Advertising and Ad Hominems

This is funny - a report comes out today that notes that about 2/3rd of US people don't like being tracked online for advertising purposes, as reported in the NYT (its due for full release later):

Tailored ads in general did not appeal to 66 percent of respondents. Then the respondents were told about different ways companies tailor ads: by following what someone does on the company’s site, on other sites and in offline places like stores.

The respondents’ aversion to tailored ads increased once they learned about targeting methods. In addition to the original 66 percent that said tailored ads were “not O.K.,” an additional 7 percent said such ads were not O.K. when they were tracked on the site. An additional 18 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked via other Web sites, and an additional 20 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked offline.

The survey company also asked about customized discounts and customized news. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that tailored discounts were O.K., and 58 percent said that customized news was fine.

On the advertising question, there was not a big difference between age groups. Marketers often use teenagers’ behavior on Facebook as anecdotal evidence that they do not mind handing over information. But 55 percent of respondents from 18 to 24 objected to tailored advertising.

Now, this should be no surprise, surely. As Kara Swisher puts it, this study:

"should surprise only the people behind the Beacon debacle shows that a majority of Americans of all ages don’t like being tracked online by advertisers."

So who do you think is pooh poohing this - why, Google of course. Matt Cutts takes the lead apologist role - but plays the ad hominem card (which is always the sign of a weak case in my view):

One of the study’s co-authors was Chris Jay Hoofnagle. Hoofnagle has served as the Senior Counsel and Director of the West Coast Office
of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). You haven’t heard of EPIC? EPIC was the group that in 2004 argued that Gmail should be shut down: “In a letter sent to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Monday, the Electronic Privacy Information Center argued that Gmail must be shut down because it ‘represents an unprecedented invasion into the sanctity of private communications.’ ”

I can guess what you’re saying. “That was five years ago. People didn’t know then how useful Gmail was going to be.” Okay, then did you know that EPIC lobbied the government to shut down Google Apps earlier this year?

No surprises there either - as Mandy Rice Davis said, "well he would say that, wouldn't he".

And the beef behind his beef? None, as far as I could see - no counter evidence, no attack of the factual base. At what point does dissembling stop being good and start being evil?

But why the instant response with such low grade ammunition - well, timing, as they say, is everything - and this is becoming a hot potato:

The topic may be technical, but it has become a hot political issue. Privacy advocates are telling Congress and the Federal Trade Commission that tracking of online activities by Web sites and advertisers has gone too far, and the lawmakers seem to be listening. Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, wrote in an article for The Hill last week that he planned to introduce privacy legislation. And David Vladeck, head of consumer protection for the F.T.C., has signaled that he will examine data privacy issues closely.

I thus expect to see an equal but opposite conclusion report out soon funded by groups friendly to Google et al, arguing that this is all wrong and arguing for self regulation being the best option in this best of worlds. But, as was pointed out last year (as the Crunch bit) on the FT's Maverecon blog:

Unfortunately, self-regulation stands in relation to regulation the way self-importance stands in relation to importance and selfrighteousness to righteousness. It just isn’t the same thing.

And the lessons of the last 12 months have shown how little the bankers's have possessed ability to self regulate