Skip to main content

Scary advertising

The innocent product with the sinister ad
Every now and then someone asks me what I think about online advertising being targetted. (I don't know why they ask me, but they do.) You know the kind of thing. Instead of getting random ads, you are supposed to get ads for products that are more likely to interest you. So I might get book ads, or science-based stuff. I've always said I like the idea, and I do. In principle it should stop me seeing so much irrelevent stuff. But I've had two examples of doing this in a cack-handed fashion that make me wonder whether the technology can live up to the concept.

The first is those Facebook ads that are pseudo-targetted. The ones that claim to have a special offer only for people over {YOUR AGE-1}. I'm sorry, those are just pathetic. But the other kind is downright scary.

A couple of weeks ago I downloaded a trial copy of a program called iMindMap. I have a page on my creativity website dedicated to creativity software, and I hadn't mentioned this product, so I thought it was worth a go. As it happens it was one of the best I'd seen, so I updated the page accordingly, then let the trial software expire, thinking no more of it, as I already have mind mapping software I'm quite happy with.

Then the scary thing started. After my trial expired, about every fifth Google Ad I saw was a graphical banner for iMindMap. It could be a total coincidence, but a straw poll suggests other people haven't been getting this. It seems there is a mechanism to target me as a vaguely-interested-potential-customer. Now I find that a little scary. It's the advertising equivalent of stalking. I wouldn't mind if it had just popped up once or twice, as a vague reminder, but the constant repetition started to get wearing. It was like every time you turned a corner, there was the same strange person with an inane grin on their face. (It seems to have died down now after a couple of weeks.)

I really can't think of a better way to turn someone off a product. I did like iMindMap, and I suspect they don't know that this particular use of Google's Ads can be so scary - but it's not an option I would choose to encourage people to buy my product. So do feel free to take a look at iMindMap... but don't buy yourself this kind of advertising for your own products. Please.


  1. Sounds like re-targeting of some kind.

    There's a trend recently of far too many retailers starting re-targeting programs without understanding it's role.

    Many don't care because on paper the returns attributed to re-targeting ads outweigh any concerns and they don't care about any ad impression wastage because they are only paying for the ads on a cost per click or cost per acquisition model.

  2. Thanks, Fletch. I can see they might not think through how it feels (though I'm don't know how much information they are given about how insistant it is).

    Similarly I always wonder about people who schedule the same TV ad every half hour all evening - don't they realize they will irritate people who see it over and over again?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope