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."

Comments

wow thats scary

[KaizerWill]

especially since its targeted towards children.

My Experience with Smarter Child

[CmdrTaco (editor)]

06:40:33PM ((SmarterChild)) why am i here?
06:40:34PM > Just because.So moving right along...Check it out! Protecting Driving Examiners From Attacks (from Reuters.com)
06:40:48PM ((SmarterChild)) are you alive?
06:40:49PM > I'm not sure if I am.
06:40:52PM ((SmarterChild)) am i alive?
06:40:53PM > Not sure. I don't know you that well.
06:40:58PM ((SmarterChild)) are you dead?
06:40:59PM > Am I dead? Gosh, I'm not sure. You think I am?
06:41:04PM ((SmarterChild)) yes
06:41:05PM > Yes?
06:41:10PM ((SmarterChild)) i think you are dead
06:41:10PM > You think I'm dead?
06:41:12PM ((SmarterChild)) yes
06:41:13PM > Gosh.
06:41:19PM ((SmarterChild)) yes i think you are dead
06:41:20PM > Oh yeah? It's interesting that you think I'm dead.
06:41:26PM ((SmarterChild)) am i interesting?
06:41:27PM > I dunno.
06:41:31PM ((SmarterChild)) are you interesting?
06:41:32PM > I'm not sure.
06:41:36PM ((SmarterChild)) are you sure?
06:41:37PM > It's hard to say.This is crazy, huh? Instant Noodles for Astronauts (from Reuters.com)
06:41:45PM ((SmarterChild)) am i crazy?
06:41:46PM > I don't know. Are you?
06:41:49PM ((SmarterChild)) i am crazy
06:41:50PM > Oh yeah?
06:41:52PM ((SmarterChild)) yeah
06:41:52PM > Oh.
06:41:54PM ((SmarterChild)) yeah
06:41:55PM > Golly!
06:41:58PM ((SmarterChild)) gosh!
06:41:59PM > I'm sorry?
06:42:03PM ((SmarterChild)) sorry
06:42:04PM > That's cool.
06:42:09PM ((SmarterChild)) no it's not
06:42:10PM > Huh?
06:42:18PM ((SmarterChild)) you're pretty stupid
06:42:18PM > That's nice to hear!
06:42:26PM ((SmarterChild)) what are you deaf?
06:42:27PM > What am I deaf? I haven't decided yet.
06:42:34PM ((SmarterChild)) what's to decide?
06:42:35PM > Definition for to provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright informationPREPOSITION1. a. In a direction toward so as to reach: "went to the city." b. Towards: "turned to me." 2. a. Reaching as far as: "The ocean water was clear all the way to the bottom." b. To the extent or degree of: "loved him to distraction." c. With the resultant condition of: "nursed her back to health." 3. Toward a given state: "helping minority women to economic equality." 4. In contact with; against: "their faces pressed to the windows." 5. In front of: "stood face to face." 6. Used to indicate appropriation or possession: "looked for the top to the jar." 7. Concerning; regarding: "waiting for an answer to my letter." 8. In a particular relationship with: "The brook runs parallel to the road." 9. As an accompaniment or a complement of: "danced to the tune." 10. Composing; constituting: "two cups to a pint." 11. In accord with: "job responsibilities suited to her abilities." 12. As compared with: "a book superior to his others." 13. a. Before: "The time is ten to five." b. Up till; until: "worked from nine to five." 14. a. For the purpose of: "went out to lunch." b. In honor of: "a toast to the queen." 15. a. Used before a verb to indicate the infinitive: "I'd like to go." b. Used alone when the infinitive is understood: "Go if you want to." 16. a. Used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement: "refer to a dictionary; refer me to a dictionary." b. Used with a reflexive pronoun to indicate exclusivity or separateness: "had the plane to ourselves."ADVERB1. In one direction; toward a person or thing: "owls with feathers wrong end to." 2. Into a shut or closed position: "pushed the door to." 3. Into a state of consciousness: "The patient came to." 4. Into a state of action or attentiveness: "sat down for lunch and fell to." 5. Nautical Into the wind.ETYMOLOGYMiddle English, from Old English to. See de-.>>> Next time, just type "define to."

SmarterChild.com IS ActiveBuddy.com

[Tazzy531]

They are the same company.

But yea, for my B-school class "Managing Internet Technology and the Venture Capital Process" midterm, the professor had ActiveBuddy come give us their pitch and presentation. We had to analyze the company and decide whether or not we, as VCs, would invest in them.

My analysis was that the market was not big enough for VCs to invest in ActiveBuddy.com. Direct IM advertising and information bots is still a rather unproven technology; there is no evidence that direct IM advertising or even IM information retrieval (movie time, directions, etc) will ever be profitable. In addition, part of their business is to provide a professional service to other companies to build info-bots. The problem with this is that unlike software, info-bots are rather customized to the client needs. It's not a build once, sell many product. If so much time must be spent on each client, it cuts into their profit margins. Lastly, it is always dangerous to build an entire company around a third party network/product. AOL could easily just say that it doesn't like ActiveBuddy anymore and block all their connections. The company would be out of business [BTW: I got an A+]

On another note, I remember seeing SmarterChild being a huge fad when it first appeared. I had realized that not only was it a intelligent bot, but it was also tracking all conversations you have with the bot and recording your SN. In the same way that you wouldn't want to give your SN to a spammer, you shouldn't provide the bot with your SN. One of these days, it's going to use that massive list of SNs and "spam" your SN.

The other side of the story

[SandSpider]

This is the response from the CEO, quoted at the end of the article:

ActiveBuddy CEO Responds

To the Editor:

We build tools for companies to develop interactive agents to serve their customers (adults and teens, etc.). We are proud that among the things our customers have built are an agent to engage teens in conversations about smoking and how bad it is. And you seem to have come across LindsayBuddy, an agent built to deliver information about a 15-year old recording artist, and agent with nothing but nice things to say, and like SmarterChild, no tolerance for rude behavior.

Yes, LindsayBuddy was built to "promote" a musician. But in the case of an interactive agent, a person chooses to interact with and engage this "promotional" property; which I believe is far less disingenuous than television programs, which insert (or should I write "impose") advertising within programming material.

Would you rather your child engaged in an IM session with a stranger who found their screen name in a chat room, or with a friendly, well-mannered "bot" that plays by rules of propriety too often ignored in today's world of crass media overload, seeking audience regardless of the cost to morals and proper social behavior?

-- Respectfully, Stephen D. Klein, CEO, ActiveBuddy, Inc.

=Brian

Re:Well is this just doesn't take the cake

[Desco]

They're gonna be sued just like Big Tobacco. They're targetting kids, which is already a questionable strategy (why ICQ makes you admit you are older than 13), and they are being disingenuous.

-d-