Majority of Consumers Still Object To Anonymous BT
- by Wendy Davis @wendyndavis, March 5, 2009
More
consumers are growing comfortable with online behavioral targeting, perhaps as a result of an increase in familiarity, but the majority remain uneasy with the practice. That's according to a new study
conducted by TNS on behalf of the privacy group Truste. For the study, consumers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: "I am comfortable with advertisers using my browsing history to serve me relevant ads, as long as that information cannot be tied to my name or any other personal information."
Twenty-eight percent of respondents agreed, up from 24% who agreed when the same study was conducted last year. At the same time, 51% said they disagreed that they were comfortable with anonymous behavioral targeting. While that figure represents a slim majority, it's down from last year, when 57% of respondents said they disagreed.
At the same time, more respondents than in the past now say they delete cookies. Almost half--48% of survey respondents--said they erase cookies at least weekly, up from 42% last year.
It's not clear how much overlap there is between the respondents that regularly delete cookies and those who say they're uncomfortable with behavioral targeting.
Colin O'Malley, vice president of strategic business at Truste, attributed the increase in the proportion of consumers who said they were comfortable with behavioral targeting to increased publicity over the issue. He said the recent attention to the issue in the mainstream media has helped to increase transparency.
He added that the increased cookie erasures showed that consumers want to be able to manage their experience. "Cookie deletion is just one more indication that consumers are seeking tools to increase their level of control," he said.
I disagree with the assumption that users are more comfortable with the idea of BT based on the response to this question:
"I am comfortable with advertisers using my browsing history to serve me relevant ads, as long as that information cannot be tied to my name or any other personal information."
The question implies that BT cannot identify them rather that the actual case which is they certainly can but agree not to. There is a huge difference.
In the first case a user doesn't need to trust the unseen BT because it can't identify the user personally so it's clearly easier to accept. However in the second case users must trust not only BT firms but everyone employed by them who has access to the data to do the right thing 100% of the time. As a former employee of one of these firms, I for one am not at all comfortable with that.
As to the notion that there is more transparency due to the recent publicity, nonsense. Has anyone published the real story of what BT firms access on private machines?
Make no mistake, BT software can see everything on your system - everything. It is only up to the company as to what they do and do not use or record etc.
The question should be: How comfortable are you with allowing an anonymous company operating in an unregulated environment unlimited access to your personal data? My guess is the results would be significantly different.
Point well made Anthony.
One further point. If the TNS research is representaive of the universe and virtually half of all online users delete cookies at least once a week, we have a HUGE overstatement of monthly unique audiences (the de facto standard) going on. For those that delete cookies weekly, they would appear as four different 'uniques' on sites they visit regularly. Even if we say that the other half DON'T delete cookies in a month (i.e. a conservative line) and that 'the deleters' do it only ONCE a week (i.e. a conservative line), then we have half of the uniques correct and the other half overstated by a factor of 4. Put them together and we have an overstatement on uniques to a site visited regularly of around 250% - which echoes both the ComScore and Nielsen Online findings. Cookies are a POOR way to establish unique users.