|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
My privacy is mine to decide - not theirs because their business model needs
it.
If I walk into a brick-n-mortar store and they request my personal
information:
I politely decline!
They do not require my personal
information for any reason when I am paying cash for the product I
want.
If anyone ever insists on acquiring my personal information for a
cash sale - I will leave the product at the counter, walk out, and never go
back.
Other customers may feel differently. That's their choice as it's
their privacy they are deciding on.
Old style print newspaper and
magazine advertising typically relied on having a subscriber list to provide
equivalent "tracking" data.
To what extent was that tracking
data?
Was it just a name and address?
Did it include
age?
Did it include multiple contact info?
Does National
Geographic (to which I have a subscription) know whether or not I have a
subscription to Golf Canada Magazine?
Does Neimann Marcus know whether
or not I have a subscription to both National Geographic and Golf Canada
Magazine?
Publishers would find out all sorts of information
about their subscribers based on things such as their postal codes. For example,
they would get the property tax assessment values, census data, etc., and use
that to form income, age, and family size profiles of their customers which they
would use to base the cost of their ad slots when dealing with
advertisers.
This may be true - but it's also still just guessing.
It's not a direct link of the exact information to a specific
individual.
Without cookie tracking, then all publishers have to
show advertisers is geo-location data.
Ok... so their guessing is
now on a much wider scale then a city block.... too bad.
now
television and radio are going broke
That's what happens with
outdated business models. One only need to consider the horse-n-buggy compared
to the automobile for a clear example of this. Just because they have an
outdated business model does not grant them carte blanche access to my personal
information. It also doesn't grant them a "right" to stay in business just
because they have been in successful business for a time.
In the
end, I suspect that the result of more "cookie privacy" will be far more
invasive tracking in far less transparent ways.
The proper solution
to that problem is:
Continued vigilance
not:
accepting forfeiture
of privacy
Final note: I purchase tv shows to watch at home. BlueRay if I
can get them, DVD otherwise. I purchase both old tv shows that I still enjoy
(like Gilligan's Island) and new tv shows that have caught my interest (like
Grimm).
As a result, while TV networks may very well go out of business
because their model no longer works (on people like myself) those that produce
the tv shows are still making a profit. So the TV networks go out of business -
too bad. Their business model is not a necessity and there's plenty of
alternatives now. So if they don't want to stay competitive in acceptable ways,
and they want to claim "privacy must be done away with if we are to stay in
business" then I say:
Let them go out of business!
I stopped watching
tv 6 years ago when I realized the 3-hour movie slot was 1.5 hour movie (chopped
down from 2 hours of course) and 1.5 hour commercial. That is a totally
unacceptable portion of commercial time to me.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
An astute advertizing company would do the spadework to figure out a profile for
those who run with cookies off. My guess is that they are an excellent market
for tech toys. (Anyone want a sonic screwdriver? New or old version. ;-)
The
spadework incidentally is what every advertizing client should be doing anyway.
For example, have click-throughs from different ads go to different addresses
and track purchases from there. An add with lots of click-throughs and no
associated sales is a very questionable investment.
Anyway, the merchant
wants/needs this information anyway. The advertizing company want/needs the
same information, but to price things to maximize their revenue from the
merchant. So how can the advertiser get this information for itself? Place its
own ads, for some line of products that doesn't really compete with their big
clients.
But all that is too much like work, compared to placing
cookies.
Another choice works something like this. A credit card company
explains what it is doing, and creates a cookie on your computer that vendors
can read--but not edit. The credit card company vets vendors before allowing
them access, and suspends access for vendors who create too many complaints or
returns. That way the credit card provides you with a service (vetting
vendors) and a service to the vendor: Both a lower default rate, and
some market information aggregated to provide you with
privacy.
Writing and testing the software? At most a couple of weeks.
Changing market expectations? Years. But I would love not to have to enter
credit card information at dozens of vendors. (The vendor gets a transaction
ID, which is all it needs to see. For physical deliveries, though, the vendor
will still need a shipping address.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|