Skip to content →

Category: user data

Hypertargeting and the Panopticon of Social Networks

Published November 26, 2007 by cgerrish

Panopticon

The rebellion against hyper-targeting continues. Doc Searls weighs in, as does Jason Calacanis. Targeted marketing always worked with fairly crude tools, and because of this it was tolerable. Marketers looked at demographics and psychographics, made educated guesses about the audiences of particular radio or television programs, and did the best they could. It was more art than science. The direct marketers were the most statistically driven. Marketers dreamed of knowing enough to target perfectly. Now with Facebook and other social networks, they’re starting to get their wish. The user inhabits a panopticon, and the data generated belongs to the system to be rented to the highest bidder.

Will the inmates rebel and demand the authority to selectively release data to the system? Will they be able release none of their data and still participate in the system? Can they withdraw their data, move it and use it to their advantage in another system? When a customer uses her data to her advantage in a system, the system benefits as well.The coarse targeting of marketing has required high frequency bombardment. We’re entering the age of smart bombs, but the frequency seems to be just as high. Shouldn’t smart marketing just be the thing I want, when I’ve indicated I actually want it? Advertising frequency goes down, but the number of transactions probably increases.

Comments closed

Do babies need phones to assert their identity 2.0?

Published November 14, 2007 by cgerrish

What could be more fun than listening to Jon Udell and Dick Hardt talk about practical applications of Identity 2.0 concepts. And for the record, this is a case where I endorse the use of a numbering system. In order for the Web to progress we need to change the way we handle identity. We’ve created a security crisis because everyone wants to their own authentication system. We enter user IDs and passwords all day long, proving who we are over and over again. Or as Joe Tennis put it in a Twitter, we forget who we are and ask someone to email us our identity several times a day.

The video above is of Hardt’s classic Identity 2.0 presentation. One of the breakthrough ideas is redefining what strong proof of identity means. Instead of one super authority, a network of relationships willing to validate your identity claims. Anyone who’s had to bootstrap an identity knows that the ground that the super authority stands on is far from solid.

In the conversation with Udell, Hardt brings up the interesting question: if my phone becomes the method by which I prove my identity, how do I authenticate myself to my phone? Identity is an endlessly interesting subject. If I am my phone, doesn’t everyone need a phone? How about children? Do babies need phones? Do phones need people? Is this one of those weird examples of machines evolving and attaching themselves to a person’s identity? Hardt also brings up the question, if my phone is my identity can I keep some spare phones around? I keep a spare set of keys. We have such a long way to go. If you are looking for the spybubble apk look no further than this article. This app let’s you know everything your kids are doing on your electronic devices at all times so you don’t have to worry.

Comments closed

Facebook partners with Amway & Tupperware

Published November 12, 2007 by cgerrish

Tupperware party

This just in, Facebook announces partnerships with Amway and Tupperware. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg reportedly said, “What’s old is new again. In order to bring advertising into Facebook we need the expertise of companies with a solid history of getting people to sell stuff to their friends.”

Multi-Level marketing has entered a whole new phase. The online tupperware party and other alternative distribution systems are the future of retailing. Stores are dead. While some have difficulty distinguishing this approach from a Ponzi scheme, Facebook has managed to avoid the pyramid scheme by not sharing any of the revenue with their members. Facebook participants bear the burden of endorsing products and selling into their network of “friends” without any of the benefit. If the thing blows up, Facebook can always put the blame on its users. After all, what kind of sucker would shill for a product without getting a piece of the action?

One Comment

Aggressive weeds in the garden of your social graph?

Published November 7, 2007 by cgerrish

It’s a cold world out there. In the beginning there was the walled garden. AOL was a safe place, but in the end it couldn’t  compete with the wider network of websites. But once we were out in the cold cruel world, we needed someone to help us find our way around. A personal start page like MyYahoo, or a search engine like Google provided an orientation point for any journey into the network.

Social networking sites like Facebook seem to provide a new entry point that filters the larger network using one’s friends as editors; transparantly journals friend activity; and provides the opportunity to create facets, or nodes of connection, through the assertion of interests (preferred modes of attention) within the social network.

The battle for monetizing the network revolves around which company can provide the best orientation point for entering the network. Facebook puts you into the stream of your friend’s activity. Techmeme puts you into the stream of technology news and opinion. Twitter puts you into an edited collection of small moments, stream of consciousness and conversation. MyYahoo is a personal newspaper. Google is ready to show you whatever you’re interested in. Google Reader puts you in an edited stream of blogs. Del.icio.us puts you into an edited stream of categorized bookmarks and pointers. Mahalo is a variation on Google, it’ll show you whatever you’re interested in, but edits the search result to make it more human readable. Where do you want to enter the network today? Perhaps, I’d like to enter through my teleputer…

Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose. This is the primary lesson for social networking sites, what was so painstakingly created and nutured can be destroyed very easily. The structure of a social network is biological, it’s growth is organic. But it is subject to disease (viruses, the madness of mobs, etc) and environmental factors. For instance, you could introduce social objects (nodes) that aren’t individuals, but representatives of corporate entities. You could ask people within the network to vouch for these new objects. You could have just figured out the best way to monetize the social network as an entry point, or you could have introduced an aggressive weed into your garden. In any case, the ecology of the system is irrevocably altered. Trust is hard to win, easy to lose.

3 Comments