The Curated Consumer: How Americans Learned to Hack Their Own Ads

Most Americans figure the data companies collect about them is out of their hands. Pew Research Center found that 73% feel they have little or no control over what personal data companies collect. But others are using this information in their own favor, and changing the way their ad algorithms work. Young consumers are taking algorithmic recommendations into their own hands, curating their advertisements the same way they curate a news feed.

To understand modern attitudes toward targeted advertising, Vibe surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults who use ad-supported websites, apps, social platforms, or streaming services about what they do to shape the ads they see and how they feel when the targeting lands. The results divide Americans along a line that has far more to do with understanding than demographics alone.

Key Takeaways

Americans Are Deliberately Training Their Own Ads

After years of scrolling through social media, Americans have gotten savvy about algorithms. They understand that algorithmic recommendations are based on their online activity, and algorithmically recommended ads are no different. To customize even their ad experience, people are changing their behavior in the hopes that it will influence what shows up in their feeds.

In the past 12 months, 84% of Americans did at least one thing to influence what advertisers put in front of them:

In many ways, people mimic the behavior of a customer about to make a purchase, even if they never intend to buy the item in their cart. But companies see a person at the bottom of their marketing funnel and target their ads accordingly.

Among those who utilized the above tactics, 48% said their ads became more relevant. An additional 54% said the same ad followed them across platforms, and they ultimately saw the same content between their news feed and their TV screen.

Curators, the share of respondents who regularly take action to influence their advertising algorithm, took these tactics more seriously than the general public. They were nearly three times as likely to have intentionally changed their advertising or personalization settings, at 20% against 7%. Nearly half (46%) of curators purposely engaged with social media content about a topic, compared to only 28% of non-curators. They were more likely to visit a brand competitor's website as well, at 41% to non-curators' 29%. Curators are doing the same things everyone else is, but more often and with more intention.

Where Targeted Ads Are Tolerated

People have long been familiar with targeted ads: they search for a product or service online, and the results page has both sponsored and organic answers. But they feel less comfortable when those targeted ads enter formerly neutral spaces, like their television screen. The method of delivery can completely change how people feel about targeted content.

This is where people were most comfortable seeing targeted ads:

On the other hand, some people felt uncomfortable at the thought of being targeted, and this negative response usually varied depending on the platform. More people were uncomfortable with targeted ads on their social feeds (24%) than any other platform tested. They were least uncomfortable seeing targeted ads on traditional television (13%), possibly because those ads are based on the channel or program you're watching, rather than your personal search history.

Curators were more comfortable with targeted ads on every platform, by wide margins. They were most comfortable with targeted ads on search engine results (69%), streaming platforms (61%), and social media feeds (60%). Their non-curating counterparts, though, had more explicit discomfort: 33% were uncomfortable with personalized social media ads, and 22% disliked targeted ads on streaming platforms. The people who purposely influence what ads they get shown accept that those ads will follow them across platforms. This means that where an ad appears matters less than who's watching it, and how skeptical they've become.

The Ads That Knew Too Much

There's a specific kind of unease that comes from seeing an ad for something you thought about or discussed, but never searched. While ads being based on your online search activity is common knowledge at this point, ads that draw on real-life discussions come a little too close to home for most consumers. Even though these are often just the result of sophisticated algorithmic predictions, the feeling of being watched is becoming near-ubiquitous.

A majority (81%) said they've recently received an ad about something they discussed or thought about, but never searched for online. This included 42% who said it happens often, making it seem less like a coincidence and more like the algorithm is always listening. Gen Z experienced this the most, with 54% of the generation saying they often receive ads for products or topics they discussed IRL. They beat out all other generations: only 45% of millennials, 40% of Gen X, and 26% of boomers said they were experiencing this at the same rate.

People were split on how they felt about this hyper-personalization. Nearly a quarter (23%) found the ad convenient, and the same share (23%) were impressed by its accuracy. Another 28% were curious about how the advertiser knew they were interested in that product. Still others had less-than-positive reactions: a third (32%) felt watched or monitored, and 27% were uncomfortable with the highly targeted content. Another 9% said it made them distrustful of the brand serving the ad, representing a portion of people who view targeted advertisements almost adversarially.

Most people have already settled on an explanation. Over two-thirds (70%) said that these ads could be the result of their phone listening to them, including 32% who said they definitely were. Only 8% were doubtful that their phones were listening at all. Whether or not the devices were actually listening, people have adopted the theory as fact. But on the bright side, this means that they ascribe the surveillance to the tech itself, not the brands creating the ads.

Better Ads, Better Purchases

A good ad puts a product in front of someone who needs it. A person shopping for aquarium supplies gets a social media ad for a tank cleaner; someone shopping for insurance gets a TV spot for a local provider. We found among respondents that curating and targeting ads not only leads to more purchases, but also more customer satisfaction.

Respondents leaned toward trust, with 35% saying that knowing their own online activity had shaped an ad increased their trust in it, against 16% who said it decreased their trust. Another 37% felt no different either way, and 11% said they had never been aware their activity was shaping their ads at all. Younger users responded more positively: over half (54%) of Gen Z reported a trust increase, as did 40% of millennials, well ahead of the 26% of Gen X and 14% of boomers who said the same.

Those who made purchases based on targeted ads were largely happy with their decision. Among everyone who bought something from an ad, 74% were usually satisfied, and only 19% said they regretted it. Shaping their ad feed to suit their interests better can actually match people to the exact businesses they want to support.

Curators sat above those baselines on every outcome. Those who take time to customize their own ad experience end up with better ads, better product recommendations, and better experiences.

The Price of Going Ad-Free

Nobody enjoys an ad break. But people understand the trade-off behind it: ads are what keep a service free, or cheap enough to fit into the monthly budget. Most Americans have decided that's a deal worth taking.

People took plenty of actions over the past year to reject advertising outright. Nearly half (45%) skipped or ignored ads that weren't relevant to them. Others ran an ad blocker (29%), closed a website or app over the sheer number of ads (28%), or hid irrelevant ads to see fewer like them (27%). Still, fewer (16%) were willing to pay for an ad-free tier of a subscription service, and another 12% changed their settings to reduce the number of ads shown to them.

Despite this, many were willing to sit through ads if it means they save money. While over a quarter (28%) would pay to go without ads on TV and streaming services, nearly two-thirds (64%) preferred a cheaper, ad-supported option. For online video platforms like YouTube and Vimeo, half (49%) preferred a free service with ads, and 35% preferred the same setup for their news.

Curators were more willing to put their money where their mouth is. They were more willing to pay for ad-free movies and TV than non-curators, at 31% to 26%, and they also ran ad blockers at a higher rate, 35% to 26%. This shows that curators aren't just people looking to game an algorithm: they're people who want to optimize their time, and when they have to watch an ad, they want to make sure it's relevant.

Who Trusts the Algorithm, by Generation

The same algorithmic targeting methods can land very differently with different generations. One person sees a system that finally understands them, and another sees a robot that got too smart. People who grew up with technology are more ready to accept modern advances, but others want to go back to traditional advertising.

Younger Americans do far more to shape what they see, and they act more deliberately: over two-thirds (69%) of Gen Z said they often purposely influenced their ads, against 40% of boomers. Zoomers also think everything is fair game for targeted ads: when shown an ad that referenced something they'd discussed or thought about but never searched, 34% of the generation was impressed, compared with 15% of Gen X and 7% of boomers.

More and more, those recommendations and "mind-reading" ads are shaped by AI, and the American public knows it. Nearly two-thirds (64%) said they already knew AI helps decide which ads they see, including 34% who understood how those algorithms worked. The remaining 30% knew it was determining what they saw, but couldn't explain how.

Curators were most open to AI-enhanced recommendations. Over half (51%) found AI-driven recommendations useful, nearly double the 27% of non-curators who said the same. Non-curators were far more uncomfortable with AI-driven algorithms, with 51% saying the system seemed to know too much, compared with 41% of curators. This doesn't mean curators necessarily disagree with the concerns: half (51%) were concerned about how their information was being used, only seven points below non-curators (58%). Being comfortable with AI-driven advertising doesn't mean they don't want to know where their data goes.

People who spent the year training their feeds see a well-aimed ad and think the system worked. People who never touched theirs see the same ad and wonder who's watching. That distinction matters more to advertisers than age or platform does, and most Americans now fall on the first side of it.

What This Means for Advertisers

The uncomfortable part for the ad industry is that the people most receptive to targeting are the ones teaching it what to do. Curators are a valuable part of the market, and you can't find them by buying impressions or leads. They appear when someone has enough interaction with ads to recognize their own hand in what they're shown.

The people least comfortable with targeting aren't opposed to advertising — they've just never taken the wheel. They still watch ad-supported services, still buy things they first saw in ads, and say they're satisfied with those purchases. What separates them from curators is a habit, not a worldview, and habits are cheaper to change than beliefs.

Still, nobody's abandoning ad-supported media. Given the actual choice between paying more and sitting through commercials, people took the commercials, and they did it in every category tested. They just want to know where their information goes while they watch. Both things stay true at once, and the advertisers who plan around that will do better than the ones waiting for consumers to pick a side.

Methodology

Vibe surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults via Pollfish who currently use ad-supported websites, search engines, social media platforms, video platforms, mobile apps, or streaming TV services, screened to exclude non-users of ad-supported media. The survey measured active ad-shaping behaviors, purchase outcomes tied to advertising, trust in targeted ads, comfort across eight platform types, reactions to overly accurate or "overshoot" targeting, awareness and reactions to AI-driven personalization, and preferences around ad volume versus ad relevance. Results were analyzed across demographic segments including generation and curator status. Curator status was defined among respondents who took at least one ad-shaping action: "curators" usually or sometimes did so on purpose, while "non-curators" took the same actions but realized only afterward, for reasons unrelated to shaping their ads, or were unsure of their intent. Percentages reflect self-reported data and may sum to more than 100% when multiple selections were allowed.

About Vibe

Vibe is a self-serve streaming TV advertising platform that lets businesses of any size launch connected TV campaigns across 500+ premium channels, with audience targeting and AI-assisted creative built in. More than 12,000 advertisers use the platform, which became part of Walmart Connect in August 2026. Vibe's advertisers reach viewers on the same screens this research asked about, which gives the company a direct interest in understanding when targeted advertising earns its welcome.

Fair Use Statement

The findings and graphics on this page are available for non-commercial use. If you share them, please attribute Vibe and include a link back to this page so readers can review the comprehensive research and methodology.