Doc,
I might be misinterpreting, but reading your message comes across that we should throw out an idea that is obviously still formative because it is not perfect at its inception. Surely that cannot be your intent. If they came asking you to Project VRM seeking insight shouldn't it be encouraged?
Does anyone actually have a Fourth Party model that is financially viable? I cannot think of any that are not dependent upon grants or financiers. While change can happen from the outside, if you cannot finance that change you are stuck.
My problem with it is that the NYTimes article makes it sound like they are paying back to the user somehow, not just by improving the quality of the advertisements they view. Unfortunately, at this stage of their product it appears that there is no user incentive ... unless the user wants better advertisements.
Of course, I have no idea who Ginsu Yoon is beyond someone who worked at Second Life, so there may be history there that makes this response entirely reasonable ... but I am unaware of it.
- Jay
On Jul 18, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Doc Searls wrote:
Looks at first like Bynamite is a fourth party. Meaning they work for you and me, not for sellers. (Also known in this context as advertisers.)Their site:http://www.bynamite.com/I'll now go exploring...Okay, requires a Firefox plugin.Trying it out.Hmm... Okay. They want to plug into my purchase history with Amazon. Like Blippy.Before I say yes to that, I'll visit their pitch and their pages.First the pitch.Sez the home page...
They're Watching
The Internet is filled with advertisers that constantly collect information about you. What they know about you can get creepy, especially when they use that knowledge to bug you about things you don't like.
Fine so far. Then...
Take Control
You should always be in control over what advertisers know about you - you should be able to see it, change it, and delete it. If they won't give you control, they shouldn't use your information.
Again, okay, but I'm not crazy about advertisers "giving" me control. I want that to be mine in the first place.Then the real pitch:
Get Yours
When you have control over how advertisers view you, you hear about things you're actually interested in - rather than bad guesses based off of that thing you bought for your mom.
Aw fuck.Look, I don't just want better advertising. And I don't believe controlling what data advertisers get is going help me much at all.Improving a pain in the ass doesn't make it a kiss.Back to the site.Question Number ONe: HOw do they make money? Dunno yet...Their privacy policy: <http://bynamite.com/privacy.shtml>
The World's Most Honest Privacy Policy
A lot of people think that "Privacy Policy" describes how websites keep your information private. Wrong! Many of them actually say just the opposite: They describe how the website will take and use your information and share it with others, giving you very little control over what happens to your information.
Our policy is The World's Most Honest Privacy Policy because we're admitting right here that this policy isn't really about privacy. It's about control: Who controls what happens to your information after we collect it?Our answer: You do. You control all of the information that you send to us. You can always see it, change it, and hide it. We're here to give you control. It's your information, and the main goal of our service is to try to make everyone else respect your control as much as we do."
Okay, so what about the three tracking services that followed me onto the site:Google Analytics, CrazyEgg and ChartBeat? Far as I know, none of those collect personal info. But they still creep me a bit.More from their Privacy Policy <http://bynamite.com/privacy.shtml>:"This service is about putting your information in a place that gives you control over it, and demanding that advertisers give you the same control that we do. If you don't store any information with us, then you'll be making a demand that advertisers have no reason to obey."Not sure what to make of that.Their terms are here:<http://bynamite.com/terms.shtml>As always, the big question is what happens to your data if the company gets sold. Not answered here.The FAQ is here:http://bynamite.com/faq.shtmlNo answer to the money question here, where it should be.But there is a Question Forum. Here's where the answer happens...
How does Bynamite make money? I don't see a revenue stream here.
by anonymous | 1 comment
Status: under review
Glad you asked! Our thoughts are in the comments.
Default-avatar Ginsu Yoon Admin
A pause to point out that it's Ginsu Yoon's company.
1. Comments
1.
Default-avatar
Admin
Ginsu Yoon
Excellent question, thank you.
Note: When somebody says "Good question," it's usually because they don't have an answer. When they say "Excellent question," it's usually because they have a prepared answer for an uncomfortable question. Just a little body language tip for reading promotional text.
Our first order of business is to give consumers a view of what advertisers know about them - a view that is interesting, informative and engaging. And that view also has to be one that advertisers are incented to respect.
Incented?
Once we're able to establish that, there are a number of potential ways to make money, but we are restricted by the fact that the entire purpose of our product is to empower users above advertisers.
Tell that to your investors, if you can get any. (The New York Times piece kind of suggests they don't have any yet.)
So we can't surreptitiously sell user data to advertisers, for example. Everything we do has to be transparent to the user, and for the benefit of consumers.
This still leaves us with several interesting avenues. For example, we could charge advertisers (or really, ad networks) for the interchange of information that the users permit to be known by all compliant advertisers (in this view, a "compliant" advertiser is one that gives the user both transparency and control). There are possible compliance services and systems related to this as well.
However, as you can probably see, it's still early enough in the product's development that we're open to any revenue model that serves our basic mission, which is to give consumers more control over advertisers. I would welcome any suggestions in these comments. Thanks!
In other words, their only revenue model is to charge advertisers for better leads, because that's the only one he can talk about.That makes them a third party to advertisers, not a fourth party working for customers.Then there is this from the Times piecehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18unboxed.html
In a few years, Mr. Yoon says, a person's profile of interests could be the basis for micropayments or discounts. A media company, for example, might charge a monthly subscription fee of $10 for news or entertainment programming, but offer it for $8 to those who exchanged their preference wallets.
Can't wait for that.So count me out.Still, the tough question for VRMers in respect to fourth parties is, Would you pay a company to help you manage your own data, and your own relationships? Especially if that kind of company were substitutable -- like a bank?Because one challenge for VRM is to suggest business models that are not just about improving advertising. Which Bynamite clearly is.DocAt 8:35 AM -0700 7/18/10, Christopher Carfi wrote:
I second Jon's pointer to that piece in the NYT.
On Jul 18, 2010, at 8:14 AM, Jon Lebkowsky < " > > wrote:
"Our view is that it's not about privacy protection but about giving users control over this valuable resource - their information." - Ginsu Yoon, Bynamite. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18unboxed.html?_r=1
Esther Dyson posted a pointer to this piece entitled "User-Managed Privacy Tools." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/esther-dyson/release-90-user-managed-p_b_650383.html
Esther says "It may be simply that its time has finally come... Facebook et al. have accustomed users to managing their own data - and Bynamite wants to help them to do that Web-wide rather than merely on Facebook (and all the places it reaches with Open Graph). Behavioral targeting is also gaining traction recently; it's the same idea, except with the marketers in control watching the consumer surreptitiously rather than communicating with her."
~ Jon
--
Jon Lebkowsky
+1 512.762-6547
http://weblogsky.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jonl
facebook: http://facebook.com/jonlebkowsky
linkedin: http://linkedin.com/jonlebkowsky
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.