Re: [projectvrm] "True Personalization Means Putting Big Data In Consumers’ Hands suggests sharing it"

[Don Marti < >]

The trend that's already out there is what you might
call "mindful buying" -- deliberately making the
money-spending process less convenient. Dave Ramsey is
the content leader in this area...

  http://www.daveramsey.com/blog

The biggest parts so far are budgeting and cutting
up credit cards, or not carrying them.

I can easily see extending the mindful buying
movement to include using privacy tools to disrupt
the connection between surveillance marketing and
the self.  (Adding tools under your own control will
have to wait until you have laid down a strong base
of privacy tech.)  Mindful buying is one motivation
for privacy, but not the only one.  Even prodigal
spenders can read an ad signal.

So where is the role for marketing?  Some marketing
activities have mainly positive externalities,
and others have mainly negative externalities.
Mindful buying tends to give an advantage to the
high-positive-externality kind.  The lower the returns
on creepy, the more useful information you get to
put out there (the more you tell, the more you sell),
and the more events and content you get to sponsor.

Don


begin John Wunderlich quotation of Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40:17PM -0400:
> 
> I have to wonder if putting big data and easy analytics in the users' hands
> is exactly what current marketing 'pros' DON'T WANT.
> 
> Take for example the 'quantized self'. The self uses their smartphone and a
> number of apps to collect information about themselves (heart rate,
> mileage, calories, blood sugar, etc). If self can put that in a personal
> cloud, under self's control, and then use that cloud to anonymously search
> for products and services to buy/use base on reviews and other
> characteristics - where is the role for marketing - or at least marketing
> as we know it. In other words, no insurance company has access to this data
> - anonymized or otherwise - without self's authorization.
> 
> Does this scenario (VRMish as it is) put self in a place for shopping for
> products based on utility and effectiveness? Mass personalization initiated
> by the self, as it were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Wunderlich
> Privacist @PrivacyCDN
> 
> 
> On 11 July 2014 04:05, Doc Searls 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> > I'm in Istanbul with a terrible connection, and can only do email (and not
> > well at that). Visiting the Web is a spinning-wheel exercise. Techies will
> > appreciate the problem:
> >
> > PING google.com (173.194.44.6): 56 data bytes
> > Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
> > Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
> > Request timeout for icmp_seq 2
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=3213.581 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=3022.304 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=2949.565 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=3005.342 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=3035.770 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=3005.190 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=3006.076 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=3156.819 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=3284.739 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=3374.818 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=10 ttl=54 time=3528.196 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=11 ttl=54 time=3761.773 ms
> > 64 bytes from 173.194.44.6: icmp_seq=12 ttl=54 time=3532.381 ms
> > ^C
> > --- google.com ping statistics ---
> > 17 packets transmitted, 13 packets received, 23.5% packet loss
> > round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 2949.565/3221.273/3761.773/248.441 ms
> >
> > Yet this item
> > <http://www.washingtontechnology.org/true-personalization-means-putting-big-data-in-consumers-hands/>
> >  appeared
> > in the midst, and the title (in the subject above) makes me want to share
> > it with the list.
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >

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