A VC« Update on My Long CCU Short SIRI Trade | Main | Quote of the Day »
Relevancy vs Privacy
Saul Hansell wrote an interesting story in today's NY Times where he highlighted some of the targeting technologies that companies like Yahoo!, Google, and our portfolio company TACODA are using to deliver more relvant ads to consumers online.
But he couldn't stop himself (or maybe his editor couldn't stop themself) from mentioning the outing of search queries by AOL last week and other privacy horror stories.
I said my piece on this issue last week and today Jeff Jarvis weighs in too.
Yes companies need to have privacy policies. And yes they need to adhere to them. And yes, they shouldn't be making public people's search queries. And yes, consumers should be able to easily opt out of these targeting approaches.
But cookies and stored search queries are good things. They make it possible for web services to deliver relevancy in advertising, something no other media has been able to deliver efficiently and reliably.
The reality is that these targeting approaches, whether they be searched based, behavioral, contextual, or whatever is next, are giving us more relevant ads. Ads will be content if this continues. You'll be planning a trip to mexico this winter and you'll get ads for places to stay. You'll be thinking about getting a new car and you'll be getting images of all of your options when you check the weather in the morning.
And that is a good thing. A very good thing.
Comments (11) | Posted August 15, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology
Comments
"They make it possible for web services to deliver relevancy in advertising, something no other media has been able to deliver efficiently and reliably."
Yeah but don't a lot of people install ad blocking software?
Posted by: Dave | Aug 15, 2006 8:16:05 AM
I think the real problem here is one of permission. I've never been asked by Yahoo or Google if it's OK to store my data. Maybe if they asked I would consider. Instead they simply assume and go ahead and do it. No one has figured out to do real time permission based advertising based on what I as the customer want. Right now it's all about cookies - and there is little or no upside to me as the customer.
Remember - it's not about them, it's all about Me. The faster you and I have a say in what we get the better the advertising will be. Of course there is no way to pull this off with the current Internet spec. (Or is there?)
Posted by: Peter Cranstone | Aug 15, 2006 8:56:55 AM
Another point to be made is the more money made on each impression the better the content can become. Think of the value of Edmunds content (and the high cpms) vs. Myspace (low cpms, user generated).
Posted by: Rob Deichert | Aug 15, 2006 11:32:39 AM
The real issue, at least for some of us, is not relevancy v. privacy. It is the non-alignment of interests between me and whomever is collecting my data. Contextually relevant ads are great. But what other things are going on with my data? Where and why is it being sold?
Another point of impedance is that relevance is fleeting, and data is forever.
If I could be sure that my interests in my data were aligned with the companies collecting it, I'd be a lot less uncomfortable with it.
Posted by: fishbane | Aug 15, 2006 12:16:48 PM
The real issue, at least for some of us, is not relevancy v. privacy. It is the non-alignment of interests between me and whomever is collecting my data. Contextually relevant ads are great. But what other things are going on with my data? Where and why is it being sold?
Another point of impedance is that relevance is fleeting, and data is forever.
If I could be sure that my interests in my data were aligned with the companies collecting it, I'd be a lot less uncomfortable with it.
Posted by: fishbane | Aug 15, 2006 12:17:48 PM
"And that is a good thing. A very good thing."
Perhaps for the advertiser...but not for *me*. I don't want ads, I don't need ads, I don't like ads. If I need a product or service then I go out looking for it.
I got rid of my TV five years ago because I was sick of the commercials and promos and ads. I do not read print magazines or newspapers because such a large portion of the pages are printed with ads. Now I have to wait for webpages to load because there are so many ads. And I've noticed that the ads load first, the content loads last. Pop-up blockers do not work on pop-unders. I have to deal with the constant visual distraction of flashing, blinking ads in my peripheral vision. Some of them have audio that I can't turn off unless I mute my entire sound system; that really frosts me.
Yes, I am strident about this because there seems to be an belief out there that advertisers have an inalienable right to my time and attention, and can force their ads upon me against my will.
I don't care how "targeted" or "relevant" these ads are. That does not make them any less inconvenient or annoying or intrusive.
Posted by: Constance Reader | Aug 15, 2006 12:56:28 PM
completely off topic, but highly relevant to Fred!
The Shake Shack got 140 violation points and is the second dirtiest restaurant in NYC, exceeded only by a dodgy Mexican place in Brooklyn that got 600 and change. Mandatory reinspection comes with 28 violation points, so The Shack is in rough shape.
See the report for yourself http://167.153.150.32/RI/web/detail.do?method=detail&restaurantId=41038085&inspectionDate=20060725
Posted by: hey | Aug 15, 2006 2:25:36 PM
For me Peter Cranstone's words ring true. It's all about ME. If I give permission, then I WANT the "relevancy." However, if I do not then leave me alone.
Posted by: Bob Boydston | Aug 15, 2006 2:45:05 PM
I'm with fishbane. If I felt comfortable that the only thing going on with my data was relevent ads, I wouldn't really care.
But given the proliferation of data and databases today, it's just too easy for companies to gather more information about me than I care to give them. And all it takes is one misuse of my data -- or one change of a company's privacy policy -- for any protection to be rendered meaningless.
Posted by: fiat lux | Aug 15, 2006 8:31:57 PM
Fiat Lux -
It isn't just overcollection by one company. Correlation between different datasets is _scary_. I know this first hand, because I've been experimenting with it for a few years now. And remember the lesson of AOL's disclosure of searches, government's hunger for data, the loosening of subpoena power, the spyware companies, the rampant trading of data in the late 90's... go figure.
I want an alignment of interest between me and the company I'm sharing with. I want to know that a disclosure hurts them if it hurts me, thus giving them more than a PR reason to protect it. Banks, for instance, don't have it right yet, as far as customer privacy. But they're much closer than search engines, in terms of overall data protection.
Posted by: fishbane | Aug 15, 2006 11:26:53 PM
Maybe its a very good thing for your portfolio companies (and your 20% carried interest). Not a good thing for me.
Gabba Gabba Hey!
Posted by: Joey Ramone | Aug 16, 2006 11:10:46 PM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
