our privacy-comes at a cost. If we want access to digital tools that allow us to remain incognito, then we have to understand that the same tools can be used by criminals, terrorists, and shady politicians. If we think that diversity and freedom are valuable parts of human existence in a global, hyper-digital, 21st-century society, then we have to give up a little bit of security.

This is where the next big privacy battle is going to be fought: over the right to use digital tools and services that hide us from prying eyes and obnoxious advertising, without fear of prosecution. We shouldn't have to give up our data unless we choose to. And if we do decide to give it up, it should be an active choice that we make. We should make it in the full knowledge that for minorities fighting persecution at home and abroad, activists on the frontlines of environmental and social battles, and for democracy campaigners in authoritarian regimes, the right to privacy isn't a choice: It's life and death.

So if you think this is a fight worth having, I invite you to get serious about your privacy right now. Take control of your digital hygiene in the same way that you would take control over your health, your savings, or your right to vote.

Protect yourself from advertisers

You wouldn't allow advertisers to put up posters in your home, so why let them pollute your online experience? Adblockers keep ads from appearing when you're online, and they're great. The best is Adblock Plus.

Stop advertisers from tracking you

Ghostery is a browser extension that will scan a website as it loads and show you all the the tracking cookies that load with that site. It also gives you the option to turn them off, and prohibit them from following you across the internet.

Change your settings on Facebook

This link will take you to the ads preferences page on Facebook. It will show you what brands Facebook thinks you like, what advertisers you've interacted with, and the categories Facebook uses to advertise to you. You can delete all that information. Facebook may still have it all, but it will no longer allow advertisers to use that info to advertise to you.

Download and install a VPN

A virtual private network (VPN) allows you to browse the internet without anyone tracking your IP address. Decent ones aren't free, but they're well worth the investment, and you can use them across multiple devices such as your phone or other computers. My favorite is IPVanish, which costs about $60 a year, and you can put it on up to five devices. If you're a little daunted and want something super easy, then try TunnelBear, which is more user friendly.

Check to see whether your privacy has been compromised

There's a great free online service called have i been pwned? that allows you to enter your email address and see whether any accounts have been hacked. It also allows you to set up a notification in case other accounts are ever compromised. If you have been hacked, change your password on that website and then...

Start using encrypted email

I recommend ProtonMail, an open-source service developed by CERN and MIT scientists and protected by Swiss privacy law. Obviously you're not going to be able to switch all your email over to a new account overnight-but it's worth making a start. One good way of doing this is to set up a new address and start using it with your family, partner, or a small group of friends, and then go from there.

Protect your messaging

At a minimum, you should already be using Whatsapp for all your texting. And if you want to get serious about messaging privacy, use Edward Snowden's preferred service, Signal. Same idea-start using it with a small circle of friends and then expand outward.

Install a password manager

If you're not already, you should be using a password manager, which is a service that generates random passwords for each of your online services and keeps them all in one place. They're pretty user friendly; your best bet is 1Pass, which will do all the work for you. Yes you have to pay, but the peace of mind you get is well worth it.

Make sure you're using 2 Factor Authentication (2FA)

If you really want to be secure, you need to enable 2FA on any site that allows it. This adds another step to the login process for popular services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and it's the best way of ensuring security. At bare minimum, enable it for all your Google services. It's easy to do, and here's a simple guide to using the best one, Google Authenticator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy shouldn't be the price of progress. Here's how to keep your data safe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The internet has shaken up so many parts of our lives, from media and manufacturing to mattresses, makeup, and making out. It's weaponized our narratives, created heroes and villains, brought us closer together, and, in some cases, driven us further apart. It's also created a lot of collateral damage, especially when it comes to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was rather short and not enough detailed information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: RawPixel/Shutterstock

Rather than helping to bring customers in, personalized online ads could be scaring them off, new research finds.

A study recently published in the International Journal of Advertising revealed that, instead of focusing on the benefits of receiving personalized ads while surfing the internet, many consumers are more worried about the risks to their privacy that these targeted ads bring.

"The perception of risk is much stronger than the perception of benefit," said Chang-Dae Ham, the study's authors and a professor at the University of Illinois, in a statement. "That drives them to perceive more privacy concern, and finally to avoid the advertising."

For the study, Ham surveyed 442 college students on how they coped with online behavioral advertising. The survey was designed to investigate the interaction of various psychological factors behind how people respond to online ads and why they might avoid them. [What types of online ads are successful? The kinds that tell a story]

In addition, Ham examined not only interactions related to risk, benefit and privacy, but also sense of control, reaction against perceived restrictions on freedom and the perceived personalization of the ads.

"The response to [online behavior advertising] is very complicated," Ham said. "The ad avoidance is not explained just by one or two factors; I'm arguing here that five or six factors are influencing together."

Ham believes consumers' privacy concerns could be even stronger than what was uncovered in the study because college-age individuals, like those surveyed for the research, are generally less concerned about privacy than those in older age groups.

The study also examined how the level of knowledge among participants impacted their reactions to personalized online ads. Ham found that those with greater perceived knowledge were likely to see greater benefits but also greater risk, while those with little perceived understanding were more likely to avoid the ads because of privacy concerns.

Ham believes this shows that advertisers would benefit from providing consumers with more understanding of how online behavior advertising work.

"They feel a higher fear level than required, so they just block everything," Ham said. "[Advertisers] need to educate consumers, they need to clearly disclose how they track consumers' behavior and how they deliver more-relevant ad messages to them."

Ham believes giving consumers greater control over the online behavior advertising process is important because it might leave them more open to receiving some personalized online advertising, as opposed to installing ad blocker tools that block them all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Invasion of Privacy: What Consumers Think of Personalized Online Ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study finds that many consumers are worried about the risks to their privacy that personalized online ads pose.

# data[].attributes.body
Not enough insightful information of facts on the topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image credit: Andrew Brookes | Getty Images

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

When it comes to our collective sense of internet privacy, 2018 is definitely the year of awareness. It's funny that it took Facebook's unholy partnership with a little-known data-mining consulting firm named Cambridge Analytica to raise the alarm. After all, there were already abundant examples of how our information was being used by unidentified forces on the web. It really took nothing more than writing the words "Cabo San Lucas" as part of a throwaway line in some personal email to a friend to initiate a slew of Cabo resort ads and Sammy Hagar's face plastering the perimeters of our social media feeds.

In 2018, it's never been more clear that when we embrace technological developments, all of which make our lives easier, we are truly taking hold of a double-edged sword. But has our awakening come a little too late? As a society, are we already so hooked on the conveniences internet-enabled technologies provide us that we're hard-pressed making the claim that we want the control of our personal data back?
Related: 3 Social Media Data Lessons in the Wake of Cambridge Analytica
It's an interesting question. Our digital marketing firm recently conducted a survey to better understand how people feel about internet privacy issues and the new movement to re-establish control over what app providers and social networks do with our personal information.

Given the current media environment and scary headlines regarding online security breaches, the poll results, at least on the surface, were fairly predictable. According to our study, web users overwhelmingly object to how our information is being shared with and used by third-party vendors. No surprise here, a whopping 90 percent of those polled were very concerned about internet privacy. In a classic example of "Oh, how the mighty have fallen," Facebook and Google have suddenly landed in the ranks of the companies we trust the least, with only 3 percent and 4 percent of us, respectively, claiming to have any faith in how they handled our information.

Despite consumers' apparent concern about online security, the survey results also revealed participants do very little to safeguard their information online, especially if doing so comes at the cost of convenience and time. In fact, 60 percent of them download apps without reading terms and conditions and close to one in five (17 percent) report that they'll keep an app they like, even if it does breach their privacy by tracking their whereabouts.
Related: Tougher Data Privacy Rules Are a Scammer's Nightmare, but Ethical Marketers Can Stay Calm
While the survey reveals only 18 percent say they are "very confident" when it comes to trusting retails sites with their personal information, the sector is still on track to exceed a $410 billion ecommerce spend this year. This, despite more than half (54 percent) reporting they feel less secure purchasing from online retailers after reading about online breach after online breach.

What's become apparent from our survey is that while people are clearly dissatisfied with the state of internet privacy, they feel uninspired or simply ill-equipped to do anything about it. It appears many are hooked on the conveniences online living affords them and resigned to the loss of privacy if that's what it costs to play.

The findings are not unique to our survey. In a recent Harvard Business School study, people who were told the ads appearing in their social media timelines had been selected specifically based on their internet search histories showed far less engagement with the ads, compared to a control group who didn't know how they'd been targeted. The study revealed that the actual act of company transparency, coming clean about the marketing tactics employed, dissuaded user response in the end.

As is the case with innocent schoolchildren, the world is a far better place when we believe there is an omniscient Santa Claus who magically knows our secret desires, instead of it being a crafty gift exchange rigged by the parents who clearly know the contents of our wish list. We say we want safeguards and privacy. We say we want transparency. But when it comes to a World Wide Web, where all the cookies have been deleted and our social media timeline knows nothing about us, the user experience becomes less fluid.
Related: Apple Will Let All Users Download Their Collected Personal Data
The irony is, almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those polled in our survey don't believe that companies having access to our personal information leads to a better, more personalized, online experience at all, which is the chief reason companies like Facebook state for wanting our personal information in the first place. And yet, when an app we've installed doesn't let us tag our location to a post or inform us when a friend has tagged us in a photo or alerted us that the widget we were searching for is on sale this week, we feel slighted by our brave new world.

With the introduction of GDPR regulations this summer, the European Union has taken, collectively, the important first steps toward regaining some of the online privacy that we, as individuals, have been unable to take. GDPR casts the first stone at the Goliath that's had free rein leveraging our personal information against us. By doling out harsh penalties and fines for those who abuse our private stats -- or at least those who aren't abundantly transparent as to how they intend to use those stats -- the EU, and by extension, those countries conducting online business with them, has finally initiated a movement to curtail the hitherto laissez-faire practices of commercial internet enterprises. For this cyberspace Wild West, there's finally a new sheriff in town.

I imagine that our survey takers applaud this action, although only about 25 percent were even aware of GDPR. At least on paper, the legislation has given us back some control over the privacy rights we've been letting slip away since we first signed up for a MySpace account. Will this new regulation affect our user experience on the internet? More than half of our respondents don't think so, and perhaps, for now, we are on the way toward a balancing point between the information that makes us easier to market to and the information that's been being used for any purpose under the sun. It's time to leverage this important first step, and stay vigilant of its effectiveness with a goal of gaining back even more privacy while online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Internet Users Worry About Online Privacy but Feel Powerless to Do Much About It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. When it comes to our collective sense of internet privacy, 2018 is definitely the year of awareness. It's funny that it took Facebook's unholy partnership with a little-known data-mining consulting firm named Cambridge Analytica to raise the alarm.

# data[].attributes.body
This article contains outdated information from 2013.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contrary to popular belief, companies don't want to bombard consumers with loud, obnoxious ads. Such abrasive advertisements tend to push consumers away. That's why, in most instances, companies strive to create online ad content that aligns with a consumer's personal interests, with the goal of inspiring "clicks" and ad engagement.

Many companies create this type of engaging advertising content through the use of online behavioral advertising (OBA). OBA is advertising that's targeted to consumers based on their perceived interests as reflected by their Internet browsing activity, either on the site on where the ads appear (first-party OBA) or on unaffiliated sites (third-party OBA).

OBA has been the focus of considerable attention in the public policy arena. The ad industry's Digital Advertising Alliance has developed a program for disclosing third-party OBA-generated ads and giving consumers the opportunity to opt out of them. The FTC has generally approved first-party OBA, but has urged careful regulation or industry self-regulation of third-party OBA. Congress and the White House have each looked carefully at OBA in connection with proposed consumer data privacy laws and regulations.

OBA also has been the subject of several high profile studies that have claimed consumers don't like or want targeted advertising. But both of those studies suffered from deficiencies, including using respondents with little to no online experience and front-loading the surveys with questions that inspire suspicion about Internet tracking technologies.

To get a more accurate view of consumer attitudes toward online behavioral advertising, two researchers at the University of Missouri, Heather Shoenberger, a lawyer and Ph.D. student, and Esther Thorson, associate dean for graduate studies and research at the Missouri School of Journalism, and research director at the University's Reynolds Journalism Institute, conducted a new study, which presented respondents with real-life situations.

I consulted with Heather and Esther as they planned, carried out, and analyzed the study. And I co-wrote with them our first published report of the study, "Consumer Attitudes Toward Relevant Online Behavioral Advertising: Crucial Evidence in the Data Privacy Debates," which appears in the August 2013 issue of the Media Law Resource Bulletin.

I encourage you to read the full report, but here's our key finding: Across of a number of real-life scenarios, our survey-takers preferred advertising that was targeted to their interests to advertising that was irrelevant to them. The fact that a group of young adult Internet users would clearly prefer "tailored" advertising to "non-tailored" messages contradicts the assertion that consumers "reject tailored advertising." In fact, they prefer relevant to irrelevant advertising.

Our findings, while not conclusive, suggest that despite previous headlines in the media, consumers do prefer targeted advertising over being served random ads. As policy makers and consumer advocates begin to make decisions about potential regulation for advertisers, a fair privacy debate should focus on the balance between the benefits and detriments of information collection, not on the unlikely contention, as yet unverified by credible evidence, that those benefits do not exist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ads made for me: How do consumers really feel about targeted online ads?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Contrary to popular belief, companies don't want to bombard consumers with loud, obnoxious ads (save for, perhaps, the remarkably noisy front page of the Baltimore Sun's website leading up to Labor Day.) Such abrasive advertisements tend to push consumers away.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was more focused on politics than internet privacy and digital advertising.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On the wall above the couch in Tim Cook's office at Apple are three black-and-white portraits: Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson. They were part of the subversive ad campaign Apple devised at a low point in 1997 to set itself apart from the competition. The slogan was "Think Different"--which is exactly what Cook is now asking us to do. Having conquered the world with his devices, he is now clashing with the U.S. government over privacy, security and the balance of public and private interests.

TIME senior writer Lev Grossman and I went to see Cook in Cupertino, Calif., as Apple faces an immense test: commercial, legal, political, even moral. How can the company refuse to help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists? Does one company really have the right to defy two centuries of American jurisprudence about proper searches and the reach of the law? And what would this mean for the rest of us?

Lev's story explores how Cook sees the stakes of this case and the role he aims to play. Cook's dilemma is shared by other leaders of the new-media world, which is one reason executives from Facebook, Google, Snapchat, LinkedIn and many others have fallen in line to support him. The press barons of the 20th century--Luce, Paley, Chandler, the Sulzbergers, the Grahams--built empires that made vast fortunes but acknowledged a public trust: a free press is essential to a healthy democracy, so editors and publishers weighed their commercial interests with their civic responsibilities. They debated standards of decency and considered whether to withhold information if national security were at stake. They went to court to protect confidential sources--or to publish the Pentagon Papers.

Technology, here as in all things, accelerates and complicates. What are Apple's obligations, or Facebook's, or Twitter's--21st century companies that have built immense platforms, global networks, powerful tools, leveraging immeasurable good but also lubricating criminal networks around the world? This is not just an American question. These are global companies with billions of dollars on the line and a leasehold on territory where there are no maps. In Europe, governments are fighting Google for individuals' right to be "forgotten," to erase their digital footprints. The revelations from Edward Snowden about the extent of U.S. surveillance were even more explosive abroad than at home.

So where should the issues be examined, the competing values weighed? In classrooms, courtrooms, congressional hearings? The stakes keep growing along with the amount of data we all collect and carry with us. We may voluntarily relinquish our privacy when we post a picture of dessert or compare our running times. But giving the government access to that information is something else--and this is exactly the kind of topic that should be addressed in a campaign year. It would be good to hear the candidates explore this intimate, intricate, evolving terrain, though perhaps not with the blunt force favored by Donald Trump, who has called for a blanket boycott of Apple. How much value do candidates place on personal privacy if it competes with the needs of law enforcement?

Sooner or later, these questions will need to be put before the American people, which is one reason that the FBI has made this fight so ferocious and so public. As Lev says, "There's no easy answer: there are some technologies, like encryption, which simply cannot be controlled with legislation. We may have to concede some battles, like the San Bernardino phone, and grant privacy to people who don't deserve it, in order to win the larger war for our information and for our safety."

Nancy Gibbs, EDITOR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the wall above the couch in Tim Cook's office at Apple are three black-and-white portraits: Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and Jackie Robinson. They were part of the subversive ad campaign Apple devised at a low point in 1997 to set itself apart from the competition.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from 2010 and talks about past concerns that are now reality, so not valuable information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you surf the web, congratulations! You are part of the information economy. Data gleaned from your communications and transactions grease the gears of modern commerce. Not everyone is celebrating, of course. Many people are concerned and dismayed - even shocked - when they learn that "their" data are fuel for the World Wide Web.

Who is gathering the information? What are they doing with it? How might this harm me? How do I stop it?

These are all good questions. But rather than indulging the natural reaction to say "stop," people should get smart and learn how to control personal information. There are plenty of options and tools people can use to protect privacy - and a certain obligation to use them. Data about you are not "yours" if you don't do anything to control them. Meanwhile, learning about the information economy can make clear its many benefits.

Cookies and other tracking technologies will create legitimate concerns that weigh against the benefits they provide.

It's natural to be concerned about online privacy. The Internet is an interactive medium, not a static one like television. Every visit to a website sends information out before it pulls information in. And the information Web surfers send out can be revealing.

Most websites track users, particularly through the use of cookies, little text files placed on Web surfers' computers. Sites use cookies to customize a visitor's experience. And advertising networks use cookies to gather information about users.

A network that has ads on a lot of sites will recognize a browser (and by inference the person using it) when it goes to different websites, enabling the ad network to get a sense of that person's interests. Been on a site dealing with SUVs? You just might see an SUV ad as you continue to surf.

Most websites and ad networks do not "sell" information about their users. In targeted online advertising, the business model is to sell space to advertisers - giving them access to people ("eyeballs") based on their demographics and interests. If an ad network sold personal and contact info, it would undercut its advertising business and its own profitability.

Some people don't like this tracking, for a variety of reasons. For some, it feels like a violation to be treated as a mere object of commerce. Some worry that data about their interests will be used to discriminate wrongly against them, or to exclude them from information and opportunities they should enjoy. Excess customization of the Web experience may stratify society, some believe. If you are poor or from a minority group, for example, the news, entertainment and commentary you see on the Web might differ from others', preventing your participation in the "national" conversation and culture that traditional media may produce. And tied to real identities, Web surfing data could fall into the hands of government and be used wrongly. These are all legitimate concerns that people with different worldviews prioritize to differing degrees.

"Surreptitious" use of cookies is one of the weaker complaints. Cookies have been integral to Web browsing since the beginning, and their privacy consequences have been a subject of public discussion for over a decade. Cookies are a surreptitious threat to privacy the way smoking is a surreptitious threat to health. If you don't know about it, you haven't been paying attention.

But before going into your browser settings and canceling cookies, Web users should ask another question about information sharing in the online world. What am I getting in return?

The reason why a company like Google can spend millions and millions of dollars on free services like its search engine, Gmail, mapping tools, Google Groups and more is because of online advertising that trades in personal information.

And it's not just Google. Facebook, Yahoo, MSN and thousands of blogs, news sites, and comment boards use advertising to support what they do. And personalized advertising is more valuable than advertising aimed at just anyone. Marketers will pay more to reach you if you are likely to use their products or services. (Perhaps online tracking makes everyone special!)

If Web users supply less information to the Web, the Web will supply less information to them. Free content won't go away if consumers decline to allow personalization, but there will be less of it. Bloggers and operators of small websites will have a little less reason to produce the stuff that makes our Internet an endlessly fascinating place to visit. As an operator of a small government-transparency web site, WashingtonWatch.com, I add new features for my visitors when there is enough money to do it. More money spent on advertising means more tools for American citizens to use across the web.

Ten years ago - during an earlier round of cookie concern - the Federal Trade Commission asked Congress for power to regulate the Internet for privacy's sake. If the FTC had gotten authority to impose regulations requiring "notice, choice, access, and security" from websites - all good practices, in varying measure - it is doubtful that Google would have had the same success it has had over the past decade. It might be a decent, struggling search engine today. But, unable to generate the kind of income it does, the quality of search it produces might be lower, and it may not have had the assets to produce and support all its fascinating and useful products. The rise of Google and all the access it provides was not fated from the beginning. It depended on a particular set of circumstances in which it had access to consumer information and the freedom to use it in ways that some find privacy-dubious.

Some legislators, privacy advocates and technologists want very badly to protect consumers, but much "consumer protection" actually invites consumers to abandon personal responsibility. The caveat emptor rule requires people to stay on their toes, learn about the products they use, and hold businesses' feet to the fire. People rise or fall to meet expectations, and consumer advocates who assume incompetence on the part of the public may have a hand in producing it, making consumers worse off.

If a central authority such as Congress or the FTC were to decide for consumers how to deal with cookies, it would generalize wrongly about many, if not most, individuals' interests, giving them the wrong mix of privacy and interactivity. If the FTC ruled that third-party cookies required consumers to opt in, for example, most would not, and the wealth of "free" content and services most people take for granted would quietly fade from view. And it would leave consumers unprotected from threats beyond their jurisdiction (as in Web tracking by sites outside the United States). Education is the hard way, and it is the only way, to get consumers' privacy interests balanced with their other interests.

But perhaps this is a government vs. corporate passion play, with government as the privacy defender. The Journal reported last week that engineers working on a new version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser thought they might set certain defaults to protect privacy better, but they were overruled when the business segments at Microsoft learned of the plan.

Privacy "sabotage," the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it. And a Wired news story says Microsoft "crippled" online privacy protections.

But if the engineers' plan had won the day, an equal, opposite reaction would have resulted when Microsoft "sabotaged" Web interactivity and the advertising business model, "crippling" consumer access to free content.

The new version of Microsoft's browser maintained the status quo in cookie functionality, as does Google's Chrome browser and Firefox, a product of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. The "business attacks privacy" story doesn't wash.

This is not to say that businesses don't want personal information - they do, so they can provide maximal service to their customers. But they are struggling to figure out how to serve all dimensions of consumer interest, including the internally inconsistent consumer demand for privacy along with free content, custom Web experiences, convenience and so on.

Only one thing is certain here: Nobody knows how this is supposed to come out. Cookies and other tracking technologies will create legitimate concerns that weigh against the benefits they provide. Browser defaults may converge on something more privacy-protective. (Apple's Safari browser rejects third-party cookies unless users tell it to do otherwise.) Browser plug-ins will augment consumers' power to control cookies and other tracking technologies. Consumers will get better accustomed to the information economy, and they will choose more articulately how they fit into it. What matters is that the conversation should continue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you surf the web, congratulations! You are part of the information economy. Data gleaned from your communications and transactions grease the gears of modern commerce. Not everyone is celebrating, of course. Many people are concerned and dismayed - even shocked - when they learn that "their" data are fuel for the World Wide Web.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was short and mainly focused on brining awareness to the sites program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Digital advertising and privacy are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to strike the right balance between the two.

The tension between privacy and digital advertising

Privacy is no longer an issue confined to privacy experts and the tech community, it is now a topic of fierce debate in much wider, informal contexts, from university common rooms to dinner party conversations. European citizens are concerned about the potential misuse of personal data online and these concerns have now made their way firmly to the centre-stage of high-level political debates. Policymakers are now grappling with creating policies to foster the development and application of digital technologies, whilst ensuring privacy rights of European citizens are adequately respected. Clare Bury, Deputy Director General of DG CNECT, explained at a recent FEDMA (Federation of European Direct and Interactive Marketing) event on ' Combining Modern Marketing & Privacy ' that the intention of the Commission, in proposing new ePrivacy rules is exactly to strike this balance between privacy and access to data.

Funding online services

The crux of the issue is that the digital ad industry relies heavily on data-driven technology, to deliver advertising matched to the interests and preferences of internet users (otherwise known as online behavioural advertising (OBA)) and as such lies at the intersection of privacy concerns and digital technology. But here is where the balance also lies: because consumers do accept data exchange as part of the modern economy, the real sticking point is that they feel as though they do not benefit from the data exchange. A recent study carried out by the DDMA (Data Driven Marketing Association, Netherlands), entitled ' What consumers think about data' found that 75% of consumers are willing to share data, but 89% of them state that business currently benefits most. What is even more interesting is that the collection and use of data for digital ads makes it possible to fund a wealth of content, services and applications for consumers at little or no cost. According to the Guardian, advertising is actually the main source of funding for most websites and social networks. For example, in 2015, paid-for app revenues were replaced by advertising as the top revenue source (' Paving the way: How online advertising enables the digital economy of the future' by IHS Technology).The main challenge for the ad industry is to invest in users' trust, starting with transparency.
Offering European citizens the opportunity to manage their online ad preferences

The digital ad industry offers a way to enhance trust and transparency by raising the bar on good business practice amongst industry players through its self-regulatory OBA Programme. Through the Programme, companies provide enhanced transparency to all internet users about the practice of OBA, through delivering an icon on online ads, providing meaningful and contextual information. Furthermore, the Programme offers real choice and control in managing preferences when it comes to receiving OBA, since it is possible to choose whether to receive OBA from the companies participating in the programme through a simple click of a mouse on the www.YourOnlineChoices.eu platform. And the programme has delivered in balancing privacy concerns with OBA practices to the extent that more than 2 in 5 respondents (44%) across 15 European countries report being more favourable about the concept of OBA when having information on OBA available to them and the opportunity to manage whether to receive OBA from companies participating in the programme.
By Mathilde Fiquet, Vice-Chair, EDAA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital Advertising and Privacy - Striking the right balance - European Interactive Digital Advertising Alliance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Digital advertising and privacy are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to strike the right balance between the two.

# data[].attributes.body
This article barely contains any information that would be helpful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ONLINE advertising is booming. Digital-ad revenues in America in the first half of the year reached a record $32.7bn, according to the latest figures from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group. For marketing folk, digital ads have great appeal because consumers' online data can be used to direct what they think are the right advertisements to the right shoppers. But tracking has become increasingly contentious in both America and Europe.

On October 27th America's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced a new rule to protect personal privacy online. Internet-service providers, such as AT&T and Comcast, must now ask consumers for permission if they want to gather and share data deemed to be sensitive, including financial information and users' browsing history.
Get our daily newsletter
However, the FCC's rule is notable not for settling a debate, but stirring it. Marketers and digital-ad firms insist that they already police themselves well. They consider data on browsing and apps, in particular, to be essential for targeted advertising. Under the FCC's rule consumers can "opt in" to share this information, but firms fear that many will not.

There is a limit to the FCC's order, which perversely makes it only more controversial. It will restrict data collection by internet providers, but have little impact on broader online tracking. Notably, it does not affect so-called "edge-providers" such as Google and Facebook, which have operated under a separate privacy framework from another agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

For advertisers, the result is an increasingly lopsided industry. Any new restrictions on companies, such as Verizon, which are vying to expand their digital ad businesses, will bestow more power to the already mighty Google and Facebook, points out Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group. For consumers, the result is a muddle: limits for gathering data depend on the identity of the gatherer. "Nothing in these rules will stop edge-providers from harvesting and monetising your data, whether it's the websites you visit or the YouTube videos you watch or the e-mails you send," declares Ajit Pai, an FCC commissioner who voted against the order.

The question now is whether regulators will look at this mishmash and apply stricter limits to Google and Facebook, too. "I think they have started a snowball rolling down the hill," says Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). He calls the FCC's rule "highly misguided and harmful". The matter may well be decided in court. Even before the new order was issued, broadband firms were challenging the FCC's authority to regulate them as utilities. If they succeed, the new rule will probably be thrown out.

As this fight continues, another front is opening up in Europe. On October 19th the European Court of Justice ruled that internet-protocol addresses, which identify connected devices, are subject to Europe's data-protection laws. This could restrict ad companies' activity even more. Then Irish privacy advocates filed a suit challenging the "Privacy Shield", the name of a new deal between America and the European Union for sharing personal data across the Atlantic. And a group of European privacy commissioners wrote to WhatsApp, a messaging firm owned by Facebook, questioning WhatsApp's new policy of sharing consumers' data with its parent.

In America, Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre, an advocacy group, contends that if the FTC fails to take action over WhatsApp's new policy, Europe might doubt the agency's ability to enforce privacy protection. That, he argues, would undermine the Privacy Shield. The ANA's Mr Jaffe is apprehensive: "There are multiple sets of attacks that have taken place in the past week or two that have dramatically increased concerns about privacy and the ability to utilise consumer data." Stand by for a long struggle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digital advertisers battle over online privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ONLINE advertising is booming. Digital-ad revenues in America in the first half of the year reached a record $32.7bn, according to the latest figures from the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was too focused on peoples opinions on ads and not privacy about showing the ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Advertising is only getting more pervasive, obnoxious, and intrusive. That's not my personal opinion (though I absolutely agree); that's the internet speaking.

According to recent consumer surveys, digital advertising doesn't exactly have the best rep. Pop-ups interrupt the browsing experience at every turn. Creepy remarketing stalks you with the same display ad everywhere you go. Autoplaying videos embarrass you in waiting rooms and on buses. You can hardly read a news article without having to scroll past a dozen ads and accidentally clicking on one of them. Blech.

But as marketers, how do we justify this negative perception with the fact that ads still perform so well for many businesses? Take a look at this interesting statistic:

83% of people agree with the statement "Not all ads are bad, but I want to filter out the really obnoxious ones." ¹

Moreover, people are even open to downgrading their ad blocking to something less restrictive:

77% agree with the statement "I wish there were a way to ad-filter instead of ad-block completely." ¹

As it turns out, consumers don't hate ads; they hate bad ads.
Lots of people, including myself, have been introduced to a new product they love through well-placed, well-executed advertising that follows the inbound marketing methodology. I'm really glad I found those ads, and I've had a few great consumer experiences because of them. Yet when I think about ads online, I feel like this:

And I'm not alone...

91% of people say ads are more intrusive today than 2-3 years ago

87% say there are more ads in general than 2-3 years ago

79% feel like they're being tracked by retargeted ads¹

People feel overwhelmed, interrupted, and stalked by bad digital ads, but they don't really mind the good ones. Is it just me, or should marketers feel really freaking grateful that consumers are still willing to make that distinction?

Let's start with some numbers about the most hated digital ads (FYI, all references are included at the very end of the post).

Pop-Ups Are the Worst

The advertising that is most resented by consumers is (shocker!) pop-up ads, with a 73% disapproval rating. Even Google hates them. Mobile ads come in a close second, with 70% agreeing with the statement "I dislike them." In third place are online video ads that play before content loads (like on YouTube). with 57% dislike. ¹

This new research into consumer opinions about digital advertising has clear lessons for the marketers who manage digital ad campaigns, regardless of platform. Here are 6 themes that stood out in the course of my research.

1. Don't set videos to autoplay.

It's interruptive, annoying, and downright rude. An impressive 82% of people report that they have closed a web page because of an autoplaying video ad, and 51% of people say they think less of brands that use autoplaying online video ads. ²

Similarly, non-skippable video ads are the most hated form of advertising among adblock users. ⁴ In general, people hate feeling forced into your ad - so don't do it.

2. Don't mislead people.

Luring consumers in with something that sounds hyper-relevant to what they're reading or watching, but ultimately isn't, will not convert visitors into leads... but it will piss people off. When asked "What caused you to click on an advertisement, 15% of people said "The ad tricked me into clicking."¹ In case that doesn't sound like a lot, that's 15% of all ad clicks.

3. Dumb is just as bad as misleading.

Fifty-six percent of consumers say "most online ads these days are insulting to my intelligence," which contradicts the idea that you need to write for the lowest common denominator. ¹ If you've been "dumbing things down" for your audience, you may need to revisit your buyer personas and focus on how they want to be talked to.

4. Ads need to-and this is very important-not look like ass.

That may seem obvious, but when 63% of people say "Most ads I see online don't look polished or professional,"¹ the consumer's standards are likely higher than you think.

Part of what makes ads feel intrusive is a feeling of dissonance, clutter, and lack of coherence with the placement of the ad. Some of those elements are outside of your control, but you can impact much of it with good design.

5. If you do use pop-ups, be judicious.

Before you interrupt their browsing, give people time to find value in what you're providing. Eighty-one percent of people have closed a web page because of a pop-up, ² but they'll be less likely to do so after they've already received some benefit from what they're reading or looking at (and have more to look forward to).

In particular, people don't like being forced to close ads that pop up; 89% agree that "Certain ads, like pop ups or ads where I have to click "X" to remove them, are really frustrating to deal with." ¹ To minimize frustration, make your pop-ups easy for people to close, and even give people multiple ways to do so (e.g. with an "X" and a "no thanks").

6. Retargeting requires some finesse.

About 79% of people say "I feel like I'm being tracked because I've seen ads for items I've bought in the past." ¹ Unless you sell home security systems, it's not in your interest to make your potential customers feel like they're being stalked.

Here's a simple trick you can use. Would you do it in person? Let's say a customer is browsing in your store and you see her pick up a pair of sunglasses, try them on, check the price tag, and set them back down. You might walk over to tell her that they're on sale, or that you have another color in the back, or to share a cool story about the brand-each of those interactions add something for her, and she might even welcome them. But if you follow her around the store going, "Did you forget those sunglasses? Are you sure you don't want those sunglasses? What about now?" you're going to lose a customer.

Negative ad experiences can really stick with consumers. Consumers report that "Obnoxious or intrusive ads give me a poor opinion of the websites that allow them" (85% agree) and "a poor opinion of the brands that are being advertised" (84%)¹

If "obnoxious or intrusive" seems a little subjective for your taste, there's also data on what types of advertising impact people's opinions most negatively.

People surveyed were asked "If a company you regularly interact with sent or displayed the following types of ads to you, how would your opinion of the company change?" The results are measured in what percent of people would experience a decrease in opinion of that brand. Interestingly, there are two relatively distinct groups. ²
In the mostly-okay-with-it category, we have:

Television commercials (9%)

Sponsored LinkedIn posts (9%)

Sponsored Facebook ads (13%)

Online display advertisements (13%)

Email advertisements (promotional or sale announcements) (15%)

Online video advertisements (25%)

In the GTFO-of-my-face category, people expressed dislike for:

Direct mail ads or promotions (mailers, "junk" mail) (48%)

Autoplaying online video advertisements (51%)

Pop up online advertisements (70%)

Telemarketing calls (81%)

Well, I can't say I don't agree. Which brings me to our next topic: ad blockers.

Consumers Have the Power

For many people, ad blockers have become a standard part of browsing online. They're extremely common-one report estimates that ad blockers have 198 million active users (and millions more downloads-over 500 million, according to Adblock Plus). All of that blocking had a clear monetary impact; publishers lost $22 billion to ad blocking software in 2015 alone, and it's anticipated that by 2020, $35 billion a year will be lost. ³

Not even mobile ads are safe.

Mobile adblock usage grew by 108 million year over year to reach 380 million active devices globally by December 2016. At this time, there were over 600 million devices running adblock software globally - 62% of which were on mobile devices. ⁴

While currently only a fraction of mobile ad block users are in North America and Europe that number is destined to grow; 83% of people say they would like the option to block ads on mobile devices. ¹

Does all of this ad blocking mean that consumers are oblivious to why the websites they love incorporate advertising? Nope. Almost half of people (49%) agree with the statement that "People who use ad blockers need to be fair and pay for content some other way."¹ Consumers understand that content has value and companies should be compensated-they just feel violated by the way many companies pursue that compensation.

Let's dig a little deeper into why people use ad blockers. Here are the top reasons ¹:

Ads are annoying/intrusive (64%)

Ads disrupt what I'm doing (54%)

Ads create security concerns (39%)

Better page load time/reduced bandwidth use (36%)

Offensive/inappropriate ad content (33%)

Privacy concerns (32%)

Reduced data usage (for mobile plans) (22%)

I don't like contributing to a business making money off my browsing (18%)

Ideological reasons (8%)

Websites that rely on ad revenue are fighting back, often by preventing people from viewing content if they're using an ad blocker. But it doesn't really work; 74% of adblock users say that they leave websites when they encounter such an adblock wall. ⁴

Other sites have shifted focus to native advertising that matches the look and feel of the other content, a strategy that would seem to be in keeping with what consumers want. When asked "What do you think is the best way to help support websites (to cover their costs)?", here's what people said: ¹

"I'm fine with seeing ads but only if they are not annoying" (68%)

"I'm fine with the current situation; I see ads to support websites" (31%)

"I'd be willing to pay for the content I enjoy" (9%)

"I'd prefer to donate an amount directly to each website" (6%)

Of course, ads isn't enough; marketers need to produce ads that people actually click on, and that often isn't happening. seeing Forty-five percent of people report "I don't notice online ads anymore, even if I don't block them."¹. And when they do click, it's often not for the reasons you might think.

About 1/3 of Ad Clicks Are Accidental

What's worse than getting no clicks on your ads? Getting ones that lead to extremely high bounce rates and damage your domain authority!

Only about 40% of people click on ads because they're actually interested. A terrifying 34% of ad clicks are by mistake. As a possessor of giant ham fingers that can't click on a tiny "x" to save my life, I can verify this. As I mentioned earlier, another 15% of respondents said "the ad tricked me into clicking," so they aren't exactly on board, either. ¹

Reasons for intentional clicks include: ¹

"The ad just so happened to interest me" (40%)

"The ad was a search result" (21%)

"The ad was creative or visually appealing" (13%)

"The ad was compelling or provocative" (7%)

So... what's happening with that ineffable "just so happened to interest me" group? Of course, we have to assume it's a conglomeration of factors, but we can't ignore that fully 40% of people can't tell you why they clicked. Of course, high-quality ad design and copy are a contributing factor, but my guess is that this number includes alignment between ad and content, the subconscious effects of retargeting, and good timing.

Content consumption is shifting to social platforms, which rely heavily on native advertising. ² On platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, social ads follow a predictable visual formula, and users can enjoy both organic and promoted content in a way that is expected and comfortable. Familiarity with the visual language of native ads only adds to the feeling of contrast and dissonance created by more invasive forms like pop-ups and autoplaying videos.

Successful digital ads don't overtly disrupt the consumer's browsing experience in an intrusive or annoying way. They make sense in the content and location where they're placed, look professional, are easy to understand and use. They are well targeted to the consumer, so they're relevant and speak the consumer's language. They're clear about what's being offered, so people don't feel tricked.

Importantly, great digital ads give people clear choice: to play the video, to close the pop up, to click on a clear call-to-action. As Dr. Robert Cialdini points out in his famous research on the psychology of persuasion, people want to act consistently with their prior choices. When consumers feel like they made a choice to opt in, they'll take the content of your ad more seriously.

Of course, while better targeting is a much better strategy than simply opening the floodgates of your ad budget, repeat exposure is still important to your conversion rate. When you do use retargeting, focus on adding more value along the way with tactful and relevant ads.

Contrary to what the "advertorial" trend might suggest, t he secret isn't making ads seem less like ads; it's making them less intrusive, less irritating, and more relevant.

Prefer organic tactics? Here's a little help with no strings attached.
Sources:
1. Why People Block Ads (And What It Means for Marketers and Advertisers)

2. Native Advertising Rises As Consumers Opt Out

3. The 2015 Ad Blocking Report

4. The State of the Blocked Web 2017 Global Adblock Report

5. The Future of Content Marketing
This post was originally published in 2016 and has since been updated with any new statistics and/or research available as of September 6, 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Data on Why People Hate Ads: Too Many, Too Intrusive, Too Creepy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advertising is only getting more pervasive, obnoxious, and intrusive. That's not my personal opinion (though I absolutely agree); that's the internet speaking. According to recent consumer surveys, digital advertising doesn't exactly have the best rep. Pop-ups interrupt the browsing experience at every turn. Creepy remarketing stalks you with the same display ad everywhere you go.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is just giving background information on how the marketers are using/accessing your information for choosing specific ads for you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Online advertising is to many tech users what those annoying late-night TV commercials once were. The cheesy sales pitches, the obnoxious fast-talking announcers, and the promises of "But wait! If you act now we'll double your order!" have become such a part of our pop culture that they're a joke all on their own.

Some users rely on ad blocking software to eliminate the popups and the flashing sidebar offers, and while it does make our lives easier, there are some pitfalls to it. The first is that the websites we visit rely on that advertising revenue to keep their sites going and to keep the internet relatively inexpensive for most users. The other factor is that some sites can detect your ad blocker and require you to disable it in order to proceed.

But how do websites actually benefit from the ads? By tracking your visit and your interaction. If you simply "see" the ad on your screen there's one level of payoff, but if you were to actually click on it, then there's more revenue. In some instances, actually making a purchase after clicking on an ad can result in even more revenue for the website that hosted it.

If you'd like to see this in action, here's a test. Be warned, it will result in altering the way the internet thinks of your shopping needs. Try searching for something completely out of the blue, something that you would never shop for, like a stroller for your dog or a different model of vehicle. Then start paying attention to the ads that appear in your email inbox, your social media pages, and other sites.

You'll notice that dog stroller or that new pickup truck starting to appear in different ads on different websites. You might even see competitors' products or other brands than the one you searched for, or related products like ultra-expensive dog food-you obviously take special care of your pet since you're interested in pushing it in a stroller-after that search.

That's the sort of tracking that privacy experts are concerned about. If the internet ad industry can keep up with your search history and generate algorithms based on your interests, what's to stop someone from following your searches and deciding on malicious ways to use that information? Even worse, who already has access to that search information? A search for a brand-new, high-dollar vehicle could mean you've got money to spend. A search for Black Friday deals on toys could alert a pedophile that there are children in your home. A search for medical marijuana could potentially alert someone-perhaps even your employer-to an illness you may have or an illegal activity you're allegedly engaging in, depending on where you live.

Now, backing up...those are all very frightening and very unrealistic speculations about what happens to your internet searches. But it's still the underlying reason why security advocates want tighter reins on who can track you for advertising purposes and who can legally access that data. Remember though, when you signed up for an account with an internet service provider or a cellular service provider, you agreed to certain terms and conditions. You might not have read the fine print, but it's very likely that you agreed to have your search and shopping behaviors monitored and shared.
How much information are you putting out there? It's probably too much. To help you stop sharing Too Much Information, sign up for the TMI Weekly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Privacy Concerns Due to Online Advertising - Identity Theft Resource Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Online advertising is to many tech users what those annoying late-night TV commercials once were. The cheesy sales pitches, the obnoxious fast-talking announcers, and the promises of "But wait! If you act now we'll double your order!" have become such a part of our pop culture that they're a joke all on their own.