Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Guy Higgins < >]

Matt,

Absolutely!  Any new “product” must do one of a very small number of things if it is to succeed:

• Be cheaper than existing options
• Have better performance than existing options (this is seldom the case for new products)
• Be easier to use than existing options
• Be more accessible than existing options

If a new product can’t do at least one of those things — there is no win in it, no matter how beautiful the theory behind why people should but it.

Guy

From: Matt Hogan < "> >
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:34:02 -0500
To: Adrian Gropper < "> >
Cc: Kevin Cox < "> >, Peter Cranstone < "> >, Don Marti < "> >, Marc Guldimann | Enliken < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

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.

Datacoup.com

@matthewphogan

@datacoup

415-533-7492