Google has added a “parental status” item to its AdWords dashboard. Is this one step too far? Was this inevitable?
Google figures out if you are a parent, shares that info with advertisers
Google has added a “parental status” item to its AdWords dashboard. Is this one step too far? Was this inevitable?
The book “The Power of Habit” discusses how creepy it can get. See this article on how Target used shopping information to start sending baby coupons to a high school girl.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/
People should be less worried about what Google is currently sharing with advertisers and much more concerned with the fact that Google has created a massive data mining operation collecting as much information about people as possible. How Google uses this information to help sell things is almost irrelevant. They have created a honeypot of data just waiting to be someday hacked or taken by force by people looking to do things much worse than selling you crap.
Google has been taking it one step too far for years, Dave. 🙂
This is old…5 years old.
As to the issue, I’m on the fence. It was survey provided data, not data mined, so I lean to “it’s OK”.
From the update on the article:
An official spokesperson from Google has notified me that: “Interest-based ads on our display network, including parental interests, have been around since 2009. We’ve made some changes to this in the Adwords interface for display campaigns. It uses the same system based on website visitation and users can edit or opt out of these ads on our Ads Settings page. As always, we don’t allow ads to be targeted to sensitive categories like health, race or sexuality.”
Retailers have been doing this for ages with credit card transactions. DeltaTee’s link points this out.
This is the creep of Big Data. I’m all for railing against this sort of thing– ban the sale of personal information to third-parties by credit card companies, and make “guest IDs” at retailers opt-in only. But you dilute the message when you point to one single company, especially when they’re not the first (nor likely the last) to implement this kind of targeting.
Yet Google also says it’s new, also from the update: “This is a new feature that’s rolling out to the US only. Right now it’s available to 5% of advertisers and later in June, it will be launched to 100% in US.”
Read and you’ll see they’re talking about the surfacing of the data in the UI. Basically, they didn’t just now start including the survey data but they are pushing it to 100% of advertisers this month, vs the 5% before.
Does Google give it to advertisers or does Google let advertisers serve it up to Google users that Google identifies as parents? There’s a huge difference between the two and while the former is pretty bad an unethical, the second is less so. My guess is that Google does the latter because knowing their users is their crown jewels.
Why would a retailer need to se card data instead of their own receipt data? I think CVS figured out that I was a parent when I started buying diaper rash cream and Children’s Tylenol instead of beer and batteries.
They do the latter. It is just a better narrative for anti-Googlers to say “you’re the product” or “they sell you to advertisers” when that’s not the case.
Advertiser: I want to target parents.
Parent visits site w/ Adsense
Google: Show add from Advertiser for parents
Major difference between that and Google passing along customer data like CVS, etc. Heck, Equifax sold our data to a mortgage lender and we got cold called for a mortgage. [true story and exactly how the lender explained to me how they got my info] Now that’s hideous.
Oh, come on now, from all things that you’d like to keep private, having children in secrecy is the thing that is “one step too far” for you?
I’m far more troubled by my AdWords dashboard listing the types of porn I like to jack off to. Where’s the outrage about that?
Right. Before they tracked it without telling anyone. Now advertisers can use it. Correct?
I won’t say “without telling anyone” since the data came from surveys but yes, they tracked it for years and now advertisers can use it.
I’m waiting for Google to start identifying people with dementia so predators can do a much better job of spotting vulnerable people.
Advertising to people with dementia isn’t very lucrative. They forget the ad even faster than other people.
Only part of the data came from surveys. What Google said was that they took survey results from “self-declared parents”, looked at their data, and then assumed that other people with “similar Google Display Network and YouTube content consumption patterns and characteristics” are parents too. They then offer advertisers the opportunity to target that group. It’s pretty much SOP for Google, but they’re idiots if they don’t realize the negative connotations in the phrase “parental targeting.”
That is cute, but not true. There are many people with dementia who do not have memory problems. Alzheimer’s is a form of dementia but not the only one. Scammers love focusing on these people.
Gotcha. Thx for the clarity.
Like I said, I’m on the fence but I don’t see how knowing we’re parents is a big deal. Maybe I’m in the “idiot” group you mention but I’m interested in your perspective on why that’s a negative.
That article only shows how powerful, and accurate, data analysis can be. It’s important to remember that the girl was indeed pregnant. Some people may be creeped out by the fact that your consumption patterns can reveal a great deal about you, but that’s just a fact of life. On the plus side, since it’s pretty clear that if you’re pregnant the odds are you’ll be buying unscented lotion, supplements, and cotton balls it’s nice to get a discount on them.
I think this is the greater fear of acquisitions like Nest and through Nest, Drop Cam. We joke about ads on these devices, but the data they are collecting, no matter what is being said now, will end being part of this data mining effort Google is undertaking. I’m just glad they made the purchase before I bought the products.
I didn’t say that. I said credit card companies shouldn’t be able to sell your personal information to third parties. A second thing that should be reigned in is Guest IDs, which are created by retailers based on what you buy. They’re able to tie that sale information to you by your credit/debit cards. If you use cash, then it’s not really possible to keep a Guest ID current.
Clearly you’re an exception. I’m willing to bet that if you went to 10 people, parents or not, asking them what they thought of a new advertising program that relied on “parental targeting” you’d get at least 70% responding with some kind of negative. Parents implies children, and most people, lacking extensive context, will instinctively/reflexively react negatively to almost anything “targeting” children. And as we’ve learned by now, Google is pretty bad at providing “extensive context.”
You’re prob right about being an exception. I carry a different perspective.
One thing about the rest of your argument is that people will protect children targeting but this doesn’t target children. I agree parents will protect/dislike children targeting but being targeted as a parent isn’t the same as targeting their kids.
If you’re specifically targeting parents, then by extension you’re targeting children. It’s one thing to target men and women of child-bearing age, but when I differentiate them by whether or not they have children, then for all intents and purposes I’m targeting children, even if only by presence and not specifically.
I disagree. That’s reaching to me.