IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/net/wpaper/1007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls

Author

Abstract

This paper investigates how internet users' perception of control over their personal information affects how likely they are to click on online advertising. The paper uses data from a randomized field experiment that examined the relative effectiveness of personalizing ad copy to mesh with existing personal information on a social networking website. The website gave users more control over their personally identifiable information in the middle of the field test. The website did not change how advertisers used anonymous data to target ads. After this policy change, users were twice as likely to click on personalized ads. There was no comparable change in the effectiveness of ads that did not signal that they used private information when targeting. The increase in effectiveness was larger for ads that used less commonly available private information to personalize their message. This suggests that giving users the perception of more control over their private information can be an effective strategy for advertising-supported websites.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine Tucker, 2010. "Social Networks, Personalized Advertising, and Privacy Controls," Working Papers 10-07, NET Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:1007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.netinst.org/Tucker_10-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bharat Anand & Ron Shachar, 2009. "Targeted advertising as a signal," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 237-266, September.
    2. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 389-404, 05-06.
    3. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine E. Tucker, 2011. "Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 57-71, January.
    4. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1986. "Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 796-821, August.
    5. Meghan Busse & Jorge Silva-Risso & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2006. "$1,000 Cash Back: The Pass-Through of Auto Manufacturer Promotions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1253-1270, September.
    6. Puneet Manchanda & Ying Xie & Nara Youn, 2008. "The Role of Targeted Communication and Contagion in Product Adoption," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 961-976, 11-12.
    7. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    9. McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1987. "Auctions and Bidding," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 25(2), pages 699-738, June.
    10. Kihlstrom, Richard E & Riordan, Michael H, 1984. "Advertising as a Signal," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 92(3), pages 427-450, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lasha Lanchava, 2013. "Free to Choose: An Experimental Investigation of the Value of Free Choice," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp492, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    2. Sinan Aral & Dylan Walker, 2011. "Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence in Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1623-1639, February.
    3. Cecere, Grazia & Le Guel, Fabrice & Soulié, Nicolas, 2012. "Perceived Internet privacy concerns on social network in Europe," MPRA Paper 41437, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2012. "Privacy and Innovation," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 65-90.
    5. Avi Goldfarb, 2014. "What is Different About Online Advertising?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 115-129, March.
    6. Moritz GODEL & Annabel LITCHFIELD & Iris MANTOVANI, 2012. "The Value of Personal Information: Evidence from Empirical Economic studies," Communications & Strategies, IDATE, Com&Strat dept., vol. 1(88), pages 41-60, 4th quart.
    7. Yoan Hermstrüwer & Stephan Dickert, 2013. "Tearing the Veil of Privacy Law: An Experiment on Chilling Effects and the Right to Be Forgotten," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_15, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    8. Freedman, Seth & Jin, Ginger Zhe, 2017. "The information value of online social networks: Lessons from peer-to-peer lending," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 185-222.
    9. Jenny Doorn & Janny Hoekstra, 2013. "Customization of online advertising: The role of intrusiveness," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 339-351, December.
    10. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine E. Tucker, 2011. "Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 57-71, January.
    11. Arnold, René & Hildebrandt, Christian & Taş, Serpil, 2020. "European data economy: Between competition and regulation. Final report," Study Series, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH, number 251538.
    12. Avi Goldfarb & Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Rejoinder--Implications of "Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness"," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 413-415, 05-06.
    13. Tucker, Catherine E., 2012. "The economics of advertising and privacy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 326-329.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tucker, Catherine E., 2012. "The economics of advertising and privacy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 326-329.
    2. Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2014. "Persuasive Puffery," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 382-400, May.
      • Archishman Chakraborty & Rick Harbaugh, 2012. "Persuasive Puffery," Working Papers 2012-05, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    3. Catherine Tucker, 2011. "Virality, Network Effects and Advertising Effectiveness," Working Papers 11-06, NET Institute.
    4. Dmitri Kuksov & Ron Shachar & Kangkang Wang, 2013. "Advertising and Consumers' Communications," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 294-309, March.
    5. Rauch, Ferdinand, 2013. "Advertising expenditure and consumer prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 331-341.
    6. Bharat Anand & Ron Shachar, 2007. "(Noisy) communication," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 211-237, September.
    7. Sridhar Moorthy, 2019. "On Marketing Strategy in Electoral Politics," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 57-62, December.
    8. Pedro M. Gardete, 2013. "Cheap-Talk Advertising and Misrepresentation in Vertically Differentiated Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 609-621, July.
    9. Tingting Nian & Arun Sundararajan, 2022. "Social Media Marketing, Quality Signaling, and the Goldilocks Principle," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 540-556, June.
    10. Dina Mayzlin & Jiwoong Shin, 2011. "Uninformative Advertising as an Invitation to Search," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 666-685, July.
    11. Dokyun Lee & Kartik Hosanagar & Harikesh S. Nair, 2018. "Advertising Content and Consumer Engagement on Social Media: Evidence from Facebook," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5105-5131, November.
    12. Abel Brodeur, 2012. "Smoking, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence from Smoking Bans," Working Papers halshs-00664269, HAL.
    13. Shun-Yang Lee & Julian Runge & Daniel Yoo & Yakov Bart & Anett Gyurak & J. W. Schneider, 2023. "COVID-19 Demand Shocks Revisited: Did Advertising Technology Help Mitigate Adverse Consequences for Small and Midsize Businesses?," Papers 2307.09035, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    14. Thomas de Haan & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2015. "Money Talks? An Experimental Investigation Of Cheap Talk And Burned Money," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1426, November.
    15. Hattori, Keisuke & Higashida, Keisaku, 2014. "Misleading advertising and minimum quality standards," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 1-14.
    16. Pracejus, John W. & O'Guinn, Thomas C. & Olsen, G. Douglas, 2013. "When white space is more than “burning money”: Economic signaling meets visual commercial rhetoric," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 211-218.
    17. Pedro M. Gardete & Liang Guo, 2021. "Prepurchase Information Acquisition and Credible Advertising," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1696-1717, March.
    18. Randall Lewis & Dan Nguyen, 2015. "Display advertising’s competitive spillovers to consumer search," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 93-115, June.
    19. Eric Rasmusen, 2008. "Quality-Ensuring Profits," Working Papers 2008-10, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    20. Khim-Yong Goh & Cheng-Suang Heng & Zhijie Lin, 2013. "Social Media Brand Community and Consumer Behavior: Quantifying the Relative Impact of User- and Marketer-Generated Content," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 88-107, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social Networks; Privacy; Online Advertising;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising
    • M38 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:net:wpaper:1007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nicholas Economides (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.NETinst.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.