Advertising: Survey Shows Voters Are Wary of Tailored Political Ads

The results of a new study to be released on Tuesday by professors at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania show that 86 percent of respondents did not want political campaigns to tailor ads to their interests.

The results of the study come at a time when national and local political campaigns are steadily increasing their use of technology that traditional marketers use to tailor advertising.

For political campaigns, the process is called microtargeting. Information about voters — like the charitable donations they make, the type of credit card they use and the Congressional district they live in — is combined with voter registration records, and the result allows campaigns to send certain types of messages to voters.

For example, one person may see an ad that focuses on a candidate’s employment message while another will see an ad about reproductive rights. Both presidential campaigns use some form of microtargeting.

“The overall sense is that there is a real discontent about this,” said Prof. Joseph Turow of the Annenberg School. “You have a real disjuncture between the American public and the campaigns that are on a trajectory to increase it.”

It is not just discontent with the ads themselves that should concern politicians. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 64 percent, said the likelihood of their voting for a candidate would decrease if that candidate purchased information about them and their neighbors for the purpose of sending them different messages.

The study was conducted this year by Princeton Survey Research Associates International from April 23 to May 6. It included cellphone and landline telephone interviews in English and Spanish with 1,503 adult Internet users in the continental United States.

•

The survey also examined attitudes toward political advertising on social media sites like Facebook. Seventy percent of respondents said the likelihood of their voting for a candidate they supported would decrease if the campaign used Facebook to send ads to the friends of someone who had “liked” a candidate’s Facebook page.

“People take politics seriously,” Professor Turow said. “Even more seriously than advertising, discounts and news.”

In 2009, Professor Turow, with other professors from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a study that examined attitudes toward similar types of advertising used by traditional marketers. They found that about two-thirds of respondents objected to having their activities tracked online with the goal of sending them ads tailored to their interests.

Since then, the issue of online tracking in digital advertising has risen to the national stage. Industry groups like the Interactive Advertising Bureau, government agencies including the Federal Trade Commission, the Commerce Department and the White House, and privacy advocates have agreed to work together to satisfy both advertisers and users concerned about Internet privacy.

In March, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report on Internet privacy that called on Congress to enact legislation regulating companies known as data brokers, which collect and sell personal information to advertisers.

The commission also urged that technology companies offer a “Do Not Track” mechanism by the end of the year that would allow users to opt out of having their personal information collected online.

“Compliance with Do Not Track would be voluntary, so each entity, whether political or commercial, would make its own decision about whether to comply,” Ed Felten, chief technologist at the commission, said in an e-mail.

A handful of personal interviews conducted with survey respondents showed mixed feelings about tailored political ads, and the collection and use of personal data.

Roman Kickirillo, 42, an engineer in Franklin, Tenn., described his attitude toward online advertising of all types as “total indifference.” Mr. Kickirillo said he would only be bothered by ads tailored to his specific political interests if the candidate’s messages were contradictory.

“I might never find out that they were saying the opposite because they think that’s exactly what I want to hear,” he said.

Doug Sheaff, 77, a retiree who lives in Bristol, Va., said he would be concerned with how data was collected. “As long as it’s publicly accessible information that they are getting and they are able to tailor the message, I have no problem,” Mr. Sheaff said. “The other question is, are they building up a file on me.”

•

Carol Stewart, 49, who lives in New Boston, Tex., and is unemployed after getting “caught up in the economic crisis,” said she notices advertising of all types in e-mails, on Web sites and on the right-hand column of Facebook pages.

“You visit the site and they know everything about you,” Ms. Stewart said. “I don’t like that.” Ms. Stewart, who said she considers herself a Democrat, recalls seeing ads online for Mitt Romney but not for Barack Obama but that she has not clicked on the ads.

“When I got the discount card at the grocery store I knew they were going to track my habits,” Ms. Stewart said. “But these politicians out here? I didn’t agree to let them into my life.”