One of the issues that I imagine my colleagues continually face is that over time my views on topics can change – sometimes quite considerably. This leads to scenarios where people ask for my view one day only to find I may have reconsidered my opinion the next. While I’m sure this can be highly frustrating, from my perspective this arises due to the simple fact that I may have read around a topic in a little more detail and am therefore logically drawn to slightly different conclusions.
I wish I could say that this was the case with the huge furore that has surrounded Phorm. For those of you who aren’t aware, Phorm is a technology company that is trying to innovate some technology to target advertising at visitors to sites on the basis of their browsing habits. Having sat through a presentation from Phorm as someone working for a media planning and buying shop, (I’ve now declared my interest in this topic), my initial reaction was that this was a fantastic development – both from the perspective of the advertiser and the browser. One of the oft quoted sayings in advertising is that 80% of advertising is wasted, while only 20% is actually effective. Phorm or more properly the AIX network, promised to deliver relevant and highly targeted advertising to a group of individuals ‘interested’ in the advertisers product or service.
From my own personal viewpoint, this seemed like the dawn of a new age. If any blue chip brand advertisers who happen to work for the likes of Proctor and Gamble, (is that how you spell it), or Unilever, happen to read this, please take note: whatever the circumstance, I am not interested in the daily trials and tribulations of the various affairs on Cleaner Close – or for that matter (as I write) the vitamins I could buy for half price from Hollands & Barrett.
Now I know these are both TV adverts, but this is an area where I thought the web could really ‘deliver’ on its potential to better service site users. The opportunity to see advertising targeted around your interests and browsing habits – delivered right to you. I guess I was just being really naive. The privacy outcry that arose was quite simply amazing. I know that this was partly the result of Phorm having allegedly been associated with spyware in a prior incarnation and ‘secret’ BT trials during the summer of 2007. But surely this was just a massive overreaction? The prospect of having relevant advertising shown to me as I browsed websites seemed to be to be one of the lesser evils we have to contend with on a daily basis. Particularly when we consider:
- How many times I’m caught on CCTV everyday
- That my purchases at Tesco are analysed to such an extent that they now send me highly targeted grocery coupons and financial offers on a regular basis
- That each time I read and interact with my email all the links are invariably tracked – (so that they know exactly what I am interested in).
Don’t get me wrong. Some of the examples I give above, such as the prevalence of CCTV, I don’t have a problem with. Unfortunately we now live in a society that I actually like the fact that the daily walk from my office to the train station late at night is under continual surveillance, (well maybe – and anyway if you knew where my office was located you would likely agree). I just do not see what the problem was with a service that anonymously kept tabs on what I was interested in and served me relevant advertising as a result.
Some of the arguments, that people hate advertising and don’t want to be exposed to it in any shape or form are spurious. - How do people expect a lot of these sites to pay for themselves? If people were prepared to subscribe to sites it wouldn’t be an issue – sites could do without the revenue they derive from advertising.
If anyone has an obvious answer to this – please let me know! Given how happy we all are to let companies track us through email, I just think this is all a total overeaction!
No related posts.
Have a look at Bruce Schneier of BT’s illuminating essay.
Architecture of Privacy:
“Business and political realities make privacy harder. Some business models depend on walled gardens or invasive digital rights management controls. Other business models depend on collecting and selling personal data. Some countries depend on censorship to enforce morality or keep ideas out, while others depend on surveillance to control their citizens.
The natural tendencies of the Internet make privacy harder. Technology is the friend of intrusive tools. Digital sensors become smaller and more plentiful. More data is collected and stored every year. Privacy isn’t something that occurs naturally online, it must be deliberately architected.
Companies that retain personal information put their customers at risk. Security breaches, court orders, and disgruntled employees are just a few of the ways to lose control of data. Good architectures that minimize data collection reduce these risks, just like guardrails on highways prevent more serious accidents when drivers lose control of their vehicles.”
“Just as we look back at the beginning of the previous century and shake our heads at how the titans of the industrial age could ignore the pollution they caused, future generations will look back at us—in the early decades of the information age—and judge our architecture, and what we did to foster freedom, liberty, and democracy. Did we build information technologies that protected people’s freedoms even during times when society tried to subvert them? Or did we build technologies that could easily be modified to watch and control? History will record our choices. ”
http://www.schneier.com/essay-253.html
About Bruce Schneier
Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist and author. Described by The Economist as a “security guru,” he is best known as a refreshingly candid and lucid security critic and commentator. When people want to know how security really works, they turn to Schneier.
I suppose we could argue the rights and wrongs, and privacy issues to the n’th degree but at the end of the day I’m a big believer the concept behavioural targetting. It can help separate the wheat from the chaff.
My life could be made so much more enjoyable (and dare I say easier) to have the right product messages come and find me.
Bottom lines would look healthier too.
As you rightly point out Steve, we’re exposed to this level of personal attention in every other walk of life. Why not the web?
So, please, no more feminine hygene products and cat food ads for me…