Text archives Help


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


Chronological Thread 
  • From: John Havens < >
  • To: John Wunderlich < >
  • Cc: Doc Searls < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] "True Personalization Means Putting Big Data In Consumers’ Hands suggests sharing it"
  • Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:13:13 -0400

A lot of marketers don't want to cede that kind of control to individuals, definitely. The sad irony, however, is that most rely on personalization algorithms that are often built on faulty or erroneous data leading to a new trend of "uncanny valley" experiences for consumers. Meaning, people are getting freaked out when targeted ads almost know them too well versus standard spam.

Smart marketers will take their experience at communicating ideas about products and services and create "agent" or other trusted models along those lines where they can save individuals time by helping them sort/parse deals, etc, in VRM or similar P2P model.  But even then, those roles (like with social media) will go in-house fairly quickly versus outside agencies as they provide essential trust points for building trust.




On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:40 PM, John Wunderlich < "> > wrote:

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 < " target="_blank"> > 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 appeared in the midst, and the title (in the subject above) makes me want to share it with the list.

Doc






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.