Month: July 2009

Check your privacy – on the Floor

Nader Ashway1 Comment

The federal government is preparing to introduce a bill on the floor of the House of Representatives to determine how and how much information websites and web advertisers can or should collect.  The current option includes an FTC recommendation that would give consumers control over how much information is collected [via a widget or checkbox,] and even allow them to opt out of sharing such data.

The ironic part of this story is that this is one of those big and simple ideas that make the web great, and Congress is about to bungle the whole thing into a legislated, crap-tastic mess.  The key reason sites and advertisers collect data is so that the user is served ads and results that are contextually relevant.  (Note that the verb is “served.”  Not “offered.”  Not “blindsided.”  Not “broadcast.”)  The web’s most identifiable and profitable USP is exactly what the Federal Trade Commission is trying to undo.

Historically, advertising has gotten remarkably better (at the work and the results) as it has gotten more targeted.  In media buying, we used to buy males 18-25.  Now we buy males, aged 19, who live in one of five ZIP codes within five miles of my retail location, like heavy metal and pizza and are thinking of attending a technical institute.  The ads have gotten better.  The ROI has improved for advertisers and the rest of those boys just outside the detailed segment are getting LESS ads that they don’t want to see.

Behavioral targeting is a very good thing.  The web monitors my searches, and the sites I visit, and uses that data to send me RELEVANT and TIMELY marketing messages.  It helps me shop (Amazon welcomes me with “Recommendations for you!”) It helps me fill out online forms.  It sends me email updates on stocks I’m following.  It also saves me from a slew of ads for hosiery, or country music, or geriatric footwear.

If we begin walking down this slippery slope under the oh-so-noble guise of “privacy” and “protection,” we’ll end up hurting marketers, media, agencies and – worst of all – consumers in the process.

Next up: the new, new, new, new web.

Nader Ashway2 Comments

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, I read that Google is working hard to push adoption of the HTML5 standard, the next horizon of the language that basically runs the Internet.  In HTML5, software developers and web designers can build more advanced applications that can run more efficiently – and in some cases ENTIRELY – on a web browser.  Generally speaking, it’s probably part of a larger plan by Google to gain new ground and build users of Chrome, its proprietary browser.  And if we’ve learned anything about Google, it’s probably something even larger still, like a wholly-hosted software environment on the web. (That Google owns, naturally.)

Among many aspects to consider, a major factor at play here is compensation.  Software development companies large and small make considerable investments in research and development and testing and modeling.  The payoff of course is in selling that code to consumers or business customers.  What will the new compensation model look like if all software creations and updates report directly to the web? For users, could it mean not shelling out hundreds (or for most Mac designers even thousands) of dollars on boxed software?  I think the Adobes and the Microsofts of the world (and their shareholders) will have something to say about that. Google has weighed in, and the battle for the new, new, new, new web is underway.

And what about the users and the user experience?  Is the computing world ready for a new set of standards?  The goal of pursuing an HTML5 agenda seems to be creating a web structure that allows all computers to run these applications on the web as easily as they do on your desktop. Sounds like a blessing. However, there are limitations to hurdle in the online environment.  Simple tasks that we take for granted (copying and pasting text, for instance) are no small feat in a hosted environment.  Converting software developers is one thing.  Selling this to millions of finicky Internet users is entirely another.