Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Jim Bursch < >
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising
  • Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:06:05 -0800
I think there is something that is being missed. Advertising is communication -- the point of advertising is to communicate a message to a potential customer, and more specifically, to communicate the right message to the right person, which would be the person most likely to buy or otherwise act on the information.

Advertisers don't give a squat about data -- they have no interest in purchasing data. What they want is to communicate to the right person at the right time.

The promise of "big data" is that they can identify the right people at the right time, a promise that they generally fail to deliver on.

Advertisers will pay to get their message in front of the right person. The premise of MyMindshare.com is that advertisers should pay consumers directly to get in front of the right people. If advertisers are paying, that creates an incentive for the right people to raise their hand and say "I'm the person you are looking for."

Twitter with an eBay business model.
 
Jim Bursch
310-869-5340

 
 ">
 
@jimbursch
On 12/11/2013 2:05 PM, Peter Cranstone wrote:
" type="cite">
>> With that in mind, it seems important to understand that tools are not useful unless they come with incentives to build mutually beneficial relationships. 

Yep. Make it easy for the user to send his/her private data and in turn make it easy for the Vendor to read and do something with that data in real time. Remove the friction and drive up the value. Apple’s iTune store and Amazon’s web site are prime examples of removing friction.





Peter


People definitely understand the language of value. But to me the future of marketing is in reducing the transactional (and often antagonistic) nature of the buyer/seller relationship and replacing it with a process of mutual value creation. In other words, an understanding between these two parties that businesses providing customers with something isn't a zero-sum game. 

In fact, as a marketer, I strongly believe that a more community approach to business not only maximizes value for the customer but also for the business - it allows them to better harness customers as researchers, innovators, and sales-people.

With that in mind, it seems important to understand that tools are not useful unless they come with incentives to build mutually beneficial relationships. 

Jake


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Matt Hogan < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
Absolute +1. Everyone speaks the language of dollars, or, more abstractly, "this for that" (transactions). Very few speak the language of privacy, digital walls, ad blockers, browsers, OS's, etc.. Any solution must be immediately gratifying economically (trivial, small, whatever) if it's to attain even a modicum of adoption. Privacy elements need to be going on in the background, or layered in after product/market fit. 


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Adrian Gropper < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
I've come to believe that putting a $ value in front of the person is an essential component of the VRM user interface and adoption. Even if that value is wrong or trivial or small, people understand money in a way that they will never understand privacy.

Adrian


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
+1 Peter
It has to be a win/win/win situation.  The organisation with your personal information, you, and the vendor who wants to deal with you.   The organisation with your personal information can sell it for a high price if they help you keep your data private - until you want to release it.  The vendor doesn't want to waste their time with tyre kickers and you only want to deal with vendors who can help you and not rip you off.  The organisation with your personal information can act as a broker between the vendor and you because they can get information about the vendor from previous buyers and provide that to you as well as help you provide information to the vendor.

Kevin


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
One other thought. The vendor has costs that shift over time based on the
value of the intent signal and your data (someone will have better than
others). A balance has to be struck (IMO) that allows the vendor to make a
profit. You trade your data for a ‘deal’ and a great experience. The
vendor gets a customer and makes a profit - a win - win.

There has to be some incentive for both of the parties to continue the
relationship. IMO the customer wants to be treated fairly and have a great
experience. The vendor wants a repeat customer and to make a profit. Once
there’s ‘alignment’ in the exchange of value then ‘trade and trust’
flourish.



Peter





On 12/11/13, 11:05 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 < " target="_blank"> >
>> To: Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> >
>> Cc: Don Marti < " target="_blank"> >, Marc Guldimann | Enliken
>>  < " target="_blank"> >, ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> >
>> 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 <
>> " target="_blank"> > 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" < " target="_blank"> > 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-goo
>>g
>> > >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
>> > > " target="_blank">
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Gropper MD
>
>--
>Don Marti                      +1-510-332-1587 (mobile)
>http://zgp.org/~dmarti/        Alameda, California, USA
> " target="_blank">





--
Adrian Gropper MD



--
CEO/Founder
DataCoup, Inc.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6911 - Release Date: 12/11/13



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§