Even
though we often think that ads are annoying because they interrupt
content we care about, we do like (or at least prefer) personalised ads
as they show us content that is relevant to us. As shown by the graph
below which is based on a survey conducted by Deloitte in 2017, between
75% and 80% of respondents used at least one type of ad-blocking
technology. It's getting harder and harder for a message to reach its
target. How can we optimise the advertising budget in such hard
conditions? With targeted ads.
 |
| Retrieved from Deloitte |
For
marketers, targeted ads are a great way to send a message to a specific
audience with pre-defined characteristics. It’s more cost-efficient and
can be done in two clicks.
But,
as marketers, by choosing the recipient of our message, we are facing
an ethical dilemma. When is it acceptable to exclude someone from seeing
an ad? When is it acceptable to target based on the sexual orientation,
or other immutable characteristic?
Discrimination is illegal. Really?
In the United States, like in other countries, it
is forbidden for a landlord or an employer to discriminate people based
on their race, religion, country of origin, gender, disability and
familial status.
This is a good thing. However, even though explicit discrimination is
illegal, such as a job ad with the mention “whites only”, what about
more implicit discrimination? In the past, marketers could filter the
audience only
to a certain extent, by choosing a specific newspaper, radio or
television. But today, with tools such as Facebook’s advanced ad
targeting, they can choose the audience.
There are good ways to target by group, to reach people interested in a certain product or service, but it’s definitely unethical to use ad target option to exclude and discriminate people based on immutable characteristics.
The ethical dilemma of online ad targeting: a current topic of interest
Ethical challenges of online targeting in advertising have been studied by scholars. In 2014, this method was already criticized
for being poorly understood by consumers, non-transparent, deceptive,
and hard to opt out. More recently, the ethic of mobile behavioural
advertising has been a topic of interest. Two researchers found that brand customer relationship quality is influenced by perceived brand ethical value, which is itself impacted by perceived privacy control and privacy. Probably an excellent argument for marketers and their ethical responsibility, isn't it?
Advertisement for consumer goods is one thing, but what about politics? The ethical issue is even more crucial
when we think about Trump and the role model he should represent with
his position. In 2016, his campaign relied on these so-called dark ads, which were used to target black voters to lower voter turnout for Hillary Clinton. This is simply not acceptable!
Watch the Ted talk below if you want to know more about how Facebook
can be a threat to democracy. It’s frightening. Discovering this
video the day when Brexit was becoming a reality, I have had goose bumps.
Is there any solution?
Hopefully
yes. For sure, advertisement platforms have some responsibilities. It’s
great to see that Facebook already took some measures. For example, the digital giant has new rules since 2019 that restrict highly targeted ads for employment or housing
based on race, gender, ZIP code, multicultural affinity, and sexual
orientation. This is probably a good start, that should not be limited
to employment or housing. But what about other industries, such as education and universities, which are targeting privileged kids only?
The responsibility should start even before, at an individual level.
As marketers, even though the goal is to be the most cost-effective
possible, we must consider the impact that our campaigns may have. This is our ethical obligation to society. Guilherme Pires, co-author of Ethnic Marketing Theory, raises some interesting questions:
- "Has permission been granted by the consumer to be targeted with dark ads?”
- “Has the content been abused, such as by containing pictures, endorsements or other content that is false, misleading or in some other way abused?”
These questions should definitely be used by all marketers when they consider whether their campaigns are ethical or not.
At a government level, solutions can also be found. When we can read on Forbes that only “17% Of Consumers Believe Personalized Ads Are Ethical”
it is clearly legitimate to expect a reaction from the government(s).
In Europe, the GDPR already show that people are in favour of stricter
data privacy expectations. Furthermore, as the return on investment of
the money spent on Google and Facebook is more and more questioned
(Procter and Gamble cut its budget for advertising partly because digital advertising is controlled by only the two giants), it is only a matter of time before governments jump deeper into the subject.
Also,
we should not forget that targeted ads have led to a proliferation of
fake news and clickbait, and is even criticised for being “one of the most destructive trends in the modern world”.
What if the solution would be to ban the use of personal data for all targeted advertising?
