Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Kevin Cox < >]

It is easy to pay people for their information in a privacy friendly way.  Advertising can be thought of as lead generation.  Lead generation pays well.  The income from the lead generation can be shared between those that enable the lead and the person whose contact information is being supplied. The income to the person can be in credits or other benefits such as being the first person to be called when deals are being made available, or in extra frequent flyer points when we purchase an airline ticket, or in a reduction in petrol prices if a sale is made, or in discounts, or even cash.

The trick is to ensure that privacy is preserved and data only released by the person.  This makes the information much more valuable because it is scarce.  Private information has greater value than non private information. The trick is to share the increase in value with the person as well as the facilitator.

Kevin

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:05 AM, Don Marti < " target="_blank"> > wrote:

I'm still not seeing how users selling their
information to advertisers is supposed to work.

Strip away all the buzzwords ("Big Data!"
"Transparency!") for a second.  My information is
worth something to me as confidential information
going into a negotiation.

If a vendor is willing to pay me some price for my
information, then in order for me to accept it, that
price has to be greater than the intent information
plus the transaction costs to me of selling the
information.

The intent information is also worth something to
the vendor, but on the vendor side you subtract the
transaction costs.

So if I give up $20 in negotiating power for $22,
that's a good deal for me, but a lousy deal for
the vendor.  If the vendor is willing to pay me $18
for an anticipated advantage of $20, that's a lousy
deal for me.

If I'm "just looking" and don't need the product right
away, I'm willing to sell that information for almost
any price.  But it's of no value to the vendor, because
it just tells them that my intentions are to only
accept an incredible bargain.

Actually, I have an incentive to spoof my intentions.
If I can convince a vendor that I'm _not_ interested,
or can't afford the product at a given price, I might
get a better deal.



begin Adrian Gropper quotation of Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:34:17AM -0500:
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:34:17 -0500
> From: Adrian Gropper < "> >
> To: Peter Cranstone < "> >
> Cc: Don Marti < "> >, Marc Guldimann | Enliken
>  < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >

> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
>

> I just ran across Real Time Bidding
> http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/lukasz/rtbdesc.html
>
> It seems to me that VRM will evolve organically into a personal cloud
> ecosystem that gradually raises our cost to advertisers one millicent at a
> time.
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Peter Cranstone <
> "> > wrote:
>
> > It¹s amazing what is coming out. All those years of Eric Schmidt saying
> > Œtrust us¹ and now we¹re learning - Œnot so much¹.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/11/13, 8:47 AM, "Don Marti" < "> > wrote:
> >
> > >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-governmen
> > >>t-surveillance/#!
> > >
> > >Man, every time somebody says that something isn't a
> > >privacy issue to worry about, another Snowden document
> > >comes out...
> > >
> > >  For years, privacy advocates have raised
> > >  concerns about the use of commercial tracking
> > >  tools to identify and target consumers with
> > >  advertisements. The online ad industry has said
> > >  its practices are innocuous and benefit consumers
> > >  by serving them ads that are more likely to be of
> > >  interest to them.
> > >
> > >  The revelation that the NSA is piggybacking on these
> > >  commercial technologies could shift that debate,
> > >  handing privacy advocates a new argument for reining
> > >  in commercial surveillance.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/10/nsa-uses-goog
> > >le-cookies-to-pinpoint-targets-for-hacking/
> > >
> > >I wouldn't want to be in the "move along, nothing to
> > >be concerned about, all is well" business right now.
> > >(I wonder how much money there is in decorative
> > >stickers to cover MacBook cameras. Electrical tape
> > >is so "I'm a PC" after all.)
> > >
> > >Marc, time for a followup on "stop _not_ confusing
> > >behavioral advertising with government surveillance"?
> > >
> > >--
> > >Don Marti                      +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
> > >http://zgp.org/~dmarti/        Alameda, California, USA
> > > ">
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Adrian Gropper MD

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