Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Don Marti < >]

No, the Pew survey was just a regular phone survey
as far as I can tell.

Sanford Wallace and the DMA tried to "educate" people
about the benefits of email spam, too.

Don

begin Marc Guldimann | Enliken quotation of Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 09:05:52PM 
-0400:
> 
> Actually it's not close at all to your hypothetical survey. About 4/5 of 
> people took the survey after seeing 
> http://qz.com/64715/up-to-half-of-what-online-advertisers-think-they-know-about-you-is-wrong/
>  or 
> http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/22/online-advertisers-know-nothing-about-you/
>  
> 
> In order to read or watch a story about data driven advertising these 
> people likely cared more about their privacy and data than the average joe. 
> 
> Regarding the Pew study: did Pew educate the survey participants about how 
> online advertising worked before asking their opinion?
> 
> Marc
> 
> On Oct 17, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Don Marti 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> > I get up to the "Help Us Build A More Privacy Friendly
> > Internet" page and there are no items listed in the
> > table.  (But I don't have any default-configuration
> > browsers going right now -- I have have Disconnect
> > installed in one, and third-party cookies turned off
> > in the other.)
> > 
> > It seems like this is overstated, though:
> > 
> >  "A study we’re running at Enliken has found that
> >  less than 10% of the data advertisers use bothers
> >  consumers."
> > 
> > when it's a survey of _people who installed a
> > data-collecting tool from an a marketing company
> > web site_.  (That would be like me saying "Most users
> > say their favorite OS is Linux" based on the results
> > of a survey that runs as the last step of a Linux
> > installer.)
> > 
> > Pew Research Center: "Targeted advertising: 59%
> > of internet users have noticed it, but most don’t
> > like it"
> >  
> > http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012/Main-findings/Targeted-advertising.aspx
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> > begin Marc Guldimann | Enliken quotation of Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 
> > 05:31:46PM -0400:
> >> 
> >> Yes, the results are based on people who voluntarily installed the 
> >> plugin and ranked the accuracy and sensitivity of the data associated 
> >> with their cookies.
> >> 
> >> What did you think about yours?
> >> 
> >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 11:50 AM, Don Marti 
> >> <
 >
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >>> So I went to the Enliken survey, and clicked "rate
> >>> your data" and I get "Firefox prevented this site
> >>> from asking you to install software on your computer"
> >>> 
> >>> Tried it in Google Chrome, and I get a dialog with
> >>> more detail on the "Enliken Discover" tool.
> >>> 
> >>> Is the Enliken survey data based on only the people
> >>> who click through and install the software?
> >>> 
> >>> begin Marc Guldimann | Enliken quotation of Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 
> >>> 10:48:27AM -0400:
> >>>> 
> >>>> sort of relevant - In which I try to pick a fight with NPR, NYT and 
> >>>> the rest of the press who conflate online advertising with govt 
> >>>> surveillance: 
> >>>> http://qz.com/136081/stop-confusing-behavioral-advertising-with-government-surveillance/#!
> >>>> 
> >>>> T.Rob thanks for pointing out the variable pricing aspect of data 
> >>>> usage - I included it and it makes the story a little more balanced. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Marc Guldimann | Enliken 
> >>>> <
 >
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> This is really great dialog, and by the way T.Rob my critique of 
> >>>>> imaginary board room scenarios wasn't pointed at you, rather the 
> >>>>> general vilification of marketers that others on this list engage in. 
> >>>>> Apologies for the misunderstanding. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> At Enliken we're working to make the advertising industry more 
> >>>>> transparent, so I wholeheartedly (and self servingly :) support your 
> >>>>> desire for more transparency. You might be surprised how much support 
> >>>>> we get from folks in the industry, transparency is scary but surely a 
> >>>>> better outcome than regulation or having to spend increasing amounts 
> >>>>> of money on a technological arms race. Transparency also has the long 
> >>>>> term effect of pushing out the bad actors.. 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> To attempt answer your question about the Your Ad Choices folks not 
> >>>>> disclosing variable pricing: These are just different parties. AFAIK 
> >>>>> the folks in the DAA are not the brands themselves that are doing the 
> >>>>> dynamic pricing work - the DAA is mostly composed of networks, 
> >>>>> agencies and brokers. I happen to be speaking to the DAA today and 
> >>>>> will ask them about this point.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Marc
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 6:34 PM, "T.Rob" 
> >>>>> <
 >
> >>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Hi Don,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I can't tell if that's a very dry sense of humor or a serious 
> >>>>>> question so I'll respond as if it is the latter.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Yes, this type of thing should definitely be disclosed in the TOS, 
> >>>>>> but that's not what I was talking about.  I'm talking about simple 
> >>>>>> disclosure.   I could not find any sites that come out and tell you 
> >>>>>> they are using identity-based pricing, so that's the first level of 
> >>>>>> disclosure.  Anyone using identity-based pricing should disclose 
> >>>>>> that fact, and preferably give us the ability to opt out.  We know 
> >>>>>> that includes Amazon, Orbitz, Priceline, etc., none of whom I was 
> >>>>>> able to find any disclosure whatsoever.  Of course if they were 
> >>>>>> forced to disclose that will lead to higher prices across the board 
> >>>>>> so that the only way to get a good price is to provide your identity 
> >>>>>> for tracking (the grocery store model) but at least the practice 
> >>>>>> would be out in the open.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The second level of transparency is that when something is 
> >>>>>> disclosed, ALL of it needs to be disclosed.  An example from recent 
> >>>>>> discussions here on the list is EZ-Pass.  Here is how they explain 
> >>>>>> the system to interested consumers:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> "E-ZPass® is an electronic toll collection (ETC) system that allows 
> >>>>>> you to prepay your tolls, eliminating the need to stop at the toll 
> >>>>>> plaza. The system has three components: a toll tag, which is placed 
> >>>>>> inside your vehicle; an overhead antenna, which reads the toll tag 
> >>>>>> and collects the toll; and video cameras to identify toll evaders."
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> That's it.  All the rest of the information on the page is about the 
> >>>>>> administrative aspects of the system - topping off accounts, etc.  
> >>>>>> There is no mention whatsoever of the use of the technology for 
> >>>>>> anything other than toll collection or that it might be placed 
> >>>>>> anywhere other than at a toll booth.  In fact, the function of the 
> >>>>>> antenna is described as "reads the toll tag and collects the toll" 
> >>>>>> and since no toll is collected except at toll booths a casual reader 
> >>>>>> is not merely left to assume, but is in fact led to assume that this 
> >>>>>> is the extent of the system.  Oddly, if it was disclosed that the 
> >>>>>> congestion information for your GPS comes from these, people would 
> >>>>>> probably be a lot less unhappy with it.  But omitting that aspect 
> >>>>>> invites a backlash.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Although specific sites don't disclose identity-based technology, is 
> >>>>>> disclosed to consumers in general through trade groups.  Here, the 
> >>>>>> outlook is rosy and we are never told of the potentially harmful 
> >>>>>> effects on the consumer.  For example, here's part of what the DAA 
> >>>>>> wrote to the Tracking Protection Working Group:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> "The TPWG should not try to redefine established industry practice 
> >>>>>> and consumer expectations in an area where widespread consensus 
> >>>>>> already exists. The DAA has developed a comprehensive standard 
> >>>>>> governing web-viewing data practices. These robust policy guidelines 
> >>>>>> for the responsible collection and use of web viewing data have been 
> >>>>>> committed to by industry and implemented via a global framework 
> >>>>>> across the digital marketing ecosystem (see www.youradchoices.com)."
> >>>>>> http://www.aboutads.info/blog/press-release-daa-issues-open-letter-w3c-actions-working-group-threaten-ad-supported-internet
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> So basically, "keep yer mitts off our cookies!"  The TPWG exists to 
> >>>>>> address consumer concerns about tracking so the DAA response is how 
> >>>>>> they'd like consumers to perceive the technology.  If you go to the 
> >>>>>> consumer-facing site they linked to, here's how it is explained:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> ------------------
> >>>>>> How does interest-based advertising benefit me as a consumer?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Better ads and offers. With interest-based advertising, you get ads 
> >>>>>> that are more interesting, relevant, and useful to you. Those 
> >>>>>> relevant ads improve the online experience and help users find the 
> >>>>>> things that interest them more easily.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> There is another benefit for you as well: free or lower-cost 
> >>>>>> products and services. Interest-based advertising supports the 
> >>>>>> Internet itself. Today’s Web sites and online services rely on this 
> >>>>>> type of advertising for revenue so that they can offer a richer 
> >>>>>> array of products and services for lower costs or entirely for free. 
> >>>>>> Every time you check the latest breaking news, use e-mail, view 
> >>>>>> weather forecasts, track your favorite stocks or sports team scores, 
> >>>>>> or share photographs and videos, you are seeing the consumer 
> >>>>>> benefits of interest-based advertising at work.
> >>>>>> http://www.youradchoices.com/faq.aspx 
> >>>>>> ------------------
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Note they specifically call out that prices will be *lower* for 
> >>>>>> tracked individuals.  There is of course no mention of how tracking 
> >>>>>> might be, in fact *is*, used against the consumer.  The function of 
> >>>>>> the youradchoices.com web site it seems to me is as a honeypot or a 
> >>>>>> façade that provides a nice, clean wholesome image but fails to 
> >>>>>> disclose all the machinations going on under under the covers.  It 
> >>>>>> is as slick and seamless as a Disney park.  You only see what you 
> >>>>>> are meant to see and nothing more.  You don't get that polished on 
> >>>>>> accident.  That it contains no mention whatsoever of any negative 
> >>>>>> aspects is conscious and deliberate.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> That glaring omission is not transparent.  Not trustworthy.  Not 
> >>>>>> ethical.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -- T.Rob (Not happy.)
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: 'Don Marti' 
> >>>>>>> [mailto:
 ]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:48 PM
> >>>>>>> To: T.Rob
> >>>>>>> Cc: 'Marc Guldimann | Enliken'; 'Doc Searls'; 'Shannon Clark'; 
> >>>>>>> 'Katherine
> >>>>>>> Warman Kern'; 'ProjectVRM list'
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> But how could you have a transparent relationship with every company
> >>>>>>> that wants to drop a third-party cookie on your browser, or 
> >>>>>>> otherwise track
> >>>>>>> you?  Would you be able to do anything but read ToS documents all 
> >>>>>>> day?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> begin T.Rob quotation of Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:52:27AM -0400:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> is really happening. Make believe stories of what happens in board
> >>>>>>>>> rooms of evil media tyrants simply doesn't move the discussion
> >>>>>>> forward.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> True I made that illustration up but the point was that the very 
> >>>>>>>> thing
> >>>>>>>> we are told we are supposed to be happy about is just as easily 
> >>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>> against us as it is in our favor.  If dynamic personalized pricing 
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> available it is possible to attract more business from price 
> >>>>>>>> sensitive
> >>>>>>>> shoppers by offering them personalized discounts.  Woo hoo!  I get 
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> discount!  But it is just as possible to *increase* the cost for
> >>>>>>>> price-insensitive shoppers and that's already been implemented.  
> >>>>>>>> That
> >>>>>>>> implementation required proposal development, executive reviews,
> >>>>>>>> significant investment in hardware and software, and a LOT of
> >>>>>>>> discussion about how to present this - if at all - to the customer.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> So yeah, that boardroom discussion I alluded to was hypothetical.  
> >>>>>>>> It
> >>>>>>>> may in fact be possible that our largest global retailers allow
> >>>>>>>> mid-level managers to implement discriminatory pricing, including
> >>>>>>>> funding all the hardware and the software development, without any
> >>>>>>>> executive oversight whatsoever.  I don't have an MBA or anything 
> >>>>>>>> and I
> >>>>>>>> may be extremely naïve in my thinking but it just seems to me that
> >>>>>>>> some executive sign-off was required to do this and that nothing of
> >>>>>>>> this magnitude gets implemented in production without the board's
> >>>>>>> knowledge.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Regardless of the validity of the illustration I used, the 
> >>>>>>>> observation
> >>>>>>>> was that consumers are being asked to judge the worth of the system
> >>>>>>>> based on incomplete information.  The system deviates both above 
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> below a baseline price, depending on the profile of the identified
> >>>>>>>> individual and does so by conscious, deliberate design.  The 
> >>>>>>>> criteria
> >>>>>>>> that comprise levels of price sensitivity had to be identified, 
> >>>>>>>> quantified,
> >>>>>>> tested over time and refined.
> >>>>>>>> That it charges more when possible was no accident.  However the
> >>>>>>>> individual customers involved are never told that they might pay 
> >>>>>>>> more.
> >>>>>>>> The story we are fed is that we are always better off for the
> >>>>>>>> personalization and tracking and should therefore welcome it with 
> >>>>>>>> open
> >>>>>>>> arms.  At least half of the behavior of the system is hidden from
> >>>>>>>> customers and, again, deliberately so.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I don't see how calling for more equity and transparency in the
> >>>>>>>> relationship fails to move the discussion forward.  Unless of 
> >>>>>>>> course
> >>>>>>>> the trajectory is toward even greater inequity and opacity and my
> >>>>>>>> approach would slow or stop that momentum.  In that case I'd
> >>>>>>>> completely agree with your statement but not the implication that
> >>>>>>>> reversing that trend is a bad thing.  In fact, I'd say that
> >>>>>>>> establishing these as formal requirements is more likely to result 
> >>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>> an engaged and trusting customer relationship than not and if 
> >>>>>>>> that's
> >>>>>>>> the case, calling it out explicitly could be the textbook example 
> >>>>>>>> of moving
> >>>>>>> the discussion forward.  I guess it depends on the discussion you 
> >>>>>>> want to
> >>>>>>> have.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> -- T.Rob
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -- 
> >>> Don Marti                      +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
> >>> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/        Alameda, California, USA
> >>> 
 
> >> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Don Marti                      +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
> > http://zgp.org/~dmarti/        Alameda, California, USA
> > 
 
> 

-- 
Don Marti                      +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/        Alameda, California, USA