Showing posts with label targeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label targeting. Show all posts

Thursday, August 18, 2011

"Rifle-shot Targeting" (7 March 2011)

The Wall Street Journal has been running a series of articles on the data-harvesting and target-advertising industries and the tracking ecosphere: it's called, somewhat ominously, What They Know. Part of what they know, of course, is what we deliberately share, but a great deal of it is deduced by combining what we share with the unintended tracks we leave through our browsing and purchasing behavior.

Most people are far less integrated in their identity than the assumptions of tracking companies and social-media companies like Facebook allow for. By fusing behavior from different aspects of a person's personality and making recommendations or targeting ads accordingly, they can prompt some uncomfortable or embarrassing collisions, and at the same time, they supply a material, external basis for the diminishing of the self, of a reduction of one's messy and complicated being to a neat, computer-assisted synthesis. These companies hold up a mirror that shrinks us and encourages us to become what we see there, a coherent bundle of consumer desires.

A recent development, explained in the latest What They Know piece by Jessica Vascellaro, is that TV advertisers are seeking to retrofit the tracking technologies being perfected online to better target commercials to viewers. Ideally they would be able to show different commercials to different viewers during the same commercial break the way that a website can display different ads according to the information in your browser cookies and so on.
Some in the industry want "rifle-shot targeting," Mr. Morgan says, where people get "only those ads they care about." That's still well in the future, Mr. Morgan says.
I like how the targeting metaphor has been carried one step further to really hammer home how advertisers few us as prey, and would like to line us up in their sites to blow us apart with a perfectly aimed shell. Take that, Laura Archera Huxley!

The tracking methods involve data collected from DVRs and cable boxes; reading through Vascellaro's summary serves as a pertinent reminder that anytime you choose something on a digital network, no matter how banal or insignificant it may seem, it is tracked, and no devices are exempt.
Given a year of viewing data, Simulmedia can almost perfectly predict around 70% of what types of shows a given set-top box is likely to be tuned to, and when, Mr. Morgan says. He likens the process to helping advertisers "choke the shotgun blast and bring it in close," rather than scattering their ad messages widely.
Lovely. Sort of gives the lie to the pretense that advertisers are on our side, trying to help us find things we want. No, they are eager to "blast" us apart with a point-blank gut shot. I wonder whether the ad execs fear getting arterial spray on their suits.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Personal information markets and anonymity (18 Oct 2010)

I was reminded by the Generation Bubble twitter feed (@GenBub_tweed; incidentally, mine is @marginalutility, trying to make it worthwhile/getting sucked in to it) of this WSJ article from July, which made a bit of stink at the time but which I was too dismayed and apathetic to address then. It's a story about how companies surreptitiously archive our online behavior, use it to profile us, and then sell it along to marketers looking to target pitches. That's not really news, although most of us probably unconsciously block out that information in order to continue to use the internet comfortably. One of these companies is Lotame:
Lotame packages that data into profiles about individuals, without determining a person's name, and sells the profiles to companies seeking customers. [A person's tastes] can be sold wholesale (a batch of movie lovers is $1 per thousand) or customized (26-year-old Southern fans of "50 First Dates").
"We can segment it all the way down to one person," says Eric Porres, Lotame's chief marketing officer.
I guess at that point, withholding your name doesn't really matter; your name and your profile are the same for all intents and purposes. The ad targeted for you reaches you and only you.
"It is a sea change in the way the industry works," says Omar Tawakol, CEO of BlueKai. "Advertisers want to buy access to people, not Web pages."
Isn't the pretense of anonymity always already violated? When everything about you is shared but your specific name, is your privacy protected in any meaningful way, especially when that aggregate of preferences can be used to target you? There may be no operative distinction between real name and user ID that holds up. This is part of what makes the recent news that Facebook apps leak user IDs so troubling and also so besides the point. That the entity being sold online on personal information markets is not your actual name but a string of digits is somewhat irrelevant, particularly since your name is the least important piece of information about you to marketers.

I feel like I am struggling to get at what I mean, so I apologize for the redundancy: But if all the contextual information we generate can allow us to be targeted quite specifically, what difference does our name not being attached make? We can still effectively be singled out for our deeds and preferences if need be.

"Profiles of individuals, constantly refreshed, are bought and sold on stock-market-like exchanges that have sprung up in the past 18 months," the July article reports. We can be traded precisely because we have been anonymized, abstracted, because our name doesn't mitigate the impact of the data. Our name is the one thing about us that means nothing.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Permanent recording and unremembered pleasures (30 June 2007)

A few weeks ago, Nicolas Carr, who's generally a reliable source of technoskepticism, had a column in the Guardian about the capability we now have to record every aspect of our own lives -- "life logging", as it was called in a recent New Yorker article Carr links to. Carr points out that this trend is likely only to intensify as technology improves and companies become more aggressive about marketing it:
As surprising as it may seem, we're probably only in the early stages of this phenomenon. Big companies like Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo! and Google, as well as many internet startups, are working hard to give us new and even more powerful tools for recording our lives. They want to make self-recording automatic, as natural as breathing. Their goal isn't just to sell us more computers and cameras; they know that the more details of our existence that we encode and send over the internet, the more they'll learn about who we are, how we act, what products we'll buy and what advertisements will catch our eyes. The more we reveal about ourselves, the more attractive we become as targets for marketers.

That's a pretty grim prognosis; our narcissism will allow advertisers to target us in real time, and we'll probably be flattered by this, that we are known personally to these large transnational institutions. The more personalized the ads aimed at us become -- the personalized recommendations on Amazon, etc. -- the more intense our narcissism may grow, as our expectations will adjust to having everything tailored for us. We may grow intolerant of one-size-fits-all offerings and choose to channel more of our existence through virtual reality, where more personalization and customization can be blended in seamlessly. Of course other people will be annoyed that they can't escape from themselves, that their environment always seems to anticipate just who they are and doesn't permit them the fantasy of becoming a different sort of person with different desires.

But because we can record every aspect of our lives, does that mean we must? And what do we sacrifice for all this self-mediation? By attending so much to recording our lives, are we putting ourselves at one remove from the life we are supposed to be living and recording?
What exactly is behind our rage to document the minutiae of our daily existence? That's hard to say. Maybe it's just another manifestation of modern-day narcissism. Maybe it's a byproduct of our media-saturated culture, with its sense that nothing's real until it's been recorded and broadcast. Or maybe it goes deeper than that. In striving to preserve the moments of our lives, to immortalise them, might we simply be expressing our fear of death?
As for Socrates, it's hard to imagine that he'd be pleased with any of this. We're so busy recording our lives that we have little time left to examine them. And perhaps that, more than anything else, is the real point.

So the real point is that we are using technology to reject the prospect of an examined life, of considering more deeply what it is we are actually doing? Instinctually I want to agree with this. I recently got a digital camera, and I took it on a trip I made recently to the California desert. I took some pictures while I was there:
And I was pretty happy with how they turned out. But I spent most of the time I was out on the dunes thinking about taking pictures rather than the vast nothingness I had hoped would be meditative, would take me away from the world I would share the pictures with. The camera became a tie, holding me to a conceptual place where the photos would reside and be shared.

But at the same time the camera gave me a way of focusing, a way of taking the time to really look at the landscape around me. It made me ask questions I wouldn't otherwise have thought to ask. Like, who is receiving mail here?
This was in the wasteland that rings the Salton Sea, one of the most bizarre places I've ever been. Amid the scary shacks like the one above are brand new McMansion looking houses but they are detatched from their natural environment in planned developments and are out here where nothing apears planned. These three-garage houses will have port-a-potties in the front "yard" (strange to call it a yard because nothing grows) because there aren't any sewage lines out there. Anyway, having a camera made my meandering through this forbidding landscape much more interesting and compelling. It didn't feel like self-recording at the time. The idea that you're recording could have the effect of making one choose more interesting things to do or work harder to make things seem more interesting in the way they are recorded. But such a life, artificially heightened, would probably become exhausting, crowding out the time when one could replenish one's capabilities to take things in and process them at a more-than-superficial level. What permanent recording deprives us of most of all is that contemplative "dead" time in which we restore ourselves -- the sort of time Wordworth describes in "Tintern Abbey":
But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;
And passing even into my purer mind,
With tranquil restoration: -- feelings too
Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps,
As have no slight or trivial influence
On that best portion of a good man's life,
His little, nameless, unremembered, acts
Of kindness and of love.

If Carr is write about the future, the very idea of an unremembered pleasure will become impossible; the phrase will become an oxymoron.