Posts filed under 'Practices'
I want to respond to danah’s post at some length, hence a separate posting. To understate the case, our relationship to advertising is a complex one. We can recoil when we read reports of advertisers’ manipulative practices, yet we can also enjoy advertising, and find it genuinely informative; while it’s often a delight to escape advertising in unspoilt landscapes, we have probably driven our branded car to get there, are sporting branded outdoor gear etc. etc. I suspect there are as many inconsistencies in our attitudes to new media advertising as to traditional media. So, for example, the same people who complain about pop ups and banner ads in web pages (and, yes, there is evidence that advertising on web sites disrupts processing of site content) may also be watching and sharing favourite ads on YouTube. We’re in it to the hilt.
So advertising is part of popular culture, much of which we may not particularly want to espouse, nor to see influence our children. There is conflicting data concerning children’s understanding of advertising, and its influence on their decision-making (always a good idea to look at who is publishing the data). Some suggest that children become sceptical about advertising pretty early on (we might question whether this a scepticism we want our children to develop; my understanding is that the French, who have light regulation on advertising to children, take the view that it’s part of growing up). Most European countries have some restrictions on TV advertising to children, with Sweden at the most stringent end of the scale and the UK among the more relaxed. And there may be downsides to these restrictions: the British advertisers’ association, the IPA, have claimed that in Greece, where there is a restriction on advertising toys during children’s TV, there has been a reduction in the quality of children’s programming, with cheap imports substituting for more expensive, locally-generated programmes (it’s their role to point to these kinds of consequences, of course). Recent UK restrictions on TV advertising of junk food to children have seen a migration of advertising to the net. I don’t think we yet know what influence it has there but it’s hardly likely that businesses would be investing in it if they didn’t think it would have some effect. Marketing takes the opportunities that are available and if we want the benefits advertising brings (e.g. sponsored events, broadcasting, on-line experiences, phone services etc.) we also have to be aware of its impact and vigilant for potential abuse.
And if the impact of advertising in our everyday lives is complex so, too, is our role in working for companies of all kinds that use advertising to promote their products or sponsor their activities. In the UK there was a ripple of press reports in 2003 when a collection of documents from advertising agencies working on campaigns for tobacco manufacturers revealed an agency’s derogatory classification of their market segments, including a description of some smokers (low income) as ‘slobs’. It’s not hard to see how these cynical attitudes can develop if, at best, a company’s only contact with its customers is to herd groups of them into a strange environment and observe them from behind a two-way mirror in the forced discussion of a focus group. Hardly a recipe for empathy. Short-hand labels for customer segments are efficient for internal communication, but they are only a key to the real people, with everyday lives, emotions, aspirations, behind the labels.
How can we mitigate the distanced cynicism that tempts companies into manipulative advertising practices or, for that matter, to ship untested goods, plan obsolescence into products, snare unwitting customers into providing personal data that can be traded, fail to deliver adequate customer support and so on? We have to recognise that business has its agenda and it’s not the same as its customers’, although some congruence is needed for a business to succeed. As researchers we have a role - albeit a relatively small one - in creating that congruence. The closer a business is to its customers, and the more it understands them, the more opportunities it has to choose not to be exploitative, to be humanely human-centred. The conventional research recipe of clusters of regional focus groups are not going to raise executives’ social consciousness. We have to push for imaginative approaches to doing and presenting research that keeps the internal team as close as possible to its external customers. That can mean working outside our own comfort zone sometimes, experimenting with new methods, learning new techniques. The subtleties of different research approaches may not be of interest to the people who use our research, but as researchers we’re guardians of the methods being used, and the conclusions that are drawn from them.
January 10th, 2008
A new report by the UK National Union of Teachers - Growing up in a material world - shows that contemporary marketing and commercialization practices have devastating consequences on youth:
Of increasing concern to teachers is the increasing commercialisation of childhood and the lifestyle pressures exerted on children by the advertising and marketing industries. Using ever more sophisticated methods, these industries encourage children to buy particular brands of clothing and food and conform to specific images. Parents, too, experience this, as children’s ‘pester-power’ is exploited by the advertising industry. Those on a low income can feel particularly affected.
The pressure to consume and conform can lead to excessive levels of materialism and competition among children leading to bullying. There are dangerous consequences for the physical and mental health of young people.
The rise in childhood obesity and illnesses such as the early onset of type 2 diabetes, for example, highlight the dangers of advertising unhealthy food to children.
The report continues on to discuss how commercialization leads to the “creation and reinforcement of a culture of ‘cool’” amongst youth. The most terrifying finding in their report has to do with the link between bullying and consumerism: “Over 55% of those responding had either been bullied or knew someone who had been bullied because they did not have the latest products.” To fit in, youth have to consume. Marketing creates this cycle and bullies do the dirty work of making sure everyone conforms or suffers the consequences.
Body image and sexuality are at the crux of this. Girls are sold the “right” body image through dolls and clothing and their sexuality is structured around sexually provocative clothes, makeup and other product. Fitting in requires being “sexy” even at a young age. Not surprisingly, sexism and gender stereotyping are reinforced (if not constructed) by marketers seeking to capitalize on vulnerabilities.
“Companies routinely hire child and consumer psychologists to conduct research to help them target children effectively. Children’s vulnerabilities are played on as advertisers sell images of perfection and increase the pressure to have the latest ‘in vogue’ fashion and gadgets.”
In my own fieldwork, I regularly witnessed the consequences of mass commercialism. Teens had to buy to fit in and if they couldn’t buy, they were pressured to steal. Identity is constructed and status is marked by consumption. The goal of so many teens when they grow up is to make money so that they can buy the right things.
It’s easy to demonize marketers - they make for good punching bags - but many of us live off of the cud of advertising and marketing. Most of the tech industry is indebted to advertising and much of what we use for “free” is because we are eyeballs that can be manipulated. The entire structure of contemporary capitalism rests on companies ability to compete for consumers and, when they’ve saturated the market, create reasons for consumers to keep coming back for more more more. Not surprisingly, one of the reasons that companies have tapped into children is because they are the only true “new” market. More problematically, healthy economies are based on growth and growth doesn’t happen when people just consume what they need. Manipulation is central to a healthy economy - you have to convince people that they want your product so that you can report good news to your stockholders.
This presents a huge moral dilemma:
- How can companies be both ethical and financially successful?
- What are the moral responsibilities of a company when it comes to children’s consumption?
These are hard questions, but questions that I think that we need to start asking ourselves if for no other reason than because “teachers and parents now look to the advertising and marketing industries to become more socially responsible over their targeting of children and young people and for the Government to step in should they not live up to their responsibilities.”
(Thanks to Anastasia. News coverage of this report can be found at The Telegraph.)
January 5th, 2008
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
Next Posts
Previous Posts
