Behavioral targeting came into its own in 2006, living up to the promises of its advocates-- but in which industries does BT work best?

Research conducted during the year reflected this conclusion. Results from a TACODA study, for example, showed that -- after the initial launch of a campaign -- behavioral targeting results in an ad being noticed more often than contextual targeting. The research, which studied a Panasonic plasma TV campaign, found that the same ads receive 17 percent more looks when seen in behaviorally placed, unrelated-content sites than when seen in content directly related to the advertised product or service. It was also found that behavioral targeting can help ads be noticed more often and for longer periods of time, the more that consumers are exposed to them.

In addition, the study found that visitors pay more attention to ads in behavioral targeting mode. After first exposure, looks in behavioral targeting increased 54 percent, versus the same ads in a contextual setting.

Another report, from 24/7 Real Media, indicated that behavioral targeting can boost reach and return on investment (ROI) and lower cost per acquisition (CPA) for some industries.

Starwood Hotels and Resorts, for example, found behavioral targeting helped lower customer acquisition costs and boost ROI by 22 percent, when compared to a single-site sponsorship of a major market newspaper site's Travel and Hotel sections. And a large web hosting company extended its reach to targets that were not available through contextual targeting, while achieving the same or better overall ROI.

However, in the case of a global DSL provider, the report found that clickthrough (CTR) for behaviorally targeted segments was low, while CPA rose dramatically.

So it seems BT lives up to different promises (or doesn't), based on the nuances of the products or services being advertised and how they're bought. Let's look at some examples.

Author notes: Dawn Anfuso is senior editor, iMedia Connection. Read full bio.