Re: [projectvrm] Ad Tech Is About To Get Boring, And That’s Good For Marketers | TechCrunch

[Don Marti < >]

begin =Drummond Reed quotation of Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 09:45:19PM -0700:
> 
> Right on, Doc. Apple is not just taking the high road here, they are taking
> the road to higher profits.

The fun part would be if they are able to beat Google
in advertising as a side effect of building a more
trustworthy device.

Sometimes it seems like print/TV advertising is playing
a completely different game from web and mobile:

  Forget Ad Avoidance, Growth of Digital -- TV Holding Its Own
  Medium is Still Most Effective Ad Vehicle, Study Finds
  http://adage.com/article/media/study/298943/


> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Doc Searls 
> <
 >
> wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, all.  Good points.
> >
> > I hated that piece the first time I read it, when it ran last October.
> > "Privacy vs. User Experience" is like “Clothes vs. Work.” It’s a strange
> > and wrong distinction. Particulars from the piece:
> >
> > Apple is going to realize very soon that it has made a grave mistake by
> > positioning itself as a bastion of privacy against Google, the evil 
> > invader
> > of everyone’s secrets.
> >
> > Wrong. It's a totally smart move, and in full compliance with the
> > zeitgeist as measured by Pew, TRUSTe, Customer Commons and others. Privacy
> > is a huge issue hardly being addressed at all by Google, Facebook and the
> > adtech world — all of which are in degrees of denial about it. And the
> > issue is caused by surveillance, pure and simple.
> >
> > The truth is that collecting information about people allows you to make
> > significantly better products, and the more information you collect, the
> > better products you can build.
> >
> > Sure. And stealing people’s money makes you richer too.
> >
> > Apple can barely sync iMessage across devices because it uses an
> > encryption system that prevents it from being able to read the actual
> > messages.
> >
> > Yeah, a lot of Apple apps suck. But it learns constantly through the best
> > customer support in the business, and constant intelligence gathered, face
> > to face, with customers at its stores. The B2B surveillance-o-sphere has
> > nothing of the sort, and it makes them blind in a critical way that
> > companies with paying customers are not.
> >
> > Google knows where I am right now, where I need to be for my meeting in an
> > hour, what the traffic is like, and whether I usually take public
> > transportation, a taxi, or drive myself. Using that information, it can
> > tell me exactly when to leave. This isn’t science fiction; it’s actually
> > happening.
> >
> > That stuff for most of us is fine, at least in those areas (maps, search,
> > etc.) where we know what’s going on and roughly how it works. What's not
> > fine is having highly personal ads, that are clearly based on being 
> > tracked
> > who-knows-where, show up in places where we don’t appreciate them and they
> > creep us out.
> >
> > And Apple’s hardline stance on privacy is going to leave it in Google’s
> > dust.
> >
> > No, it’s going to position Apple clearly on the individual’s side. That’s
> > a sharp and huge distinction.
> >
> > In a recent public letter <http://www.apple.com/privacy/> about privacy,
> > Tim Cook incorrectly characterized Google’s intentions when collecting 
> > user
> > information:
> >
> > Our business model is very straightforward: We sell great products. We
> > don’t build a profile based on your email content or web browsing habits 
> > to
> > sell to advertisers. We don’t “monetize” the information you store on your
> > iPhone or in iCloud. And we don’t read your email or your messages to get
> > information to market to you. Our software and services are designed to
> > make our devices better. Plain and simple.
> >
> > Cook is being disingenuous, because he knows that the same information
> > Google uses to target advertising is also used to make its products, like
> > Google Maps, so great.
> >
> > Both companies get plenty of information to improve their products, and in
> > ways that aren’t creepy. All Tim Cook does here is position his company in
> > sharp relief against exactly what creeps people about Google and its 
> > lesser
> > ilk.
> >
> > I find it very odd that Cook implies the only use for such data is to
> > “monetize” through advertising. iPhone and iCloud could be made much 
> > better
> > if the computer systems could analyze the data people are storing in them.
> > This is obvious.
> >
> > And much less useful. Apple’s whole app ecosystem is much more robust and
> > healthy because Apple doesn’t know any of the users’ personal data.
> >
> > Look at Apple Health. None of the research, or app and data integration
> > that’s possible there could happen at all if Apple — or any other one
> > company — was spying on it. (Adrian, weigh in on this one if you like.)
> >
> > A fact not yet obvious is that people can do more with their own data than
> > any central system can. This proved out with personal computing, with
> > networking and with mobility. Assuming that only BigCos like Google should
> > have full agency with personal data is nuts, and will prove wrong in time.
> > In fact, it’s our job here to prove it wrong.
> >
> > The real issue that Apple is trying to address is not really privacy, but
> > rather security.
> >
> > No, it’s both.
> >
> > Though Google has all of my data, it is still private. Google does not
> > sell access to my data; it sells access to my attention. Advertisers do 
> > not
> > get my information from Google. So as long as I trust Google’s employees,
> > the only two potential breaches of my privacy are from the government or
> > from a hacker. If we accept this as a fact, the fundamental privacy
> > question changes from, “Do you respect my privacy?” to “Is the user
> > experience improvement worth the security risk to my private information?”
> >
> > So why do we get ads for things mentioned in Gmail? And email pitches
> > offering help from companies we complain about in private emails? Even if
> > Google isn’t responsible for those ads and emails, the fact that Google
> > reads our emails makes them suspect. And there is a cost to that: a
> > seriously icky social and economic externality.
> >
> > As long as people understand the potential risks, the answer to the second
> > question is almost always, “Yes.”
> >
> > But most people don’t understand the risks. Or if they do, they acquiesce
> > to them, because they’re not wizards, and shouldn’t have to be.
> >
> > And with the emergence of artificial intelligence, the answer to that
> > question will become increasingly more clear. The vast improvements in 
> > user
> > experience far, far outweigh the potential security risks to private
> > information.
> >
> > Which would you rather trust — a company that has a clear privacy policy
> > of not touching your data, plus an economic incentive to back that
> > commitment up, or a company committed to following everything you do,
> > building a big AI machine to run your life, and saying “Trust us,
> > everything will be fine. We know you better than you do?”
> >
> > Unfortunately, Apple has answered, “No.”
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately for Apple’s competitors.
> >
> > BTW, Apple is no saint. They’re just not the dummy this dude makes them
> > out to be.
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> > On Jun 9, 2015, at 8:54 PM, Deb Personal email 
> > <
 >
> > wrote:
> >
> > I love you guys.
> >
> > Oh - and - plus 100 to what Doc said. Marketers are running down a rat
> > hole to get more data - it's replaced the BIG IDEA of creative ads [aka 
> > mad
> > men]. They will soon learn that data without understanding that human
> > beings are behind those screens is just plain dumb. It is not about them.
> > It is about us - hence the logic of VRM.
> >
> > If we are in a relationship economy , no two relationships are the same -
> > this stuff is hard messy and subtle - but the big guys always go for
> > "scale" and "efficiency". Perhaps a "win" in the short term but not the
> > long run.
> >
> > Rant over.
> >
> > ------------
> > Cheers,
> > D
> >
> > Apologies for the brevity. Sent from mobile phone.
> >
> > On Jun 9, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Nathan Schor 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> >
> > Drummond,
> > Nicely put –>
> > every service currently being offered by the surveillance economy without
> > any of the downsides of  the surveillance economy. That's a VRM economy.
> >
> > Nathan Schor 305.632.1368 
> > 
 
> >
> > *From:* =Drummond Reed 
> > [mailto:
 
> > <
 >]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 9, 2015 4:30 PM
> > *To:* Johannes Ernst
> > *Cc:* Don Marti; Doc Searls; James Pasquale; ProjectVRM list
> > *Subject:* Re: [projectvrm] Ad Tech Is About To Get Boring, And That’s
> > Good For Marketers | TechCrunch
> >
> >
> > +1. If you have a smart way to give the vendors you want access the data
> > you want them to have—and if you feel confident that the data is remaining
> > under your control—then you can get every service currently being offered
> > by the surveillance economy without any of the downsides of
> > the surveillance economy.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's a VRM economy.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Johannes Ernst 
> > <
 >
> > wrote:
> >
> > This is a common, but to me rather unconvincing argument.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, certain data is needed in order to accomplish certain things. But it
> > does not follow that a third party (Google) needs to have that data, only
> > that the data needs to be somewhere.
> >
> >
> >
> > This article essentially argues that because people need spreadsheets to
> > do their budgets, the spreadsheet needs to be hosted by Google. No, it 
> > only
> > needs to exist somewhere, and can also run on my local PC.
> >
> >
> >
> > Admittedly it is a lot easier for Google to run their algorithms in their
> > data centers, than for Apple or anybody to run the same algorithm on the
> > user’s own hardware. However, given that Apple doesn’t know what to do 
> > with
> > all the cash they are generating, this seems to be a solvable problem 
> > IMHO.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2015, at 23:20, Don Marti 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dustin Curtis (via Daring Fireball):
> >
> >  Apple is going to realize very soon that it has made
> >  a grave mistake by positioning itself as a bastion of
> >  privacy against Google, the evil invader of
> >  everyone’s secrets. The truth is that collecting
> >  information about people allows you to make
> >  significantly better products, and the more
> >  information you collect, the better products you can
> >  build. Apple can barely sync iMessage across devices
> >  because it uses an encryption system that prevents it
> >  from being able to read the actual messages. Google
> >  knows where I am right now, where I need to be for my
> >  meeting in an hour, what the traffic is like, and
> >  whether I usually take public transportation, a taxi,
> >  or drive myself. Using that information, it can tell
> >  me exactly when to leave. This isn’t science fiction;
> >  it’s actually happening. And Apple’s hardline stance
> >  on privacy is going to leave it in Google’s dust.
> >
> >  http://dcurt.is/privacy-vs-user-experience
> >
> > Some good points.  It's possible that Google is going
> > to make the "much better Yellow Pages" (as Bob Hoffman
> > puts it) kind of medium out of Android -- which makes
> > Google's platform much worse for brand advertising, but
> > that's fine, because there's money in search ads too.
> >
> > Are we rebuilding the two-class system of
> > directory/search ads (was Yellow Pages, now mobile)
> > and branding ads (was magazines, now web)?  That might
> > not be so bad.
> >
> > begin =Drummond Reed quotation of Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 09:08:30PM -0700:
> >
> >
> > Giant +1. Notice that Apple, taking the privacy stand, is not touting Big
> > Data.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Doc Searls 
> > <
 >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marketing got the tech budget. (And other budgets as well.) The sellers of
> > Big Data Solutions to Marketing made sure of that. IBM and its competitors
> > did a brilliant job of both driving the Big Data meme and addressing their
> > pitches to CMOs. (“No, we can’t talk to your CIO or your CTO. We need to
> > talk to your CMO. Don’t have one? Call us when you do. Meanwhile, have 
> > this
> > analyst report on Big Data we paid for.”)
> >
> > Thus we have a mania in business today, where every company is a Jones
> > trying to keep up with the other Joneses. You can’t have too much data, 
> > too
> > much tech for data, and know too much about everything your business
> > touches, especially your markets and your customers. Hence all the focus 
> > on
> > surveillance, “data driven creative” and the rest of it.
> >
> > I don’t know where it ends, but I do know VRM — by making customers more
> > independent and engaging — can help burst the bubble. Data matters within
> > VRM, of course. But capabilities are the main thing.
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 8, 2015, at 11:19 AM, James Pasquale 
> > <
 >
> >  wrote:
> >
> > And this is good news for VRM efforts…  Why rest now when we are so close
> > to it: Time to convince the CMT to let the individual drive the
> > conversation and focusing on marketing signals based on permissions.
> >
> > Copied TEXT from article link
> > “Marketing is rapidly becoming one of the most
> > technology-dependent functions in business,” a CTO and marketing analyst
> > for Gartner wrote in a Harvard Business Review article titled The Rise of
> > the Chief Marketing Technologist
> > <https://hbr.org/2014/07/the-rise-of-the-chief-marketing-technologist>.
> > In the most recent Accenture CMO Insights survey, 78 percent of marketers
> > said they believe marketing will undergo a “fundamental” change over the
> > next five years, becoming significantly more focused on technology. And 
> > for
> > the past few years, marketers have come to accept as gospel,
> > the Gartner prediction that CMOs will outspend CIOs on technology by 2017.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/ad-tech-is-about-to-get-boring-and-thats-good-for-marketers/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch)&utm_content=FaceBook
> > <
> > http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/06/ad-tech-is-about-to-get-boring-and-thats-good-for-marketers/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Don Marti
> > http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
> > 
 
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Don Marti                    
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/