The Good and Bad of Data Collection

Nephilium writes "Reason magazine has dedicated their latest issue to a discussion of privacy and data collection. They sent subscribers a customized cover of the magazine [as previously covered on Slashdot]. Some good points as to the benefits and drawbacks of who is sharing your information." The sample targeted advertisements are for non-profit organizations, but it may not be long until someone figures out how much companies will pay to utilize this sort of targeting.

Comments

How'bout NO ADS

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine that..... wanting to buy something, going to the store, and picking the damned thing out YOURSELF, instead of people pushing stuff at you 24/7 ..... now there's a concept..

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[Carnildo]

Maybe if the ads coming at me are targeted, I'll see fewer of them. The current "shotgun" approach certainly does nothing to keep the total number of ads down.

(on a side note, if advertisers got serious about targeted ads, people like you, who don't respond well to ads wouldn't get any)

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[Rorschach1]

And how much are you going to pay for a magazine or newspaper if it's not supported by advertisers?

And looking at my latest Circuit Cellar, I see a full-page add for a PSoC device that looks pretty cool, and that I wouldn't have known about otherwise. And 'going to the store' to browse for this sort of thing is pretty much out of the question.

Now, if I could replace every feminine hygene ad I see with one for an embedded device C compiler, PC-based oscilloscope, or something else that actually interests me, that'd be great.

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[janbjurstrom]

In a best-case scenario, that might happen.

But isn't the problem that if/when targeted advertising - if 'Real Ultimate Precision Advertising' (RUPA) is possible - it would simply become the new "entry-level"? (I.e. nolonger a competitive advantage; not an edge but a requirement.)

It immediately becomes the new status quo (as the "shotgun approach" is today), and every company looking to stand out - and they all want/have to - must now do RUPA plus X, and Y, and Z, and ...

And marketing people know, as well as we do in all honesty, that everybody responds to advertising - in one form or another. Perhaps today not so much to regular 'ads' (as in TV commercials, or ads in a magazine), but if not that, then to product placements, or celebrity spokespersons, or sponsorships, or viral marketing, or astroturfing-word-of-mouth campaigns, or ...

So my fear is, that we won't se less ads/marketing ploys, but more - only they will be targeted to our specific 'profiles'... Advertisers certainly have the will/need and budgets for it to happen.

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[lonesome phreak]

And marketing people know, as well as we do in all honesty, that everybody responds to advertising - in one form or another.

Yep, it's called "Brand building". Even if they will never buy your product, they at least now may find it familiar when they hear about it again. Or, in more evil terms, "mindshare".

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[aggiefalcon01]

We should be so lucky. I'm always hearing about some new way marketers have found to intrude, and am frequently appalled. Houston billboards covering the whole sky are bad enough (this cloud brought to you by Clear Channel and 107.5 theBuzz), but each new marketing technique is just another invasion to me. Telemarketers have ruined the usefulness of phone books, as everyone drops their land lines, or keeps them unlisted. Popups, motion video ads, and SPAM are doing the same to the 'net.

And how about the marketers salivating about GPS cellphones, so that they can send text ads for businesses you merely come into the vicinity of.

Similarly, the idea that making the ads more targeted will cause them to diminish in number is mistaken. Okay, the thing is more targeted ... yet the magazine's publisher, say, is going to NOT look forward to even more profits by being able to sell the same amount of ads at a higher price?

Re:How'bout NO ADS

[Anonymous Coward]

And marketing people know, as well as we do in all honesty, that everybody responds to advertising - in one form or another.

That's true, in a sense, I suppose. But, some of the responses aren't the responses they want: for instance, every time I receive a telephone solicitation from an auto glass company, I ask to be added to their DNC list, and then I add the company to my "never do business with" list. Spammers are similarly blacklisted, as is a particular local car dealership that keeps sending me direct mail despite numerous requests to stop. (That one's getting very close to a lawsuit now, and I'm looking for a way to bring in criminal prosecution as well. Harassment, anyone?) Now, I suppose that could be exactly the sort of response the advertisers want, but it sure seems unlikely.

My question is, will the advertisers ever figure out that their intrusive methods are backfiring, and quit trying to market to me? I doubt it.

Re:Targeted Content

[LostCluster]

I think at the end of the day Rush and Ralph would get together and swap copies if that ever started happening.

If you're in the business of being a political pundit, you want to read everything you can so you can talk about it. You need to see the opinions you disagree with too so you can start thinking of the ways to call those people wrong.

Fie

[Grrr]

It's easy to complain about a subjective loss of privacy. It's more difficult to appreciate how information swapping accelerates economic activity. Like many other aspects of modern society, benefits are dispersed, amounting to a penny saved here or a dollar discounted there. But those sums add up quickly.

There's almost the tone, here, that privacy and info-swapping are at odds with each other. What a shame.

<grrr>

Re:Targeted Content

[eln]

Well, maybe if you're in the business of being a fair political pundit. The vast majority (certainly the loudest) pundits these days make their living by selling their own point of view, and loudly denouncing the other side without ever understanding or even knowing about their arguments. It's a lot easier to claim the other side is always wrong because theyre a bunch of "stinking liberals" or "fat cat conservatives" rather than actually trying to come up with arguments against what the other side is actually saying.

Political discourse these days isn't about debate, it's about volume, both in terms of quantity and decibel level.

Simple way around all this

[MajorDick]

PAY FRIGGN CASH, GREEN, Dead Presidents,

Im serious, between paying cash where possible, that includes nearly EVERY local purchase, trade you key tags for grocery stores with your friends (as long as they arent valid for cashing checks)

No tinfoil here I just cant stand direct marketing, why in the hell should I give Radio Shack my phone number, I actually had a clerk say they HAD to ge one, 555-1212 or 867-5309 (867 is a local extension here) is my answer most of the time they dont even blink although some chuckle

Lay as low as possible, p[ay cash where possible and lie like hell when anyone asks any questions that could be used in targeted marketing.

Dont forget they found one of the 911 conspirators by his grocery store key thingy

Re:Simple way around all this

[jpetts]

Dont forget they found one of the 911 conspirators by his grocery store key thingy

I would be very careful about advocating ways to circumvent investigative techniques that are know to have led to the detention of terrorists or terrorist supporters. An unkind executive, legislative or judicial environment could easily make your life very unpleasant for this type of statement, and in Soviet Russia and/or Nazi Germany this sort of behaviour could easily lead to (and in Stalin's Russia, almost certainly WOULD have led to) execution. I know that the statement itself is devoid of malice, but not everybody would interpret it in the same way...

Re:Targeted Content

[feepness]

This already happens to a large extent. People can self-select their own outlet from among the multide of news sources, and therefore do not EVER get the full story... just the one they like.

Thus the further polarization of American politics.

Data collection on your representatives.

[Colin Smith]

You can minimise your data trail. Use cash. Don't subscribe to "loyalty" cards and marketing competitions. Don't use real/permanent email addresses.

However data collection on individuals is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if they are in a position of power.

e.g.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/

Re:Regaining Privacy in the US

[logicnazi]

What wrong with the rich getting richer? I'm most certainly not one of the rich (poor grad student) but I'm in favor of everyone getting a higher standard of living including the rich.

It is only a problem if the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. In the case of credit we are looking at a mechanism that lets the rich get richer while bettering all of society (financing lets people start stores and industry which improves everyone's lot)