Making It Personal

Steve MacLaughlin writes with proof that not everyone with a database wants to send you spam or sell your information to the highest bidder, even if only for the good reason that you'd be loathe to do business with them afterward. "Companies have access to more information about their customers than ever before, and customers aren't exactly jumping for joy. Purchasing habits, medical information, financial reports, favorite music groups, and millions of other bits of personal information are being captured by companies. In Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy, Bruce Kasanoff teaches businesses how to get closer to customers without violating their trust." Read on for the rest of his review. Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy author Bruce Kasanoff pages 240 publisher Perseus Books rating 8 reviewer Steve MacLaughlin ISBN 0738205362 summary Profiting from a database world without destroying everyone's privacy in the process.

But do not be confused. Personalization is not just another way to push more product out the door. Kasanoff clearly explains why personalization is not just a marketing tool, but instead an effective approach for all business relationships. Partners, shareholders, employees, and customers can all benefit from increased personalization. The purpose of implementing one-to-one personalization strategies is to benefit these stakeholders, not just the company. This is a fundamental concept that too many businesses just don't understand.

When customers give out their personal information they are taking a risk. If customers consistently feel as though their privacy is being violated, then it won't be long before they stop using the services. Companies will not be able to regain their trust easily, and worse yet the information they do receive is more likely to be false. This is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. Making It Personal shows businesses how to make personalization a win-win situation for everyone involved.

The reality is that not all personalization "is the result of a massive computer sifting through dozens of databases to automatically deliver a certain type of treatment to a person. Most initiatives start with employees who have a good idea." Personalization starts with remembering someone's address so they don't have to retype it 50 times. Personalization starts when you remember whether someone prefers a window or an aisle seat. Personalization starts when you remember whether someone prefers charts and graphs or cold hard numbers.

Kasanoff explains how just remembering basic information about stakeholders is just the beginning of personalization. The key is to then use that information to "deliver unique benefits" to those stakeholders. That's when personalization has the power to influence behaviors and retain loyalty. But just in case this isn't crystal clear then think of it this way: Using personal information for purposes other than delivering unique benefits is exactly what scares the hell out of both stakeholders and legislators. So knock it off.

Your customers are ready and willing to use personalization, but is your company? The good news is that you already have a lot of information about stakeholders that can be used for personalization. In additional, personalization features are now appearing in software applications from companies like Oracle and Microsoft. What is missing is the "need to make personalization a central part of [your] corporate strategy, as opposed to something that simply requires awareness and sensitivity." That's because personalization says "let us learn better what a customer needs and then do something about it."

Making It Personal explains how to implement meaningful personalization strategies, but the book also covers some potential unintended consequences. While you may be dealing with mountains of information don't forget that it's comprised of individuals. We have all seen the newspaper headlines that resulted from just a few individuals having their privacy violated by companies. Now is the time to put policies and practices in place to avoid tarnishing your reputation with stakeholders.

Bruce Kasanoff does a great job of breaking down personalization into easy to understand terminology and realistic approaches. He shows that it really is possible to balance privacy concerns with profit motives. Making It Personal is worth more than a casual glance because personalization isn't just about getting the local weather forecast when you visit your favorite web site. Personalization is about delivering unique benefits to stakeholders and a means to preserve their loyalty. Violate their privacy and you risk losing them to your competitors forever.

Making It Personal will help you to understand that "personalization is about people, and the things that matter to them most." Kasanoff knows what he's talking about, and so do the numerous business and technology leaders he cites throughout the book. They confront the real issues and the real challenges facing personalization even in its infancy. Making It Personal will prepare you and your company for a world where your customers demand that you get personal. Don't disappoint them.

You can purchase Making it Personal at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the review guidelines first, then use Slashdot's webform.

Comments

Sounds interesting, some related info

[f00zbll]

There's actually an organization called Personalization.org. They used to have a lot of papers and research available, but lately it's not on their site. Here is a link to a survey by the organization. In 2000 there were attempts to create a privacy protocol for b2b world, to make sure company A only sees information company b wants them to see.

I don't know whether that protocol died or not, maybe some one else who reads /. will know.

Long-term versus Short-term incentives

[Logic Bomb]

I think this boils down to the issue of whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term. If the former, the company will logically be led to the strategy from the book, because the idea will be to create a loyal customer relationship. A short-term get-rich-quick strategy will often lead to the misuse of personal information because it's a way to make a one-time buck. I think we already see this in much of the corporate world. Big serious companies who know we can take our business elsewhere (which doesn't include nice monopolists like Qwest) are far less fragrant violators of our privacy than fly-by-night immature 'net businesses, whose basic revenue model is often dependent upon that misuse.

Re:Long-term versus Short-term incentives

[wurp]

To get personalized service, I don't have to give my information to anyone. They just have to give my computer all of the different options, and let it choose locally which of those options to display to me.

There's no reason why (at least for internet based services) I can't get all the personalization I want without giving away any information at all. Even better, I don't even have to enter my preferences multiple times. If the companies could get together on a standard for how their client app looks for the personalized info, I can enter (for example) my address once and then I only have to click a button to let a company's client (locally) look at it.

So, I should go to your website, a client app should automatically download, then I can give it permission to ask info from my local preferences. When a pref doesn't exist, I get prompted (but just once) to enter it. Then prefs are available for all client apps that I give permission.

The only issue is that they could surreptitiously send info upstream even though they don't need to do so to personalize, but any app you download could do that, and people find out about such things and those companies get slapped down. Also, if the preferences are copyrighted to you, then it would be illegal for the bad companies to take it from you, thus it doesn't propogate on forever.

Re:Long-term versus Short-term incentives

[jayed_99]

I don't think that there are any companies with a long-term view. At least not the way I would define it (4-5 years).

Every company I've worked with defines "long-term" as "next quarter's financial reports" and "short-term" as "tomorrow's opening stock price".

As an individual I can make decisions based on long-term incentives...go to college for four (or five or seven) years, get a degree...do a crappy entry level job for three years, get real experience...consult for six years, make many dollars, become a sheep farmer...I can make adjustments in my current behavior for a future payoff because I'm still going to be me in 5 or 10 or 20 years, and I'll see the benefit. A company does not see benefits (long-term or short-term) -- the individuals that it consists of do.

When compensation is tied to stock price^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcompany performance, there is no connection between "long-term good for the company" and "long-term good for me". The days of lifetime employment and solid pensions are over.

The percentage of people who, today, can say that they realistically expect to work at the same company for 10 years is damn close to zero. Hell, in the IT sector, five years at the same company is uncommon. So I (and you) are going to maximize my (our) immediate gains(s) at the expense of the company's long-term gain.

If I can get an extra $100K or $1M or $15M this year from bonuses and stock options , I'm going to do it. Screw the long-term corporate impact. I'm not going to be there long-term. Corporations have killed off any sense of traditional corporate loyalty (probably because of executives making bad long-term corporate decisions in order to maximize their short-term individual gains).

Re:Long-term versus Short-term incentives

[Alien54]

whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term.

Since many companies are under the obligation to maximize profits, often in fear of legal suites, etc. Then you can bet that the short term outlook will be selected first.

This is in fact one of the major reasons for USian corporate greed, that you will be sued by trigger happy lawyers if you do anything else BUT work for maximum profits regardless of the motivation.

Personalization? Creepy...

[InterruptDescriptorT]

Am I the only one who thinks it's creepy that salescritters would use this sort of personalization tactic (for lack of a better term) in order to increase sales? My personality type (INTP) does not allow me to form personal bonds easily, and this holds true in business and personal situations.

If I have to deal with someone on the phone, whether it's to follow up on a sales call or to correct an error at the bank, I want it to be as impersonal and as efficient as possible. The more I feel like the salesdroid or CSR is trying to "get to know me", the more irritated and introverted I get, and the more likely I am not to continue using the services.

I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind; these are the types of people who most value and favour personal interaction with someone while performing some sort of transaction. I, on the other hand, being younger and more tech-savvy than many older folks, want things to be automated and efficient. (I go nuts when people in front of me at the store write checks, especially for smaller purchases. Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people? ;-) )

Anyway, what I guess I'm trying to say is that I know quite a few people who would not find this technique effective on them at all, and I suppose I'm kinda shocked to see that it might be applied more universally if one were to follow the advice of this book.

This is true

[gmack]

I really do prefer working with buisness that treat me as something other than a number. Whre I used to work there was a mass of food chains in the food area it's all boring with the exception of this older Lebonese guy who knows exactly what I want to eat and how I like it prepared. Not bad for a place I only eat at twice a week.

OTH I *hate* buisnesses who demand all sorts of information they don't even need. How does knowing my birthday and income level let them give me better service?

More people need to take this guy's advice.

Re:This is true

[KjetilK]

OTH I *hate* buisnesses who demand all sorts of information they don't even need. How does knowing my birthday and income level let them give me better service?

AOL. When I signed up for cell phone subscription years ago with the Norwegian telecom Netcom, one of the nice features of the provider I chose was that they provided an e-mail address for each number, and also the ability to send SMS to e-mail. Obviously, this may serve as an SMSInternet gateway, and I soon hacked up a few scripts that allowed me to check e-mail from my ordinary phone, even surf the web, but that didn't work too well.

No day, the provider decided that this was too dangerous for me, because people could spam me, and people could harass me by sending me anonymous e-mail that was hard to trace, so they decided to close the service. I flamingly told them that thanks, I can look after myself, but I didn't quit simply because I don't have time to check for a new provider. I will soon.

Anyway, they kept it open for some time, but then they shut it down. Now, they just reopened it, but you had to register specifically for this to use it. However, they required you to write up a very detailed form with lots of personal information. Also, they required that you allowed them to do a credit check.

I don't know what that's like elsewhere, or what information you can obtain, but a credit check in Norway is something you do against a central database, and they can only perform a credit check with your written consent, and the registry has to send exactly the same information back to you as they send to the people requesting the check.

Normally, this is only done by banks if you apply for a big loan, or something. I have never seen anything like this before: They actually wanted me to allow them to do a credit check on me to use a service that costs about nothing to run.

I told them to get lost, but it doesn't seem to have made any impression. Too bad, because I really liked the service they provided. I guess it has to be some marketdroid with a really tight strangulation device around his neck.

Just like old times

[Tri0de]

If one accepts the proposition that the best use of a computer is as a 'tool for the mind' or an extension of the brain, then it seems that optimal use of this technology is really just an updating of having the owner of the corner bookstore remember that you are, say, a Terry Pratchett fan and letting you know that a new book of his is out, or the local butcher letting you know they got a fresh slab of Mortadella ...

IMHO it does come down to trust. Once I trust your integrity, the rest is just details, if I don't trust your integrity then ANY information you have about me is too much.

Personalization won't work until Spam is dead...

[Bonker]

I very firmly beleive this.

I *want* sites to remember who I am and tailor their content to suit my needs and want, but for every company who goes under and sells a database to a data-mining company or a spamco, I grow a little more uncomfortable. I just don't feel comfortable giving information that personally identifies me and allows them to track me when I know that the only thing that stands between that information and the wolves is that given dot-com's bottom line.

Let's be honest here... Who expected any of the dot-coms to fail? Even VA-Linux is in chapter 11, aren't they? If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction? I hope this never happens, but it's a possibility.

Until spamming is a thing of the past and data-mining is illegal or so uncommon that nobody does it any more, then personalization just won't work in a big way.

Data protection acts protect many Europeans

[SomethingOrOther]

If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction?

But any company purchasing this information will be unable to use it to trade in most European countries.

eg. The UK data protection act says that personal data must be "lawfuly and fairly obtained"

To use personal details bought at an asset aution (therefore without the individuals consent) would be very illegal. They would not be allowed to use that information to trade in the UK
If memory serves, there have been articles on /. previously about this

Why don't US'ians get together and fight for a law like this?

Personalization Invades Privacy

[BuckMulligan]

This feel-good commentary on personalization adds nothing to the debate. The fact of the matter is that companies are collecting information for one purpose and using it for other, unrelated purposes.

The databases are immense, and go far beyond what music groups you like. Companies such as Experian trade information on your illnesses! They even have an incontinence database! This information is sold for as little as $65 per million names.

This information is available to government as well. In some cases, businesses just hand over the data. In others, businesses sell the information (Check out EPIC's web page on public records profilers: http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/). Government can also just subpoena the records.

Companies that care about privacy will not engage in personalization. They will provide services where possible without collecting information unnecessarily. They will also allow "Customization," the practice of letting the customer decide what features will be provided. Personalization does the opposite--it's the practice of saying "I know what the customer wants." Let the customer decide!

Re:Personalization Invades Privacy

[NearlyHeadless]

I haven't read the book, but I did hear Kasanoff last week on the Todd Mundt Show and he was very reasonable about privacy. He said that one aspect of personalization was providing the level of privacy that the customer wants, and that's something that is possible with the current technology.

Are we losing something here?

[mrroot]

All this personalization is pretty cool, it's nifty how Amazon.com knows what kind of books I like to read ahead of time and display them on a page customized to have the greatest potential of selling me something.

Unfortunately, while being convenient and helpful, it also is limiting and boring because I no longer need to navigate through their site or just browse for something new. How will I ever stumble upon that book on gardening when my personalized page is chock full of software development books and video games.

In my opinion, targeted selling, personalization, whatever you want to call it, causes people to become less aware of other things that are out there.

My point is some things are useful to be personalized and targeted toward the individual's habits, but others are not.

Re:Are we losing something here?

[jafac]

Another response to this kind of thing;
What if the personalization reaches a level of sophistication where the advertiser can identify an individual who is very discriminating in what he or she chooses to buy. Not only might they be able to tell that you're very discriminating, but they can learn exactly HOW you discriminate between "good" products and "bad" ones. And thus, they can learn how to mislead you or deny you the information you require to make such discriminating choices.

Actually, this is already in effect, but it's not targeted to individuals yet. Some people have better skills at sniffing out bad deals than others. Once the ad industry learns better "stealth" techniques, it will be easier for them to increase sales by screwing people.

Re:Are we losing something here?

[Saeger]

I don't see how personalization could be used to screw the dealhunters.

When looking for a good deal, you need only a few basic pieces of information, some of which simply can't be "personalized" out the equation without losing a sale completely:

1. Price: This is vital information. Granted, sometimes companies will try to hide the price, but then this works against them in my view. (e.g. "Call for pricing!" is an instant deal-breaker in my book--I'll go elsewhere.) Oh, and you can be sure that the first company to try dynamic pricing will get bitch slapped.
2. Specs: Again, this is vital. If I'm looking to get a deal on a new harddrive, an EvilCompany(tm) simply can't hide or misrepresent vital info (size,rpm,interface,etc) from a discriminating buyer without losing the sale completely.
3. Reviews: Real human feedback about some product/service is worth a million sales pitches. No company can filter outside sources like friends, magazines, Google, epinions, etc. And most people can spot a "personalized" shill a mile away.
4. Vendor slimyness: I buy books at fatbrain.com or bn.com because Amazon is slimier. No amount of personalization can change Amazon's policy (thought they could make the fineprint fontsize smaller :)

I don't know what I would do without price comparison search engines... and if an advertiser somehow knew I used such tools, they'd be better off showing me the real deals rather than trying to show me the overpriced crap that Mr. Ignorant eats up.

--

If they know me so well...

[Autonomous Crowhard]

One of the things that's always irked me is the concept that these types know so much about me. If they know me so well, why can't they seem to figure out that I immediately throw away all fliers, advertisements, free product offers, and trial subscriptions. I instantly delete any spam that makes it throught the gaunlet of my filters. And most important of all, I firmly and completely believe that it should be legal to kill telemarketers.

Not true

[kryzx]

Until spamming is a thing of the past and data-mining is illegal or so uncommon that nobody does it any more, then personalization just won't work in a big way.

You are taking a limited view of personalization, really just as it applies to websites, but it's much bigger than that. You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.

All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust. This extends to websites, too, but in that case there is much less incentive for people to establish trust relationships. Of course there are many different levels of trust. I'm not too worried about secrets like "prefers /. with no icons" leaking out.

Re:Not true

[Bonker]

All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information


I have reasonable and fairly easy legal alternativie when dealing with companies who divulge my personal information. If a company start distributing my personal information, such as a phone number or mailing address, then any companies who try to make use of that address are required by law to delete my entries if I contact them. If a telephone solicitor calls me and I demand they take me off their call list... they *have* to delete me, or risk civil or criminal consequences.

The same is simply not true for non-brick and mortar businesses, and there is nothing stopping them from trading and/or selling databases for 'data-mining' purposes: Ie: Company 'A' has a database saying that you bought subscriptions to porn websites, and billed it to a credit card. Then Company 'B' has a record of your name, credit card, and the billing address, which is a P.O. box. Company 'C' has a Database with your name, phone number, and real address. A simple SQL join on those two databases allows Company 'D' to start telemarketing explicit telephone chat service to your phone number and sending pornographic junk-mail ads to your home mail box, causing your parents/wife/gay boyfriend to start wondering what the hell is going on. Heaven forbid that your job depended on being 'morally upstanding', (such as a school teacher, etc...) and the knowledge that you get porn ads at your home started to get around.

This is an extreme example, but it shows how insidious this stuff really can be. Now this same example can be applied to brick and mortar businesses, but I don't like giving information to them, either, just for this reason.

Re:Not true

[Hard_Code]

Agreed. Physical brick and mortar businesses usually have to PHYSICALLY extract your personal info. You have to fill out a form, or get some stupid plastic buyers card. And you usually have the choice of NOT participating. Unfortunately the bar is significantly lower for online businesses. It's no longer an interaction directly between YOU and THEM...it's an interaction between your software and their software, and there is one big fat grey line as far as the trustworthiness of software, especially non-open-source software, which allows plenty of room for easy exploitation.

Re:Not true

[Tackhead]

> You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.
>
> All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust.

Hmm. There must be some strange organization named "IRS" of which I've been previously unaware.

Personalization should be optional

[Graff]

I have no problem with sites offering personalization options, but they are not for me. I think that most sites would be best served in offering the registration and benefits to those who want it, but also remaining fully open to those who do not.

Slashdot is a perfect example of this. If you don't want to register you can work the site perfectly fine and even post as anonymous (though you post as a lower caste). This is great for me, since I always toss my cookies I would have to re-register every single time I visited the site if I couldn't browse anonymously. Now the only time I log-in is when I want to post, since the benefits of posting when logged-in are worth it in my mind.

Honestly, I only know of one good reason for requiring a registration in order to use a site and that is when a site contains sensitive data which is only for certain people's use. Of course you have to lock it down and verify users then. Other than that I think sites are just trying to collect mailing lists on people. Personally I always give them totally false information, maybe if their mailing lists turn out to be full of crap they will get the point and stop the unsociable behavior.

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[Eimi Metamorphoumai]

Ideally, one of the pieces of info the salesdrone would get is "This guy doesn't make friends easy; just the facts". If that pops up on the computer screen the second you call, the person on the other end of the line can be fast and efficient in a way that, perhaps, others would consider rude and cold. Then you get what you want, they get what they want (long, slow, talkative, etc), and everyone is happy (except you while you wait on hold for them to finish).

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[tsprad]

I absolutely agree, and I'm an "older people" (over 50). I'm offended by sales 'droids calling me by name, and very much more so when they can't pronounce it. (Are telephone solicitors trained to never pronounce names reasonably? It's always a clue that I don't want the call.)

I suppose it is a difference in personality. Businesses should tag customer records with "likes to think we know him" vs. "prefers anonymity". But I always wind up in the supermarket checkout line *behind* the customer who wants to chat.

Community Spam blackhole

[awerg]

I have an idea (that is probably out there somewhere).

How would I setup a spam blackhole machine that could be used as a community service?
It would filter all email to /dev/null.
Then anyone could use that domain in their email address to eliminate spam from their personal account.

I use a debunked domain when asked for an email address.

What would I need to do?
Is this a good idea?

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[PoiBoy]

I think you are confusing personalization and hard salesmanship.

When I talk to a CSR with a company I do business with, whether it's my local bank or a supplier for my company, I actually prefer if the person at the other end of the line knows who I am and knows what I have done in the past. It helps to streamline the communications between us, and by knowing why I have called in the past, they can better serve me.

Of course, no one wants to call a company, only for them to use the opportunity to sell you more stuff, but personalization isn't just about trying to sell you something new everytime you call. It's about building a relationship with you so that they can serve you better and keep your business in the long run.

Some businesses really want to treat their customers as best they can and look out for the customers' best interests, and personalization helps make that possible. It's good business strategy. I think that's what the MBA-types would call a win-win situation.

This is more than annoying.

[Jhon]

I'm sure there are people who may enjoy having marketing "customized" for them. I, however, am not one of them.

Shouldn't there be something in the system that allows for an "opt out" of any and all information gathering? (Ideally, I'd rather see an "opt in"). As loath I am to additional legislation, I wouldn't mind seing something along these lines.

-jhon

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[AgTiger]

The better sites I have visited and do business with:

a) Use SSL the instant any personal information comes into play, such as my name, account number and address.

b) Ask me if I want to store sensitive financial information such as my credit card number, and honor my request.

Some personalization I like... Some I don't. I found it very creepy when I was visiting a page I had never been to before, and an Amazon advertisement banner had my name on it. That crossed my personal lines, because it felt as if Amazon had shared my info with others before I even got there. I investigated and found out that wasn't the case, but in business, impressions can be a lot more important than one realizes.

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[Pig Hogger]

I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind;
...
I, [...] want things to be automated and efficient. (I go nuts when people in front of me at the store write checks, especially for smaller purchases. Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people? ;-) )

Perhaps you need to mature somewhat and correspondingly wisen up a bit; you certaintly won't be a young punk all your life, won't you?

Annoying v. useful

[sulli]

Personalization can be very, very useful, or it can be very, very annoying. I think it depends on whether it saves or costs time, whether it adds utility or just noise, and whether it seems creepy or helpful.

Time: It saves time for the airline agent to have your frequent flier number up and know about upcoming itineraries and available upgrades. It wastes time for the Safeway guy to read your receipt before giving it to you and say "Thank you Mr. So-and-so."

Utility: Amazon recommendations can be quite relevant, and are available when you want. Slashdot friend/foe system lets you see comments from people you know to be funny or informative. Personalized solicitation letters from a zillion charities who all buy the Unicef list are not of any value.

Creepy or not: Somehow automatic recognition of my name and credit card number from Caller ID gives me the creeps. What if someone else were using the phone and wanted to make changes to the account? Doesn't make me feel safe, even though it's a time saver. OTOH it's helpful for a travel agent to already know my credit card and FF numbers.

A lot of this is subjective. Paying attention to what gives customers a better experience is what marketers are ultimately responsible for; maybe this book will help, though talk of "stakeholders" suggests not (too mushy).

Re:obsfucate personalization

[f00zbll]

It might not all be useless data. Amazon seems to have a fair system in place that makes good recommendations. Granted it's not perfect, but their personalization has about a 30% hit rate for things I really want, though the last year most of the things it recommends I already own (bought some place else). Another 30% get me to look at the product and consider buying in the future if I have cash to blow. The last 40% ranges from annoying to "oh I never thought of that".

As annoying as personalization can be, it is also useful when used judiciously.

A small but good example of personalisation

[Mr_Silver]

I fly with British Airways. When I go alone, I like to take a window seat. When I go with the girlfriend, she prefers the window seat and because I'm nice like that, I let her have it.

BA's computer system understands this and whenever I book with them they always try and get me a window seat. And when I book for two people then they get two next to each other with one being a window seat.

Yes its a small example. But its a good one. Personalisation and its bigger brother CRM (Customer Relationship Management) means that people feel that they have a personal relationship with a company and are not just some number in a database.

Re:A small but good example of personalisation

[Sven Tuerpe]

But its a good one. Personalisation and its bigger brother CRM(Customer Relationship Management) means that people feel that they have a personal relationship with a company and are not just some number in a database.

At least until you read how they think about it. Until you understand that those companies are the same that calculate the customer lifetime value -- your customer lifetime value. Do you understand that they might consider you worthless some day? They aren't interested in you. They are interested in your money.

Re:A small but good example of personalisation

[5KVGhost]

"They aren't interested in you. They are interested in your money."

I'm not the original poster, but this does not shock me one bit. Of course they are interested in my money. British Airways isn't a social club, it's a business.

But to keep getting their money they have to keep their customers happy. Keeping customers as happy as possible is the duty of every successful business (though lots of them seem to forget that.) Enlightened self-interest is a very strong incentive to behave in ways that don't offend your source of income.

Re:A small but good example of personalisation

[Sven Tuerpe]

But to keep getting their money they have to keep their customers happy.

Well, I prefer to choose myself who's going to make me happy, and there aren't many whom I allow to do so. People I have a business relationship with might well be among them -- as long as they are people. My local bakery could make me happy by remembering my preferences. British Airways can't, and if they try, it will be used against them.

Related note P3P protocol

[f00zbll]

P3P protocol article from last June, but I haven't seen any more publicity about companies launching products with it. It's good the industry is starting to recognize privacy as an important issue, but even third party companies like Truste can't do much when a company goes bankrupt and sells their database.

People need to stay vigilant about privacy and balance it with convienance. Right now few people would cry over the loss of personalization, but that might change in 80 years. There's still a lot of work needed to build a solid privacy framework using a standard protocol. This way we it will be easier for third party trust companies and consumer groups to perform audits.

Of course companies that don't use it will still abuse their position and take advantage of user data.

Here's what I want in personalization

[Animats]

(Washington, April 2003)
U.S. Postal Service announces Recycle Direct.

The USPS today introduced their new Recycle Direct service, which allows mail recipients to redirect unwanted mail directly to a recycling center. While all first-class mail will still be delivered, customers can now choose whether to receive third-class bulk mail in each of the following categories:

• Newspaper-format flyers not mailed in envelopes.
• All material addressed to "occupant"
• Personally addressed material mailed at commercial third-class rates.
• Personally addresed material mailed at non-profit third class rates.

The postal customer's preferences will be checked during automated mail sorting, and the rejected mail will be shipped in bulk to paper recycling plants for pulping. Revenue from the recycled paper will pay for the program.

All residential mail recipients will receive a postcard announcing the program, with checkboxes to indicate which categories of mail they wish to accept. Sending back this card will inform the USPS of the recipient's mail preferences. Mail recipients' preferences will be stored by the USPS in the National Change of Address database. Sorting equipment has been using this database for years to automatically redirect mail after changes of address. The new preference system thus fits into existing mail processing.

Bulk mailers will be able to cleanse their mailing lists using the existing USPS service for deleting undeliverable addresses from mailing lists. Use of this service by bulk mailers is optional, but failure to use it will result in bulk discards at the originating postal facility.

Representatives of the postal union lauded the program. "We're tired of delivering stuff people don't want. The FedEx and UPS people don't have to do that, and so they don't get the hostility we do.", one said.

Re:Personalization won't work until Spam is dead..

[Kallahar]

For most sites, I put in false information and put "privacy@site.com" as the email address. The only site that I have real info on is slashdot. Why? Because I trust slashdot to not use my information for nefarious means.

If a site forces me to give them information just so I can download a demo, I put in false info and will probably pirate a serial. The first rule of business is to keep your customers happy, forcing them to give up personal info just to try out your product is NOT the way to do that...

I *want* sites to remember "me" also, but "me" should be a simple cookie with a username and encrypted password, not my full bio.

Re:Personalization won't work until Spam is dead..

[Kurt Gray]

No, VA is not in Chapter 11, in fact VA has hardly any debt and still has cash in the bank. As for Slashdot, it's best revenue stream has been advertising and large ad clients such as IBM will not buy ad space here unless we post a network privacy policy

DoubleClick just quit ad Personalizating

[Speare]

An article on C|Net just reported DoubleClick doesn't find personalized ad profiles to be profitable:

• The New York-based company jettisoned its "intelligent" targeting service effective Dec. 31, a company representative confirmed Tuesday. Launched in 2000, the product allowed marketers to target ads based on a database of some 100 million profiles. The technology tracked people online anonymously and then served ads based on personal tastes.

The overhead of storing the data appears to outweigh the advertisers' demand for such data.

Re:Personal Smersonal.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I actually had a Radio Shack cashier tell me he couldn't sell me a cable because I refused to give him my phone numnber. I haven't darkened their doors since.

You should have given him a 976 pr0n number!

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[Pig Hogger]

Like there is nothing smart about rushing.

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[Tackhead]

> I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind; these are the types of people who most value and favour personal interaction with someone while performing some sort of transaction.

"Have a nice day!"
"Yeah yeah.... Will ya gimme my fuckin change, please?"
- George Carlin

(Seriously, I've noticed this too. Whenever I get a phone call - if I haven't already detected the brief gap caused by the predictive dialer - I respond to any cheery, perky voice that uses my full name with "Place this number on your do-not-call list". I've never had a false positive yet, though I have had a few surprised telemarketers who asked me how I knew.)

Re:OT: Friend/Foe

[sulli]

You can see your own friends/foes by going to:

http://slashdot.org/my/friends
http://slashdot.org/my/foes

You can also see who lists you as Friend or Foe by looking at my fans and freaks, respectively.

To add someone as friend/foe, go to their user page, click on a comment, then click the pearl. Or you can use the direct url, e.g.

http://slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=addcheck&type=friend &uid=458715, if you know the uid NUMBER.

Lots more info is at the article introducing zoo.pl.

My next feature request: zoo.pl hall of fame! Popularity contest!

Re:Personalization? Creepy...

[Erris]

Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people?

Yeah, my wife had all the money stolen from her account like that. I suggest a credit card or a check. If you say something rude to my wife while she writes a check, she'll kick you in the balls. There you go, two caveats for the price of one.

Back to topic, you are right. I hate it when some clerk thinks they know me because they've wasted my time reading what their database thinks about me. Moreover, the whole point of the book seems to be how to be a creep without getting caught. It's not going to work, especially with people filling up the databases with inccorect information. Fight the droids, lie to them when they waste your time.

force is not trust

[Erris]

You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.

All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust.

I don't trust my credit card company, the IRS and a long list of others who have forced me to give them information. When they use that information to annoy me, there is nothing I can do about it. When they give it to others to anoy me, I get really pissed about it. How do I know? They all make little mistakes, like my middle initial as J instead of H. J is for junk.

That's even worse.

[Erris]

I can't wait to have the mailman loose my important papers in my neighbor's junk mail for me. It's one thing when my papers arrive at my neighbor's house. It will be another when they get recycled.

Why won't they just NOT TAKE MONEY FOR TRASH TO BEGIN WITH? Junk mail has helped make the US post unusable and in the long run is a huge waste of public resources. It has tarnished their image, wrecked their efficiency, and made their service into a burden. This is just a measure to squeeze more money from their bulk mailers. If we are lucky it will backfire and eliminate bulk mail.

Airline personalization

[billstewart]

Back when I used to do lots of business travel, I found this extremely helpful. If I got an aisle seat and a vegetarian meal, I knew they had my frequent flyer number in the registration, whereas if I got a window seat and no veg. meal, I knew there was a high chance that corporate travel had screwed up again, and I should give the airline my frequent flyer number and start haggling with Travel and Amex to make sure they weren't charging my flight to some *other* w.stewart in the company, who would probably soon be wondering who'd flown to Australia on his credit card :-)

Re:Personalization won't work until Spam is dead..

[gnovos]

If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction?

Weeeellll, go down and rea the bottom where it says: "Comments are owned by the Poster." If VA wants to sell this database, then they will have to negotiate royalty payments directly with me, and I charge a $4.3 million dollar royalty fee per comment per view.

encourage email privacy

[Technodummy]

You can give me@privacy.net to those companies who insist you supply one.

If email is sent to that address, it sends them an automatic message that says:

"This is an autoresponse from me@privacy.net.
The user who provided this address did not want you to have his/her e-mail address in an effort to try to prevent receiving unwanted e-mail and/or keep their identity private.
Businesses: The person who provided you with this e-mail address did not perceive value in receiving your e-mail and/or did not want to provide you with their identity. The person did not "opt-in" to your e-mail and/or did not subscribe to your mailing list. If this address is "subscribed" to a mailing list then you have not taken steps to verify subscribers to the list. Please remove me@privacy.net from your list. You may wish to consider concentrating on improving the value of your offers so consumers will request to receive them rather than taking steps to avoid receiving your e-mail.
http://privacy.net"