Today, Google officially launched the its much awaited and much debated “Behavioral based advertising” or as Google calls it – “Interest based advertising”. Google says this is that one step that will make ads more relevant and interesting.
As I understand, Interest based advertising takes ads to a different level of personalization and will make ads more relevant because, Google will keep track of your behavior on the internet with the help of cookies.
Google had already rolled out “history based SERPs” earlier, which basically shows search result pages based on your past history. That is if you had preferred to visit the 7th ranking site for a particular keyword, Google will monitor this and show you the 7th ranking site on the 1st position.
Similarly, here Google will keep track of what sites you visit, and take clues from you, minuses the “opt out” categories and show you ads that will fit you better.
Let’s pick an example.
Say you are a tech savvy guy who visits various technology related sites on the web
When searching for “apple” on the web you prefer the Apple Inc. homepage.
Google tracks all these by using cookies stored in your browser.
Next time when you visit a website about “Red Apples” guess what ad will the Google AdSense boxes on that site show up ?
Yeah you guessed it right – Ads about iPod and Steve Jobs !
Well, in fact interest based advertising will make things really easy for us and make ads really, really relevant for us. But there are serious thoughts on security as well, especially among Google haters.
Now, there are questions being asked -
- So, Google knows what sites I visit. Would it also access to sensitive information?
- What if something wrong happened with the system Or a virus attacked and somebody stole my cookie ?
I’m no expert on this but these are some of the discussions going on on the internet today about “behavioral targeting” in ads, right from the days we got clues on Google and Yahoo thinking about them.
Find more about how Interest based ads work here.
I think Google already knows the sites we visit.
We use gmail, we chat via Gtalk, and use many other Google services. Most websites have Google Analytics installed . That makes Google powerful enough to spot out a single user.
But thats impossible. Google collects aggregate data the same way Google Analytics brings us reports. For instance, we can know exactly from where a user came, but we cannot find his name. But Google is smarter, if they wish to do so, they can!
A similar question was raised when Gmail started scanning email to deliver related ads on the sidebar. We still use Gmail, dont we..?
Afterall, do you thing the Google guys have no other work to look after? lol
Reply
This is very important step in the evolution of search! The era of keywords is almost over! Era of interest-based advertising just started.
People search the internet according their short or long term interests. Therefore all searches are just expression of these interests. Interests are the driving factor of search on the Internet.
For a list of top 1000 interests look at http://www.interestmatrix.com/top1000.php
The next step will be using cross-reference of interests. Like if you are already indicated interest in X you should be also interested in Y. The only site that has a list of practically all interests and cross-reference of them is http://www.interestmatrix.com
To participate in Google beta you have to fill out the form http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/request.py?display=form&f=audience
Reply
i believe Google already knows the sites we visit also. because google is a robot and it is programmable logic thing, which consist of lots more intelligent.
i personally like to deal with robot, because they are very follow the command of human.they wont simply un-follow the link.
so i always got my search result exactly perfect correct.
Reply
This is why Google is such a gigantic data mining operation. They are intent on getting as many inputs as posible in order to get their algorithm to emulate natural human trends and patterns as closely as possible.
Reply