The Wall Street Journal ran an article last week suggesting that Gmail’s text ad system could use a tune-up. To quote Homer Simpson, “D’oh…!”
And it’s not just Gmail that could use some tinkering, either, but Yahoo Mail and Microsoft’s Windows Live Mail, too.
The contextual advertising approach, which scans individual emails and matches advertising to their content, produces some downright bizarre pairings, which all of us in marketing get a chuckle over occasionally. The problem is when they aren’t just silly, but offensive.
Here’s how ridiculously irrelevant some of the text ads are, as reiterated by the WSJ piece: Two friends are trading emails about a certain upcoming party when one user reportedly received an ad for “Bachelor Party Strippers,” with a Web link for www.latinasongrind.com. In another case, two friends were emailing about Borat, the Kazakh character portrayed by actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, one user received flight offers to Kazakhstan. Another referred to British pop singer Lily Allen in a message, and was served a link for a retailer of “Lily and Lotus Plants.”
The idea of marketing products to consumers based on what they express as their interests isn’t unique to email programs like Google or Yahoo, of course. Amazon does it. TiVo does it. But email is not only more personal than a bookstore or television, it’s far more nuanced. At the very least – if sifting through emails can produce a volume of information about a user – doesn’t it stand to reason that Google, Yahoo and the like should be able to deduce with a little more accuracy what someone might be interested in buying or researching online?
Here’s why I’m taking this personally: In another part of my life, I am a foster mom for abandoned dogs. My family fosters a certain small breed that we happen to love for its mild disposition and sweet personality.
Some of the dogs that land in Rescue are given up for the usual reasons: An owner or caretaker has died, and there’s no one in the family to take on the beloved pet; a new baby arrives to siphon all of the new parents’ attention; allergies develop; and so on. Family circumstances change, or life serves up a curveball, so Rescue steps in to foster the dog, get a sense of his or her personality, and match the pup with the right applicant for adoption. (See our current houseguests here.)
Recently, more dogs have been arriving to Rescue than ever before. And these dogs have issues that we don’t often see: uneven temperaments and chronic health issues that are the hallmarks of bad breeding. The truth is that the popularity of the breed is compromising its well-being; puppy mills are looking to make some money to breed dogs irresponsibly, usually in what are pretty desperate conditions–for the dogs, that is. This isn’t unique to one breed, of course: Puppy millers don’t discriminate; they churn out all sizes and sorts of animals.
So how does all this relate to ad-serving? As you might expect, on my personal email account I frequently email with other Rescue volunteers or friends about dogs. And nearly every day I invariably find an ad for a clearinghouse for a huge puppy miller–the Voldemort of puppy millers, in fact. (And which I won’t name here, so as to not offer up any more exposure.)
The irony of a puppy miller sponsoring a link on a Rescue email list is a little like a Budweiser sponsoring the break at an AA meeting, but there it is.
The WSJ piece points out that Google presents the ads as a worthwhile tradeoff for consumers, who get huge amounts of free storage space on Gmail, Yahoo and so on. Many consumers accept the proposition and are willing to put up with the often intrusive sponsored link that arrives like unwanted vermin on the doorstep.
I accept the lack of privacy. I even accept that puppy millers can make a buck or two and still sleep soundly at night. But if from nothing else but from a clear business perspective–can’t Google, Yahoo, and the like fine-tune the display process enough to ensure that the message doesn’t fall on deaf ears?
Ann,
What do I have to write in an e-mail to get the flight offers to Kazakhstan. Man! I’ve always wanted to visit.
Great post. Whisper in my ear who the puppy miller is. I promise I won’t tell. But I would like to send him/her a message about responsibility.
You know. I really don’t want advertising in my email. Can we opt out?
Nice post.
I think you hit on some important points. Google’s Gmail is incapable of detecting the context in which the emails are written. While I think they could build a great big database that looks for patterns of word relationships, they need to go beyond just quantitative data if they’re going to make any progress.
And they need to move on it quickly. As long as they’re going to offer free email, the ads they create need to be relevant so they can generate revenue. If people get in the habit of ignoring the ads, it will be awhile, even after the system is fixed, before they allow themselves to even consider looking at those ads.
And I’d hate for Gmail to go away for lack of advertisers. Like you, I just wish they’d get better.
Ann is 150% right, these ads about puppy millers are offensive. Yahoo would not even allow them if they had gotten stuck with one of these “wonderful” puppies and the hardache they bring to families, emotional and financially. How do you explain to a small child that Mommy and Daddy is either giving up your beloved dog because, they can’t or won’t afford to keep him/her alive?
Sharon Gamboni
as proud owner of two dogs, found in the streets, i would be ready to react in a rather unpolite way to such emails. as i would like to react to the tons of spam and related adv that land daily on my yahoo mail address. i’m afraid it’s still a long way to get ads screening as it is for, say, automatic translator. sorry about that but machines are not yet at human level.
Thanks for the comments, all. What I find ironic is that the ads are “contextual,” as in, related to the context and content. But so often, they are anything BUT. This is one of those wonderful bits of technology that is long on theory, but short in execution. It just doesn’t hit the mark…which long-term corrodes both purpose and brand.
And Lewis — UGH. I try not to even THINK it…let alone whisper the name. Visit your local mall and ask the people who work at the pet shop where the puppies come from… the company is either the same or of similar ilk.
Interesting post, Ann, as always. I wonder what the perspective of respectable advertisers is? (Companies like the puppy mills won’t care.) Even if I’m paying little or nothing for the ads, I wouldn’t want to risk having my brand laughed at or responsible for creeping people out!
Hi Ann, I have hotmail. Do they do this? I have everything that is not on my contacts or safe list sent to junk mail. Everyday, I take a moment to scan through the junk folder to see if anything interests me. Occassionally something will catch my eye and it may be something I didn’t know about. I kind like that junk mail moment of the day.
We don’t have pet stores in our malls here in Tucson. The big stores like Pets Mart only have dogs, puppies, cats, kitties, from the Humane Society or animal rescue. My friend is a dog foster mom. She’s a wonderful person. Thank you and everyone that cares for these poor misplaced animals
T.
Anne: There are respectable advertisers who are advertising right alongside the puppy clearinghouses… for example, ads for gift companies that specialize in dog-breed merchandise. You might be right — the mill breeders probably wouldn’t care, but doesn’t Yahoo or Google care that the technology isn’t working, and that (worse!) it’s giving me and others a negative feel about THEM?
Tammy: Not sure about Hotmail. But MSN’s Windows Live Mail uses contextual ads, as well. The ads I’m talking about, by the way, appear as “Sponsored Links” embedded in emails between friends — not as separate email marketing messages or as Spam.
I haven’t received one…Yea!
Ann: I think you’ve touched on a very significant issue.Your strongly negative response, and those of the others who commented, to objectionable contextual ads, may portend a new type of consumer activism, regardless of whether those ads are funding a ‘free’ service.
This post reminds me of a story from the NY Times back in 2004 that involved Google AdSense and Samsonite luggage. You can’t make this stuff up, so I’ll just quote it:
“The technology is not yet foolproof. The online edition of The New York Post, which is owned by the News Corporation, ran an article last month about a murder in which the victim’s body parts were packed in a suitcase, and Google served up an ad for a luggage dealer.”
Insert your own new Samsonite tagline here.
Scott: Right! The New York Post got into trouble again this past spring, when its online edition ran an article on the investigation into the sexual assault and murder of a graduate student. Unfortunately, and sadly, the story was inappropriately accompanied by an ad for online dating service True.com (and, bizarrely, featured a dark-haired young woman who somewhat resembled the victim). That story didn’t revolve around AdSense, however.
Wow. Note to NY Post- if a story contains the word “murder”, why not take a quick looksee at the accompanying ads?
Just a thought- call me crazy.
One starting comment to make sure that I’m clear: I am a gmail user (and I love it), and the contextual ads are usually posted on the right-hand side of the conversation, not in my e-mail conversations, nor are they sent to the people that I am conversing with. Is it the same with other contextual ad providers in their e-mail systems?
It’ll make everyone happier!
Ann, I have to agree with you, sometimes the advertisements can be a source of amusement for my friends and I. In fact, we’ve even tried changing the context (repeating certain words, adding different phrases) to see if we can goad the advertising in one direction or another. Great fun.
You mentioned a parallel with Amazon.com, and there is one piece that I wish that the contextual ads would pick up from Amazon: a rating system. In other words, Amazon recommends items to me based upon what I’ve looked at or purchased in the past. However, I also have the opportunity to rate (and fine-tune) that recommendation. Perhaps if I could do that with my contextual ads, I’d be better off. For example, you could give the big thumbs-down to the puppy mill ads so that they wouldn’t be served up to you any more. Google, MSN, and other developers: consider this a challenge to add this functionality to future versions.
Ann, great article, and certainly hits at one of my pet peeves. If a company is going to target market, how off is marketing puppy mill dogs to rescue groups, albeit even if inadvertantly?
Carolyn (Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Rescue)