A new global report out from Millward Brown concludes that TV viewers are more receptive to ads than digital viewers, but it also points out the pitfalls of targeting and tracking: In short, viewers don’t dig them.

They are less antagonistic toward ads that target their interests than ads that target where they’ve previously been on the Internet.

While Millward Brown notes that where you have been is very likely to be based on your interests, that didn’t seem to matter. Users in the study had the most negative reaction to ads served to them that were based on their Web browsing and search history, their shopping history or their social media profile. 

In big bold type, Millward Brown states: “Attitudes toward targeting are less positive when it feels like stalking.” No kidding.

One interesting bit of logic fleshed out by research (or maybe the other way around) is that -- while consumers like to be able to be manage their ad intake -- "TV 'gets away' with less control over ads due to familiarity." The study of viewers in 42 countries concludes that audiences feel most in control on computers, but TV doesn’t suffer from its imposition of ads because, Millward Brown presumes, viewers accept that’s how it is.

That got me thinking: Maybe online viewing is a tough nut to crack because users have, over the years and on various sites, run across lots of different strategies to lure them. Going to a site to watch video shouldn’t trigger feelings of being on guard to ward off ads taking over from the left, right and middle. If you’re always looking around for a pickpocket, you may not feel comfortable walking on that street.

Showing interest in a subject or an advertiser shouldn’t mean you want to be pestered forever. To belabor that street analogy, if I see you walking by and ask how you’re doing, it doesn’t mean I really want to see the results of your last blood test. And if I’ve had my pleasant exchange with you on the street, it doesn’t mean you should run ahead to the next corner and pass me by again hoping for another friendly, even more meaningful greeting.

The study says viewers are turned off by mobile pop-up ads most of all, followed by in-banner autoplay, pre-roll and variations. They appreciate mobile reward-for-viewing gambits, followed (but not as enthusiastically) by ad strategies that give the viewer some control.

"While video is now available on myriad screens, applying TV thinking to digital content and placement is simply not acceptable, and consumers expect more from online advertisers," said Duncan Southgate, Millward Brown's Global Brand Director for Digital, in a press release.

By the numbers/attitudes:

• Consumers believe the laptop gives them the most control (63%) over content and Millward Brown says,  “This explains their irritation by online ad formats which fail to respect this control.”

• Skippable pre-rolls (34%) and skippable mobile pre-rolls (31%) are viewed much more favorably than mobile app pop-ups (14%) and non-skippable pre-rolls (15%). The most popular ad format is mobile app reward videos (49%).

The report, AdReaction: Video Creative in a Digital World, doesn’t exactly start the online video advertising world spinning in a new direction, but it has several interesting observations and suggestions. 

One it seems to dwell on is that online ads, more than TV ads, have to grab hold quickly-- or make that instantly--and even so, most people won’t hang in for long.

But another point is that ads, especially because of mobile, have to be filled with clear, crisp images of the product. 

Online is no place to be subtle, and it is a place to be funny. In all of the 42 countries in this study, Japan is the only one where “humor” was not one of the two top reasons for not skipping an ad. I’d make more of that, but there are other studies out there that show bad humor---and that’s most of it---is more harmful than not even trying.

pj@mediapost.com