The uncanny valley of advertising

By Felix Salmon
April 28, 2011

From an economic point of view, improvements in ad-targeting technology seem as though they’re pretty obviously Pareto-optimal: everybody benefits. Advertisers get to waste fewer of their ad dollars putting messages in front of people they don’t want to reach; publishers get to charge more money; and consumers get to see only things which are germane and relevant to them.

So why is it that many people hate ad targeting, and hate being served targeted ads?

Part of the reason, I think, is just that targeted ads are better at getting our attention than non-targeted ads — but they’re still an unwelcome distraction from whatever it is we’re wanting to read. Most of us have become pretty good at unconsciously ignoring advertising, especially online. (Often I find myself looking hard for a big special report on a website, because it’s presented on the home page in much the same way as an ad might be, and so I ignore it, in much the same way as it’s easy to miss the big letters spelling out continent names on a world map.) Every time there’s an improvement in targeted advertising, it cuts through that wall and annoys us anew before we slowly learn to ignore it over time.

But more generally and more interestingly I wonder whether what we’re seeing here is what you might call the uncanny valley of advertising.

Every so often, we get glimpses of the Holy Grail of advertising: the point at which the advertising message is so perfectly crafted and targeted for the consumer that the consumer doesn’t want to ignore it at all, and prefers it to most media output. (One common slogan found in advertising circles is “every company is a media company”.) American Express has been working this seam for a while, with its custom publishing unit; another example is Red Bull, which produces more extreme-sport content than any dedicated TV production company.

And of course we’re all used to traditional mass-market advertising, which is barely targeted at all: the 30-second spots in popular sitcoms, say, or the Netflix pop-up ads we have to clear out every so often when uncluttering our browser windows.

The former is better than the latter — but in between things get weird. Especially when the targeting is done by keyword-recognition algorithms or cookies placed on your computer by robots which track you across the internet.

You look for a pair of socks online, and then for weeks afterwards you see ads for socks popping up in the most unlikely websites. You mention Palm Springs in an status update, and suddenly ads for weekend getaways in Palm Springs start appearing in your webmail client. Or more distressingly and creepily, after sending a difficult and highly personal email to a close friend, you start seeing ads for abortion service providers.

We all naturally anthropomorphize computers at the best of times, so it’s impossible not to feel, in these cases, that we’re being spied on, and that our most private activities are really not private at all. But I think the emphasis on privacy, in these debates, is misplaced. It’s not like some individual human being out there knows something about me personally that I’d rather they didn’t. And a computer or an algorithm, of course, can’t really know anything at all. But we feel spied on and invaded, because we don’t think of activities like online shopping or social networking or emailing as things we do in public: in fact we would never want to do them in a very public way.

Eventually, advertisers will be able to get much smarter than they are right now, and the ad-serving algorithms will stop being dumb things based on keyword searches, and will start being able to construct a much more well-rounded idea of who we are and what kind of advertising we’re likely to be interested in. At that point, when the ads we see are targeted to us based on much more than the content of our emails or the goods that we shop for online, they probably won’t feel nearly as creepy or intrusive as they do now. But for the time being, a lot of people are going to continue to get freaked out by these ads, and are going to think that the answer is greater “online privacy”. When I’m not really convinced that’s the problem at all.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

I don’t mind being targeted, I mind the advertizers not only hitting the barn door, but missing like “north.” I don’t know how many porn sites I frequent looking for busty black lesbians, and my email is chock full of ads for skinny white gays. What metric are the porn sites using? No wonder they can’t make money.

Posted by fresnodan | Report as abusive

As a person old enough to remember the when three television networks were all that were on, and every Sunday newspaper had thick ad supplements, I dislike targeting because it means the advertiser thinks it knows more about me than I care to reveal (and yes, I realize that it’s an automated “know”). But I hate being predictable.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

Sure, it doesn’t matter if some algorithm knows your browsing habits. Until you want to show your friends that cute kitten video, and all of the ads on the page are for abortion providers and hemorrhoid creams. Then it kind of does matter, doesn’t it?

Posted by dobbs23 | Report as abusive

I don’t care whether ads are targeted or random, but I *HATE* aggressive ads that splash themselves across what I am trying to read. That is the high-tech equivalent of cold-calling sales, or a door-to-door salesman.

Go away, leave me alone, I’m trying to read!!!

And I don’t think ads are particularly effective. We rarely buy advertised products, and typically prefer less-advertised brands to more-advertised brands. Advertisements are highly annoying, so brands that advertise heavily create strong negative feelings. Moreover, we operate from the essential principle that anything said in an ad is a lie. If the product is any good, an ad blitz shouldn’t be necessary.

Posted by TFF | Report as abusive

I wish ads were more targeted. My problem with ads is they are driven more by desperation than creativity. The really creative need no advertising at all, you will come to them. Advertising starts from the failure of being sufficiently interesting so your attention must be paid for. The most desperate and pathetic must force as much advertising as they can to get any attention at all so they always dominate the space. Ads that were completely targeted would not be ads at all but they would be a miracle because they would be so specialized and unique you would be happy you found them. Mass products fail this by definition because after introduction everyone already knows they exist.

Posted by MyLord | Report as abusive

Hello. My name is Trifon. This information is very useful for me. I found this very difficult and I am grateful to you.
I want to share with you this information:
‘Hemorrhoids’ is the medical term for swollen anal veins within the anal canal … in every day terms, sufferers often refer to this condition as ‘piles’.
But if you are reading this article, then there’s a good chance you already know what hemorrhoids are …. And you are looking for a way to cure them. And know the pain and discomfort of swollen anal veins.
And be assured, you are not alone! Common in both men and women, about half of the population has hemorrhoids by age 50. They are also common among pregnant women as a result of the pressure of the fetus on the abdomen, together with hormonal changes, causing swollen anal veins. These veins are also placed under severe pressure during childbirth. Fortunately, in these instances, the problem is a temporary one.

Posted by Trifon | Report as abusive