Slashdot Mirror
Verizon to Allow Ads on Its Mobile Phones
srizah tipped us to a New York Times article, which has the news that Verizon is going to introduce ads to their phones. The offerings will show up when users browse the internet via their cell service, and will exclude streaming ads that might not work in the mobile format. Sprint began offering ads right on their cell 'deck' in October, and the article indicates that access to cellphone screens is a going concern with online advertisers. From the article: "Even without cooperation from carriers, advertisers have been able to reach consumers visiting off-deck sites, and such marketing has grown in size and in scope. The first advertisers drawn to mobile phones tended to be quick-serve restaurants and hotels -- businesses that people might want access to on the go. But increasingly, there is traditional brand marketing, said Jeff Janer, chief marketing officer for Third Screen Media, a mobile ad management company that pairs advertisers and agencies with providers of mobile content, like USA Today and the Weather Channel."
I was under the impression that we were already paying for the phone service. Granted that there is advertising on Sky and cable services but this is just a drain on battery power. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Username: memyself4
Password: memyself
So does this mean subscribers get a fucking discount ?
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
I already pay a lot of money for cell phone access. You charge me minutes and money for data access time. If I have to waste some of my money and minutes on advertisements, I will switch cell phone providers. I do not need to be told where to find hotels or shown ads. If I want one, I'll look it up.
Just about every LG phone can be easily changed to use non-Verizon WAP.n et-on-vx8300.html
http://vx8300.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-wap-inter
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Operators here haven't tried the described style of advertising. If I understood it correctly, verizon forces users to use their proxy while browsing, and feeds the ads to customers through it.
I'm not sure about mobile data transfer pricing in US but here in Finland operators charge $(euros)/MB rates depending on plan.
Loading ads while browsing would mean you're actually paying your operator for displaying you ads!
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Free cellphone access? Reduced rates? Free internet access from my cellphone in return for these ads?
It's called lose not loose LOSE LOSE LOSE GODDAMNIT
pheww... Now I'm ok [/venting]
Syllable 0.62 is here at last!!!
Might be a marketing executive.
Personally, i make it a point of not shopping at places that shove their ads in my face. And reward the ones that dont, with my business. not that my little influence in the world will close a company down, but i at least did my part. Have you?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So in addition to charging advertisers for ad space, Verizon will also be charging users for the additional data download. Not just text, but images, and potentially video in the future.
Given Verizon's past on screwing their customers, like locking down BlueTooth features on phones, and even wired data connections on Treo's, why am I not surprised.
I eagerly await the Java phone port of Bonzi Buddy.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Well, since cable providers make you pay for commercials, I can see where there backwards logic comes from. I watched a Dateline episode about advertiers recently and I bet they saw this coming. You see, their research lead them to believe that as advertising becomes more present in daily life it becomes background noise an over time the advertisers must continue to annoy the customer even more to keep their attention.
I fully expect the ad oriented entertainent system to die horribly in 30 years. Either that or we all get remotes in our heads telling us what to do.
I don't get it.
On the other hand, if I was the CEO of Verizon, I would probably be itching for a cut of the advertising profits. It's a global economy, what can you do? Get on, or get out of the way.
IANAL, but it would seem that some of this could fall under many states newly enacted statutes with regard to Unsolicited Advertising [naw.org].
Verizon had better be careful, lest they end up with a barage of class-action lawsuits...
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
-b.
I don't live in US but my mobile service provider has this annoying habbit of flooding their customers with SMS ads of their latest-and-greatest campaign.
Granted, they sent us the campaign ad once, that's, let's say, bearable. But then they proceeded sending it every day and on every reload. My parents, which have mobiles, are not 100% familiar with the additional features of their mobile phone (besides making you know: phone calls), so those messages confuse them additionally and needless to say every time I receive an SMS I have to go out of my way to stop, open my cellphone, read it, delete it (since it may actually be important).
So this way armed with bad feelings I called them and said "ok, can you please tell your supervisors up the chain that I do not wish to receive any more ads on my personal cellphone, especially I don't wanna receive the same exact SMS message telling me to join your campaign every day. If I wanted to join it, one SMS would be sufficient, thanks".
The answer from the support: "well there's nothing wrong with the ads, I mean: there's also ads on the TV right, if you don't like them, you don't watch them".
Me: "But I pay for this service, why augment it with ads? If I don't want those ads what's the use of sending them to me?"
Support: "Well you also pay for your cable right?"
After a conversation like this you know the root cause of the issue: zero respect for the customer and zero research on what effect their actions have.
Well, guess who's switching to the competition next year (when a new law comes in place that mandates I can keep my phone number..)
"worthless data?"
As the advertizers have to pay someone to make you view it, and as people pay for, or go to extreme lengths to avoid viewing it, the data can actually be considered negative value, rather than worthless, data.
As such, all advertizing money should be subtracted from GDP reporting. Maybe then we can finally get rid of it.
First time I see spam on my mobile phone, I will drop that vendor like a bad habit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I know that I'm probably old fashioned, but doesn't the word offer indicate the ability to refuse said offer? If a mobile service provider is forcing advertising on you, that's not an offer...to me it's nothing more than the same kind of deal where your neighborhood maffia "offers" you protection against potential damages that might be incurred if you don't pay them.
Interesting concept. Aggravate the cell phone user directly, and then s/he won't want to use a cell phone while driving or at the movies.......
I am reminded of a time in the distant past, when I used AOL for DOS when they charged per minute and dialup POPs were 14400bps. It took me forever to figure out why I couldn't connect faster than 2400 baud. Turns out that AOL's POPs were only 14400 in major metro areas; I was not in one, so my POP was 2400 baud.
And then, on each connection, I was "downloading new art" for five minutes. When I finally put all the pieces together (no thanks to the existing AOL support), I canceled immediately.
People are much smarter these days. When someone sees an advertisement, they know that the merchant selling the product is paying the media service to deliver the ad, whether it's TV, newspaper, billboard, radio, internet, whatever. There will be a lot of "Hey, WTF?" being shouted by Verizon mobile internet users.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
"I don't see it as unsolicited."
This is MY web connection. I pay Verizon for this service. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that my ISP can force me to view their advertisments before allowing me to surf the web. Nope, sorry, won't wash with me. I am paying a "provider" to provide "access", not "content". there is a HUGE difference here. I don't want their content, so I see no reason why I should have to pay (see bandwidth utilization) for their "content".
As for "If you don't want ads then pick one that does not show ads. You also have the choice of not using cell service at all. There is nothing unsolicited here. Every party enters these agreements voluntarily.", that is a specious argument at best. There are a limited number of players in this field, and if Verizon is allowed to do this, OF COURSE, the other providers will follow suit. Its a revenue stream they cannot ignore. I'm not saying they can not offer this as an optional service, but they will need to re-work the contracts and offer discounts to customers who opt for "content-equipped" access.
I, like I am sure many others here, now depend on cell service. Simply rejecting cell service is not an option, and it shouldn't have to be. There is no argument Verizon, or any other "access" provider can make for these ads other than as a pure-profit center. In so being, they can either offer discounted "access" service along with their "content", or content free access. They can not have it both ways, and my reading of the current legislation indicates that's NOT going to wash with the public or the legislature.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
We need the software that runs on our phones to be completely seperate from and uninfluenced by the carriers. Phones, like PCs, need to be accountable directly to their owners, not to someone else. We need serving us to be their very first priority. Ads are just one aspect of this conflict of interest, and it's just going to get worse.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
douchebag losers
Ah, I believe that's "douchbag loosers".
Which is kind of gross, actually.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.