Wolf Tracking

Internet privacy is a topic that makes most of us sit up tall and listen. Most people could never imagine having their identity stolen and the repercussions that it can burden you with both financially and socially. But what if targeted advertising is all about making the ads we see online, on the TV and on your mobile phone more bearable and possibly even enjoyable?

eMarketer recently released a report entitled “Behavioral Targeting Attitudes: The Privacy Issue,” which explores the digital ad strategy to collect consumer information and use it to serve up ads that they may find interesting or relevant. This has been the basis for high-profile programs like Facebook’s Social Ads and MySpace’s HyperTargeting, as well as Google’s successful AdSense.

Caroline McCarthy from CNET’s Webware reported that the study suggested that advertisers should ensure that consumers are educated on the fine print of behavioral targeting, and that they’re offered an opt-in choice. But perhaps a more serious issue for the ad industry is accuracy. The TrustE numbers in the survey cited by eMarketer said that only 12.6% of respondents said that more than a quarter of the targeted ads they were delivered were relevant.

It is within these complicated cross-sections that issues ensue. With my liberal attitude toward behavioral targeting and perhaps the frame of mind of “take a little to gain a little” sways my perspective. Please target my behavior – but do it correctly. If I’m searching for a potential vacation in Cancun and Expedia or Priceline want to serve up banner ads, pre-roll mobile video, or even a pop-up page that will perhaps point me in the right direction or save me money than FANtastic. Even if, for instance, I’m one of many people who have not learned their lesson in Google-ing health symptoms and a local doctor’s office, health Web site or pharmaceutical company want to dangle a carrot-like ad in front of me. I say bring it on.

There is nothing more irritating than waiting for an irrelevant-to-my-life advertisement to finish. New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal all make me wait – I could click the box that will allow me to opt out, but then who knows what reporters job I may be costing if I do that (the more reporters, the better for us PR people etc.)

This Wednesday the Senate Commerce Committee will explore the need for stronger online privacy protections in general. Among the issues on the table: whether Internet companies should be expected to make their programs “opt-in” (you’re automatically excluded from a service unless you sign up) or whether “opt-out” (you’re automatically in unless you speak up to say no) is acceptable.

While the committee has no online advertising legislation pending, the hearing could lead to new bills on the matter. The committee will also examine the potential role of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission. Last year, for example, the FTC released a set of proposed self-regulation guidelines for online advertising companies.

Personal preference will be the deciding factor at the end of the day. Most internet and technology company’s business models are based on advertising. As the only industry that continues to grow in this less than impressive economy, advertising will continue to saturate our lives. Some of us say “target away”, while others are ready to watch the movie “Hacker’s” for tips on how to make it stop.

Maybe the FCC and all parties involved in behavioral targeting will discover that the best option is to give us, is any option at all.