ReveNews
-
NAVIGATION
-
TOPICS
-
THE REVENEWS BLOGGERS
-
QUICK CONTACT
Contextual Advertising: How Far Is Too Far and What if Google Goes Evil?
A hot topic across the online tech and advertising world is the launch of a company called Pudding Media, which delivers real time contextual advertising to phone calls in a VOIP environment.
The Asterisk and Ekiga in the mix), the most puzzling aspect of this launch has been the overwhelmingly negative response from the blog world as evidenced on Techmeme.
I’m a heavy email and IM user, and definitely more so than phone or VOIP. So, I find people who use services such as GMail to be giving over much more long term information about themselves compared to a service such as ThePudding.
This is puzzling to me because the digerati represented at Techmeme love GMail and GTalk and Google Reader and Google Web History and Google Maps and YouTube and Google Docs and Google Calendar, etc. I’ve used all of those services, but I started to move away from platforms such as Google Reader and GMail once I realized just what I was giving over. Take all of that information and combine it with partnerships such as LibraryThing (which is what I use for my own book collection) and you can develop a rather three dimensional composite of Sam Harrelson with relative ease.
It puzzles me that there would be such an outrage over a contextual voice product that effectively behaves the same way, and in some ways less intrusively, as all of Google’s much loved (and much contextualized) products.
TechCrunch delves more into ThePudding’s service offering:
Phone conservations are monitored only by computers, not actual human beings. The company also does not record any of the conversations or log any of the topics discussed. Therefore, advertisements are tailored to each particular phone call and not to trends in users’ calling behavior.
While I’m not a fan of ThePudding after doing my own research and investigation and I’ll definitely be sticking with Skype and Ekiga, it is comforting to see that conversations won’t be logged or tracked over time for ad delivery. However, I cannot help but make a connection to Google who does log information and behavior over time and deliver ads based to individuals based on an incredible amount of data that can build up over time.
So, how far is too far in contextual advertising? Is there an upper limit on what the mass audience will find helpful and a point beyond which a company is labeled as “evil” if they cross? Thinker, blogger, open source advocate, writer and fellow Ubuntu evangelist Cory Doctorow (one of my fav bloggers and writers) recently published a short story entitled “Scroogled” on the premise of exploring a near future when Google crosses that arbitrary line from offering helpfulness and relevancy into something else. It’s required reading for everyone in the online industry:
Greg felt a spasm in his guts. “You’re looking at my searches and e-mail?” He hadn’t touched a keyboard in a month, but he knew what he put into that search bar was likely more revealing than what he told his shrink.
“Sir, calm down, please. No, I’m not looking at your searches,” the man said in a mocking whine. “That would be unconstitutional. We see only the ads that show up when you read your mail and do your searching. I have a brochure explaining it. I’ll give it to you when we’re through here.”
“But the ads don’t mean anything,” Greg sputtered. “I get ads for Ann Coulter ring tones whenever I get e-mail from my friend in Coulter, Iowa!”
The man nodded. “I understand, sir. And that’s just why I’m here talking to you. Why do you suppose model rocket ads show up so frequently?”
While in the realm of short story fiction, the issues Cory explores are important to consider for your own web experience.
In the meantime, let’s not play the role of Captain Renault and act as if we’re “shocked to find that there’s gambling going on here.” Contextual advertising is an incredibly powerful and profitable platform, but in order to properly leverage the delivery of those ads, you must have built up a certain level of trust or branding (as in the case of Google). Otherwise, you face the “creepy” stamp from the bloggers and press.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
-
We Support New York Affiliates
-
Subscribe to ReveNews
Your article on the abilities, effects, and implications contextual advertising has on the public is well written, concise, and interesting, and I’d like to address some of the issues brought up in the article.
One of your comments asserts that the phone monitoring Pudding Media will apply is similar to the email scanning that Google does in its Gmail services and therefore people should not be any more negative towards Pudding than they do to Google, even citing that Pudding’s methods may be “less intrusive”. I feel that this is not necessarily true in that phone interactions are generally more active than email interactions. This elevated involvement related to internet phoning would result in the speakers’ increased awareness that they were being monitored. This difference is especially noticeable in the rate that ads show up between emails and Pudding. Whilst Pudding’s ads would latch onto the conversation right away and deliver ads that appear as you speak, Adwords is far more conspicuous and subtle, delivering ads later in less obvious ways. Because of this, even if it were more intrusive, Adwords would feel less invasive than Pudding.
This leads me to my point: It’s all about feeling trust. I agree with your idea that in order for contextual advertising to work, there has to be a trust between the consumer and corporation, so that the users would feel safe having large entities effectively invade their private conversations to deliver them advertisements. If Pudding can do this, maybe the uproar would die down like it did for Google after the Adword launch.
Thanks for your thoughts. As I wrote in the post, I’m a much heavier IM/email user compared to phone or VOIP and I suspect that’s a growing trend as texting and IM continues to replace voice calls. So, from my opinion giving over information through something like GMail is much more intrustive.
You make the point that “Adwords is far more conspicuous and subtle, delivering ads later in less obvious ways. Because of this, even if it were more intrusive, Adwords would feel less invasive than Pudding.” I don’t see this as a plus for Google compared to ThePudding.
The subtlety of AdSense or other contextual advertising programs is what makes them more troubling as they continue to glean data and information stored from your emails, calendaring, docs, feed reading, etc over a longer period of time than one phone call. This is especially true in this case considering ThePudding doesn’t store data or info about individuals but instead serves up the ads in real time.
I’m no apologist for ThePudding. I think it’s a terrible idea, honestly. Yet, I’m hoping the model will cause some to question contextual advertising across the board (including Google) as they make choices about using web applications and platforms.
Thanks again for the comment!
Sam