麻豆淫院

(麻豆淫院) -- A large majority of Americans are dead-set against the practice of tailored political advertising at the very time in the 2012 election that the activity is seeing unprecedented growth.  In fact, a high percentage of Americans dislike tailored political advertising so much they say their likelihood of voting for a candidate they support would decrease if they find out the candidate engages in it. 
 
That is one of several eye-opening results from the , conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania鈥檚 Annenberg School for Communication.  Among the findings:

路         Fully 86% of Americans say they do not want 鈥減olitical advertising tailored to your interests.鈥�  The number is far higher than the still-quite-high proportions of the population who reject other forms of tailored communication:  鈥渁ds for products and services that are tailored to your interests鈥� (61%), 鈥渘ews that is tailored to your interests鈥� (56%), and 鈥渄iscounts that are tailored to your interests鈥� (46%). 

路         64% of Americans say their likelihood of voting for a candidate they support would decrease (37% say decrease a lot, 27% say decrease somewhat) if they learn a candidate鈥檚 campaign organization buys information about their online activities and their neighbor鈥檚 online activities鈥攁nd then sends them different political messages it thinks will appeal to them. [This activity is common during the 2012 election.]

路         70% of adult Americans say their likelihood of voting for a candidate they support would decrease (50% say decrease a lot, 22% say decrease somewhat) if they learn a candidate鈥檚 campaign organization uses Facebook to send ads to the friends of a person who 鈥渓ikes鈥� the candidate鈥檚 Facebook page. The ads contain someone鈥檚 profile photo and proclaim they support the candidate. [This activity, too, is taking place during the 2012 election.]

路         77% of Americans agreed (including 35% who agreed strongly) that 鈥淚f I knew a website I visit was sharing information about me with political advertisers, I would not return to the site.鈥� [Many sites, independently or through third parties, do share such data.]

路         85% agreed (including 47% who agreed strongly) that 鈥淚f I found out that Facebook was sending me ads for political candidates based on my profile information that I had set to private, I would be angry.鈥� [Facebook does do this.]

鈥淭his election year marks a watershed moment for online advertising. In unprecedented ways, and to an unprecedented extent, campaign organizations across the American political spectrum are using hundreds of pieces of information about individuals鈥� online and offline lives to ensure the 鈥榬ight鈥� people are being targeted with the 鈥榬ight鈥� messages,鈥� says Joseph Turow, Ph.D., the Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Communication and lead researcher on the study. 鈥淵et, we found that contrary to what marketers claim, the vast majority of adult Americans do not want political campaigns to tailor advertisements to their interests.鈥�

Targeting advertising is the analysis of data about a population to determine who should receive a persuasive message, how, when and for what reasons. Tailored advertising means shaping a persuasive message for a particular individual based on conclusions the targeting process generated about that person鈥檚 interests and values. Critics say this threatens privacy and undermining democratic values. Marketers, including political campaign consultants, defend the practice by insisting it gives Americans what they want: political advertisements and other forms of content that are relevant to their concerns.

Prof. Turow and his colleagues 鈥� Michael X. Delli Carpini, Ph.D., Professor of Communication and Walter H. Annenberg Dean; and doctoral students Nora Draper and Rowan Howard-Williams鈥攚rote the questions for the 20 minute survey.  Princeton Survey Research Associates International conducted 1,503 telephone interviews (landline and cellular phones) with a representative sample of internet-using adult Americans via between April 23 and May 6, 2012.

鈥淭he findings represent a national statement of concern,鈥� says Turow.  鈥淲e have a major attitudinal tug of war: the public鈥檚 emphatic and broad rejection of tailored political ads pulling against political campaigns鈥� growing adoption of tailored political advertising without disclosing when they are using individuals鈥� information and how. Our survey shows that in the face of these activities, Americans themselves want information.鈥�

For example, respondents want to know what political campaigns know about them that lead to a tailored ad, and how they learned it. When asked 鈥淚f a political campaign sends you an online ad that鈥檚 relevant to you, would you want to know what the campaign knows about you that led to the ad, or do you not care?,鈥� 65% said they would want to know. Further, when asked if they 鈥渨ould want to know where the campaign got the information to make it relevant, or do you not care?鈥� 76% said they would want to know.

Most respondents also say they want political candidates鈥� websites to ask permission when using their information.  91% of Americans say no when asked if it鈥檚 OK for a political candidate鈥檚 website to sell information they provide to the site. 63% of them say no even when told that the site鈥檚 privacy policy would inform them it was selling the information. But when Americans are given the opportunity to 鈥渙pt in鈥� every time a candidate鈥檚 political website wants to sell information they provided to the site, the percentage who then say no drops 38% of the entire sample.

鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to escape the conclusion that our survey is tapping into a deep discomfort over behavioral targeting and tailored advertising when it comes to politics,鈥� says Prof. Turow. 鈥淧olitical campaigning is moving in a direction starkly at odds with what the public believes should take place. We suggest how this divide may in coming decades erode citizens鈥� beliefs in the authority of elections. We also suggest steps toward lifting the hood on the new world of political marketing in the interest of public discussion regarding Americans鈥� understanding of their evolving political system and where they would like to see it go.鈥�