Slashdot Mirror
Instant Messenger or Instant Advertiser?
Shadow2097 writes: "ABC News is running this moderately disturbing story about a new, highly targeted form of advertising. Two companies, SmarterChild.com and ActiveBuddy.com have teamed up to deliver interactive Instant Messenger bots that talk to children and deliver ever-so-subtle ads for various products. Just when you think market saturation has reached the limit, leave it to a greedy corporation to start targeting the most naive and vulnerable demographic there is."
Yes, and that's what disturbing. Just like television advertisements that target children, only these are, astoundingly enough, worse, as they try to trick kids into thinking they're engaging in a conversation.
And what excuse is given in response to the moral questions? We have to make a profit. Disgusting.
Hey, I actually found SmarterChild kind of useful. I added it to Trillian the other day, and it made it really easy and quick to find a movie time near me. This article, IMO, contains quite a bit of FUD. SmarterChild was pretty obviously an information tool, simliar to the old email listserv bots, except much quicker, and much easier.
Frankly, your kid has to be pretty dumb to get fooled into thinking it's a real person. But then again, the article makes at least one good point... if you've ever read a bunch of 14-year-olds' IM conversations, you'd be convinced the human race is doomed with this generation.
why is this a problem?
...
it's not like the people who goto children websites have ads AIMED at children... hell, the slashdot banners are aimed at geeks (thinkgeek anyone?)
why is this a problem, when it's a service, for free, which is OPT IN ONLY. yes, people have to talk to the bot first... it's not like they HAVE to click advertisements, they just get a message about it...
like text will get them to buy cheeze it's anyway.
Runnin' On Empty
Other than cussing at it, I decided to try something a little different. I got this...
IStewart12: all your base are belong to us
SmarterChild: What you say!!
It seems to me that there are a large number of bored programmers in the universe.
You're missing the point. TV (and radio and newspaper and Web site) ads are there to pay for content. I didn't see anything in the story that suggested these companies paid the IM networks to let them online.
It may be legal. I will grant you that. But at least most media will label something as "advertisement" when it's not obvious that it is an ad. Go look at a newspaper and you'll see what I am talking about.
This is not advertising, it is deception. And it preys on people that haven't yet learned the difference.
>>And what excuse is given in response to the moral questions? We have to make a profit. Disgusting.
Well when people refuse to invest in companies that DON'T make a profit, the primary function of every company becomes TO make a profit, because if they don't make one the company will die.
Imagine if people invested in these companies freely without expecting a return at all, investing simply because they thought it was a good technology to continue developing, then the "primary" goal of these companies wouldnt be making a profit because they wouldnt have to worry about that stuff. It's an endless cycle... investors demand profits and so naturally thats the company's first goal. If they don't get profits, they don't get investors, and they die out.
Seems to me that kids don't need to be chatting on-line with anyone the parents don't know about. The family computer should be in the family room in the open, so parents can interact with their kids. Buddy lists can be set up for family and (approved) friends only. None of these things seem outragious to most kids or parents.
Then again, I suppose it's just fine for some people to allow the computer to babysit kids--just like the TV or whatever. Lord knows people having kids aren't at all interested in being parents. God forbid they take an interest.
This just makes me feel ill--but I can hardly blame the companies for doing this. It's our own dumb fault for not loving and caring for our children.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
Screw the lot of you for confusing capitalism with consumerism.
What's the worst thing that could happen if someone advertises something? You buy a product you don't want or need?
Have we forgotten that people are responsible for their own actions? Every where i turn on this news for socialists website it is the ever-scapegoat of faceless "corporations"....
Personally i think that form of advertising will fall apart nor do i think it will reach all that many people.
REMEMBER: YOU as the consumer hold the true power. if this type of advertising pisses you off...let it be known and tell everyone.
PS: Slashdot is more preachy than landoverbaptist.org
More like "Media Savvy and Lucrative".
George Lucas worked this out with his Star Wars movies. Twenty years later, there are people in their thirtys which have a fit if theres a cool new Star Wars toy issued...