Half of Consumers Say Identity-Based Ad-Targeting Promotes Offensive Stereotypes, Survey Reveals

GumGum launches the “Digital Advertising Pulse Check” to understand consumer sentiment around data-heavy identity ad-targeting.

GumGum, the contextual-first technology leader transforming digital advertising, announced the launch of the Digital Advertising Pulse Check, a new initiative tracking consumer sentiment around data-heavy, identity-targeted ads. Based on a survey of over 1,500 North American consumers, the monthly index provides insights into the growing discomfort with ads that heavily rely on personal data.

“The Digital Advertising Pulse Check will help brands understand the delicate line between relevance and creepiness, and how other forms of advertising can offer a better way to connect with audiences without making them uncomfortable.”

“We’ve long suspected that data-heavy, identity-based ads are missing the mark for many consumers, and now we have the data to back it up,” said Kerel Cooper, Chief Marketing Officer at GumGum. “The Digital Advertising Pulse Check will help brands understand the delicate line between relevance and creepiness, and how other forms of advertising can offer a better way to connect with audiences without making them uncomfortable.”

Marketing Technology News: StackAdapt Secures $235M USD Investment Led by Teachers’ Venture Growth

Identity-based advertising targets specific individuals or groups based on their characteristics, such as demographics, interests, or browsing history. It relies heavily on collecting and analyzing vast amounts of user data.

Key findings from the first release of the Digital Advertising Pulse Check:

• Identity Ads Can Be Offensive: When asked, “Have you ever been targeted by an ad that pigeonholed you into a stereotype in a way that felt offensive?” half of respondents (49%) said yes. Among them, 31% said the ads seemed “clueless rather than malicious,” and 18% felt the ad “completely missed the mark.” Meanwhile, 24% said this happened “once or twice, but it didn’t bother me much,” and 27% noted their ads were “always appropriately tailored.”
• Cookies are Creepy: When provided with Google’s explanation of cookies, the most commonly used tracking tool in online identity-based advertising, and asked how it made them feel, 56% reacted negatively. Of those, one-third (34%) described it as someone “peeking over my shoulder,” while one-quarter (24%) felt as though they were being “watched every step I take.” Conversely, 29% accepted cookies as “just a part of the modern web,” and 13% felt “completely fine” about the role cookies play in advertising.
• Violation of Boundaries in Identity Ads: Ads targeting sensitive personal topics—such as health, finances, or relationships—elicited strong negative reactions, with nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents expressing disapproval. Specifically, 21% said they felt “violated” by these ads, and 41% found them “annoying.” Meanwhile, 38% reported feeling “indifferent.”
• Consumer Confusion and Frustration: When asked, “Have you ever seen a targeted ad that made you think, ‘Who approved this?’” 20% said they experience this frustration “every single day.” Another 51% reported encountering such ads “now and then,” 19% said “once in a blue moon,” while just 9% felt the ads they saw were “always on point.”
• If Identity Ads Were a Person: When asked to describe identity-based ads as if they were a person, most didn’t have a flattering view as 43% compared these ads to “the nosy neighbor,” while 26% went further, describing them as “the stalker hiding in the bushes.” Meanwhile, 16% saw them as “the creepy ex.” Only a small minority (14%) viewed identity-based ads as “the life of the party,” indicating most consumers find this type of advertising intrusive, not engaging.

Marketing Technology News: MarTech Interview with Paul Harrison, CTO and co-founder at Simpli.fi