Archive for December, 2007
In her Shift6 post last week danah queried who actually clicks on internet advertising and concluded that, far from the targets advertisers hope for, it may be those who tend not to use the internet in a focused way, possibly the least technology literate. Advertisers might be heartened by positive reports of the impact of Land Rover’s advertising on iPhone. iPhone users are a pretty select group and could well be just the targets Land Rover want. Certainly they are likely to make informed choices about what they browse. But to understand the real impact of the campaign itself one would also have to factor in the novelty impact (still) of the iPhone and the fact that iPhone appears to deliver a better browsing experience than any of its competitors.
And it’s that experience that I want to come back to. Because, as I commented on danah’s post, it’s so hard for users to get a good experience of the technology as it is presented to them, out of the box. Often organisations prioritise the functionality they want to attract users to – this could be because it adds pzazz at the point of sale (video telephony), or because, when used, the functionality can generate revenue (internet portal). And many users (perhaps most) do not know how to customise their device, or fear the consequences of playing around with the interface, concerned that customising will bring about irreversible results they hadn’t anticipated. On a mobile phone interface marketing priorities can be particularly irritating. There’s so little real estate, the manufacturer’s or service provider’s priorities can squeeze the options people actually want to use. Since it appears that the most frequently used functions on mobile phones are voice, text and time/alarm clock, you might expect many people to have those functions, and everything connected to them, immediately visible on their home screen. Often, surprise, they are not.
However, as danah’s post implies you are most likely to have focused access to the functionality you want if you have grown up with computers and mobile phones; put simply if you are young. Don Norman thinks younger people understand technology better because they have the time to play around with it. Certainly that’s a factor. A review by Hilary Coolidge also highlights the social element of technology use among teenagers, that peers are likely to be influential, providing opportunities to learn new skills, in a way that may not be typical for older users (last Saturday evening at a restaurant where I was eating a group of late teens were having a celebration meal. Every one of them was using their phone to snap and share pictures of their friends. It just wouldn’t have been the same with a generation older, at least not in the UK). And along with the time and social milieu, I think younger users are less scared of the consequences of tweaking technology settings. Perhaps this is naïveté (having sorted out my pre-teenager’s phone from over-exuberant tweaking I can vouch for that), perhaps justified confidence, or a combination of the two.
The need to respond to the combination of naïveté and lack of confidence was reflected in Stephen Fry’s post in his Guardian blog this week. In typical avuncular tones he encourages readers to desert the standard Internet Explorer or Safari default on their PC or Mac, and to consider using Firefox, with a step-by-step guide to how to do it. Handholding of this kind is exactly what people need in order to get the most out of technology and the comments on Fry’s post suggest his readers (of all ages) are grateful for it. Now I’m not suggesting that Microsoft or Apple should tempt their customers to ignore their proprietary software for open source alternatives (well, I might dream). But I do wish technology companies would open up the potential for customisation to their users, so that people can clear away what they genuinely don’t want to use and tweak what they are using so it best fits their needs. And, remembering the (possibly apocryphal) comment “I just paid $2,000 for this damn thing, and I’m not going to read a book,” this possibility can’t be covered off via a paragraph embedded in a manual. It needs a more up-front approach: this piece of equipment (your phone, your laptop, your camera etc.) is yours to customise, just as you will move a piece of furniture to the place you want it after it has been delivered to your home. Sadly, we’re a long way off from that, so focused use and customisation remain the preserve of those who, firstly, know that customisation or alternatives to basic settings are a possibility; secondly, have sources of support to go ahead; and, thirdly, have the confidence to ‘just do it.’
December 13th, 2007
I’ve been watching the public outcry over Facebook’s Beacon (social ads) program with great interest. For those who managed to miss this, Facebook introduced a new feature called Beacon. Whenever you visit one of their partners’ sites, some of your actions were automagically sent to Facebook and published on your News Feed. The list of actions is unknown, although through experimentation folks have learned that they include writing reviews on Yelp, renting movies from Blockbuster, and buying things on certain sites. Some partners were listed in the press release. When a Beacon-worthy action takes place, a pop-up appears in the bottom right, allowing you to opt-out. If you miss it, you auto-opt-in. There was no universal opt-out, although they’ve now implemented one (privacy - external websites - don’t allow any websites). Furthermore, even if you opt out of having that bit blasted to the News Feed, it didn’t stop sponsors from sending it to Facebook.
MoveOn started a petition, bloggers cried foul, and the media did a 180, going from calling Facebook the privacy savior to the privacy destroyer. Amidst the outrage, Facebook was also declared Grinch when unassuming users failed to opt-out and had their gifts broadcast to the recipients, thereby ruining Christmas. Privacy scholar Michael Zimmer also pointed out that the feature was peculiarly named because beacons give warning when danger is about to take place. Not surprisingly, the company was forced to adjust. Zuckerberg apologized and additional features were provided to let people manage Beacon. While this appeases some, not all are satiated. StopBadware argues that Facebook does not go far enough and New York Law School Professor James Grimmelmann argues that Beacon is illegal under the Video Privacy Protection Act.
For all of the repentance by Facebook, what really bugs me is that this is the third time that Facebook has violated people’s sense of privacy in a problematic way. I documented the first incident - the introduction of the News Feeds - in an essay called “Facebook’s Privacy Trainwreck.” In this incident, there were no privacy adjustments until public outcry. The second incident went primarily unnoticed. Back in September, Facebook quietly began making public search listings available to search engines. This means that users’ primary photos are cached alongside their name and networks on Google. Once again, it was an opt-out structure, although finding the opt-out is tricky. Under privacy settings, under search, there is a question of “Which Facebook users can find me in search?” If you choose “everyone,” that includes search engines, not just Facebook users. The third incident is Beacon.
In each incident, Facebook pushed the boundaries of privacy a bit further and, when public outcry took place, retreated just a wee bit to make people feel more comfortable. In other words, this is “slippery slope” software development. Given what I’ve learned from interviewing teens and college students over the years, they have *no* idea that these changes are taking place (until an incident occurs). Most don’t even realize that adding the geographic network makes them visible to thousands if not millions. They don’t know how to navigate the privacy settings and they don’t understand the implications. In other words, defaults are EVERYTHING.
Like most companies, Facebook probably chose the “opt-out” path instead of the “opt-in” path because they knew that most users would not opt in. Even if they thought the feature was purrrfect, most wouldn’t opt-in because they would never know of the feature. Who reads the fine print of a website notice? This is exactly why opt-out approaches are dangerous. People don’t know what they’ve by default opted-in to. They trust companies and once they trust those companies, they are at their mercy.
Most lofty bloggers and technologists argue that if people are given the choice, that’s good enough. The argument is that people should inform themselves and suffer the consequences if they don’t. In other words, no sympathy for “dumb kids.” I object to this line of reasoning. Most people do not have the time or inclination to follow the fine print of every institution and website that they participate in, nor do I think that they should be required to. This is not simply a matter of contracts that they sign, but normative social infrastructure. Companies should be required to do their best to maintain the normative sense of privacy and require that users opt-in to changes that alter that normative sense. In other words, what is the reasonable expectation for privacy on the site and does this new feature change that? Of course, I also understand that this would piss companies off because they make lots of money by manipulating and altering everyday users’ naiveté and sense of norms. Still, I think that the default should be “opt-in” and “opt-out” should only be used in situations that would protect users (i.e., a feature that would limit users’ visibility).
I kinda suspect that Facebook loses very little when there is public outrage. They gain a lot of free press and by taking a step back after taking 10 steps forward, they end up looking like the good guy, even when nine steps forward is still a dreadful end result. This is how “slippery slopes” work and why they are so effective in political circles. Most people will never realize how much of their data has been exposed to so many different companies and people. They will still believe that Facebook is far more private than other social network sites (even though this is patently untrue). And, unless there is a large lawsuit or new legislation introduced, I suspect that Facebook will continue to push the edges when it comes to user privacy.
Lots of companies are looking at Facebook’s success and trying to figure out how to duplicate it. Bigger companies are watching to see what they can get away with so that they too can take that path. Issues of privacy are going to get ickier and ickier, especially once we’re talking about mobile phones and location-based information. As Alison wrote in her previous post on respecting digital privacy, users are likely to act incautiously by default. Thus, what does it mean that we’re solidifying the precedent that “opt-out” is AOK?
December 12th, 2007
‘Yeah, if it’s something free, man, I’ll give them my information.’
‘No way, I don’t give my phone number to anyone.’
Two comments by Blyk members on different points of a spectrum sent me to re-visit research on people’s perception of risk (Stuart Sutherland’s book, Irrationality, is a good place to start if you’re interested). Warned of the pitfalls of making personal information available (of spam attacks; of the potential for fraud; of pictures, posted for fun, that come back to haunt you) why do some people seem not to guard their ‘digital privacy’ particularly closely?
- We’re not statisticians: for most people, the good experiences outweigh the bad. So for the handful of companies that have bombarded you with unwanted emails or messages there are many more that haven’t. Rationally, a good experience in the past doesn’t mean the next experience will be good, but we’re unlikely to see it that way unless we force ourselves to think like statisticians. Most of us don’t; for if we did, everyday decision-making would become pretty unwieldy.
- Our experience and memory are limited: it’s hard to envisage the consequences of a serious violation of privacy before it happens. If it hasn’t happened to you, or to anyone you know well, warnings from computer safety educators or news stories about fraud victims won’t pop into mind, especially not at the point you’re making your decision to accept an offer in return for handing over personal data. The offer is far more salient personally, and far more likely to trigger a response.
- We’re clubbable: perhaps most influentially, most of us are group animals, generally comfortable to work within organisations, join clubs, be with others at events etc. Cooperative group behaviour (driving on the same side of the road, paying for goods in shops, expecting transport to operate to a timetable) is just part of everyday life. While we may be aware that the organisations we deal with are using our data to target us for marketing or other purposes (in fact many, including Blyk, are quite explicit about this), we expect them to be respectful and cooperative. Some Facebook members recently had a taste of uncooperative treatment when they found their browsing and purchasing behaviour tracked and displayed by Facebook’s Beacon advertising program. How was this resolved? By the group influence of the American campaigning organisation, MoveOn, which people signed up to (registering their contact details in the process, of course).
It may be that we are all on the brink of serious uncooperative experiences with the web tools we use. Commentators have suggested that the Facebook Beacon fracas was but the tip of an iceberg. But, unfettered by strict rationality, most of us surf optimistically, join in and enjoy web experiences.
Getting inside people’s decision-making, to inject caution before commitment is likely to be extremely difficult (even with well-understood hazards, such as smoking and alcohol, health educators have difficulty getting their message across). But given that there is a likelihood that many people will continue to act humanly and, therefore, incautiously, there is an opportunity for companies to commit openly to respectful data handling. It may cramp their style for trading data in the future, but as more companies commit themselves to rigorous standards, those that don’t will stand out. Maybe this contrast could pique people’s consciousness just enough for them to ask ‘whatever they’re offering, do I want to hand my data over to them?’
December 6th, 2007
Advertising is the bread and butter of the web, yet most of my friends claim that they never click on ads, typically using a peacock tone that signals their pride in being ad-averse. The geekier amongst them go out of their way to run Mozilla scripts to scrape ads away, bemoaning the presence of consumer culture. Yet, companies increasingly rely on ad revenue to turn a profit and, while clicking on ads ?may? be declining, it certainly hasn’t gone away. This raises a critical question: Who are the people that click on ads?
A few years back, I asked this question to someone who worked in the world of web ads and I received a snarky (and condescending) answer: middle America. Over the years, I’ve read all sorts of speculations about search engine ads suggesting that people click on ads:
- Because they don’t know that they’re ads.
- Because they are perceived to be of greater quality than the actual search results (for example, in searches for travel).
- When they’re searching for something that they want to purchase (intent to buy = desire to get to merchants quickly).
- When they’re bored.
- When they think that they might win something or get something for free.
Over the summer, Dave Morgan (AOL Global Advertising Strategy) blogged about a study that they did to investigate who clicks on ads:
What did we learn? A lot. We learned that most people do not click on ads, and those that do are by no means representative of Web users at large.
Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often. That tiny percentage makes up the vast majority of banner ad clicks.
Who are these “heavy clickers”? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners, with some concentrations in Mid-Atlantic States and in New England. What kinds of content do they like to view when they are on the Web? Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.
Social media services like social network sites are not designed around the audience that Morgan suggests is the core of clickers, yet these too rely on advertising. I have a sneaking suspicion that a tiny percentage of MySpace/Facebook/etc. users make up the bulk of the revenue of these sites, just as with the sites that Morgan addresses. I cannot find any research on who clicks on social network site ads (does anyone know of any???), but based on what I’ve seen qualitatively, my hypothesis would be that heavy ad clickers are:
- More representative of lower income households than the average user.
- Less educated than the average user (or from less-educated environments in the case of minors).
- More likely to live outside of the major metro regions.
- More likely to be using SNSs to meet new people than the average user (who is more likely to be using SNSs to maintain connections).
In other words, much to my chagrin, I suspect that heavy ad clickers in social network sites and other social media are more likely to trend lower in both economic and social capital than the average user. Unfortunately, I don’t have the data to test these hypotheses at all. (Does anyone? Are there any studies on class dynamics and ad clicking?)
Of course, while the ad world is obsessed with clicks because they can measure those, ad receptivity is more than just clicks. While people dream of adding clicks to TV, TV ads have been tremendously successful without the clicking option. Brand recognition, for example, is an acceptable outcome from the POV of many marketers. But the web lets us measure clicks so advertisers tend to care about clicks.
I am not an advertiser and I’m not invested in making better ads. Instead, by raising this topic, I’m curious whether or not web marketing is capitalizing on a niche group and, if so, what the societal implications of this might be? If my hypothesis were true, what would it mean if marketing is profiting primarily off of those who are economically and socially struggling? How do we feel about this philosophically, ethically, and professionally? Would we feel proud of living off of a business model that targets the poor?
Of course, my hypothesis may be wrong. Advertisers have historically flocked to the sites that draw richer, more educated, more urban populations. (As has media coverage.) They have to be doing this for a reason, right? Websites have historically tried to demonstrate that their users are such “ideal” consumers. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if these “ideal” consumers are really the people who buy most of the goods being advertised. (I’ve always been fascinated by how poorer American families tend to have immense amounts of stuff while rich American families pride themselves on minimizing quantity and maximizing quality of material goods.)
I should note that consumer culture has historically capitalized on poorer populations, long before the web. Studies of consumer culture have shown how American identity has been constructed through consumption over the last century and how, not surprisingly, those who have a stronger need/desire to prove their American identity buy into the consumer culture.
While studies of consumer culture go back decades, I’m having a hard time surfacing what is known about the culture of web advertising. Who is being targeted? Who is responding? Why are they responding? What are the implications?
You might be wondering why am I raising such a web-centric issue on the Shift6 blog. Mobile advertising is primarily growing out of the web culture. It may not be about clicks, but the idea of user responses builds on that. As advertising becomes central to every interactive technology in our lives, I think it’s important to step back and question who is being targeted, how, and with what consequence. Thus, as we are thinking about what it might mean to live in a world where mobile phone advertising is accepted, we must also concern ourselves with the implications of this.
(Note: it’s easy to read this from an anti-capitalist POV, but this should instead be read from the POV of a conscientious capitalist.)
December 3rd, 2007
