ABSTRACT

Due to technological advancements, an increasing number of messages are personalized through different sophisticated techniques, such as online behavioural advertising (OBA) and synced advertising (SA). Considering the increasing number of different types of personalization strategies that can be applied for personalization, the question rises whether consumer perceptions of these strategies differ when it comes to their knowledge about, and their perceived benefits and costs of these personalization strategies. A US national survey (N = 1,008) examined knowledge, benefits, and costs of OBA and SA. Whereas OBA has been extensively studied in the past, SA is a novel personalization strategy. Therefore, the current study updated what we know about OBA, provided new insights on SA, and was able to directly compare the two in terms of knowledge and perceptions. The results showed that consumers know more about online behavioural advertising than synced advertising. Furthermore, coding of open-ended questions provided further insights into perceived benefits and costs of the personalization strategies. Personal relevance and added advertising value were the most prevalent perceived benefits and privacy concerns are the most often prevalent perceived cost. The results inform the advertising industry, advertising literacy programs, and encourage ethical debates about the use of personalization strategies.

摘要

由于技术进步，越来越多的消息通过不同的复杂技术进行个性化，例如在线行为广告 (OBA) 和同步广告 (SA)。考虑到越来越多的不同类型的个性化策略可以应用于个性化，问题就出现了，当涉及到他们对这些个性化策略的了解以及他们对这些个性化策略的感知收益和成本时，消费者对这些策略的看法是否不同。一项美国全国调查 (N = 1,008) 考察了 OBA 和 SA 的知识、收益和成本。过去 OBA 已被广泛研究，而 SA 是一种新颖的个性化策略。因此，当前的研究更新了我们对 OBA 的了解，提供了关于 SA 的新见解，并且能够在知识和感知方面直接比较两者。结果表明，与同步广告相比，消费者对在线行为广告的了解更多。此外，开放式问题的编码提供了对个性化策略的感知收益和成本的进一步洞察。个人相关性和附加的广告价值是最普遍的感知利益，而隐私问题是最普遍的感知成本。研究结果为广告行业、广告素养计划提供信息，并鼓励有关使用个性化策略的道德辩论。开放式问题的编码提供了对个性化策略的感知收益和成本的进一步洞察。个人相关性和附加的广告价值是最普遍的感知利益，而隐私问题是最普遍的感知成本。研究结果为广告行业、广告素养计划提供信息，并鼓励有关使用个性化策略的道德辩论。开放式问题的编码提供了对个性化策略的感知收益和成本的进一步洞察。个人相关性和附加的广告价值是最普遍的感知利益，而隐私问题是最普遍的感知成本。研究结果为广告行业、广告素养计划提供信息，并鼓励有关使用个性化策略的道德辩论。