As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

From the category archives:

Consumer

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Hulu and the Subscription Model

by Smithee on October 27, 2009

in Consumer

This is an editorial by Smithee and a plea for your help in shaping the future of entertainment.

At our house, we enjoy some Hulu programming on occasion. Even though during the recent DVR years I’ve become accustomed to skipping commercials, I don’t mind them on Hulu, for these reasons:

  1. I’ve only seen one per commercial break
  2. They haven’t been suddenly, obnoxiously loud
  3. Hulu is free, and so advertising makes sense

And so far, there’s no ability to skip them. I can deal with that, because in an episode of, say, “Defying Gravity” on Hulu, there are five commercial breaks, for a total of five minutes of Lipitor commercials (at first, every episode would play five of the same Lipitor commercial, it was almost funny). I can accept five minutes. That means about 9.6% of a 43-minute show is an ad. That’s fine, so long as the service is free.

But that is going to change sometime in 2010. Hulu is owned by NewsCorp (who owns roughly half of everything), and they have decided:

It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online. I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content. I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value. Hulu concurs with that, it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business

Anything more specific than this decision is just speculation: subscriptions for what, everything? premium channels only? groups of channels? Nobody knows.

What I propose is unacceptable is this: a subscription fee for any user, for any content, so long as the advertising remains part of the experience. In other words: unskippable ads are no problem, subscription fees for any content are no problem, but both together would be a problem.

You and I have a chance right now to help influence and inform Hulu’s decision to go forward with a subscription model, before we let ourselves get duped.

Sadly, we’ve been letting ourselves get duped for a long time.

Newspapers, Cable TV, mobile phones

Newspapers are filled with advertisements, and they also expect you to pay for each copy. The same is true of magazines. In fact you could argue that any fashion magazine is just one huge multi-part advertisement. So, I don’t read them. Oh, I look at the news online all the time, but between my banner-blindness and various browser plugins, it’s not often I see an advertisement.

TV is a different story. TV used to be just like radio: the good parts were ad-supported, and you also had a station that relied on member subscriptions. Cable messed that all up, and we were too busy with the colorful new channels to notice. A cable company would set up shop in your town and tell you all about the dozens of extra options you’d get for $X / month. We were totally psyched to get MTV and Nickelodeon at our house, but it didn’t occur to me until later than since the cable company replaced our over-the-air channels, we were now paying for something that used to be free. Thirteen free somethings, in fact (UHF was admittedly pretty empty).

There’s an argument that in the case of OTA / broadcast channels, what you’re paying the cable company for is consistent quality of signal. I’d be happy to see some proof of that, in the form of a cable company’s accounting spreadsheet. I’m sure that NBC is charging the cable companies regional monopolies a fee to include their programming, and cable is passing that cost on to the customer.

The mobile phone business model just depresses me whenever I think of it. Here’s how a phone worked since the time it was invented: if you called someone, you were expected to pay for it, but if someone called you, it was free. This makes total sense: the phone call recipient didn’t intend to have that conversation, he or she isn’t really responsible. Besides that, this seemed to work very well for decades, and phone companies never changed it. That is, until we were tooling around town with phones in our pockets and cars. Since it was new and fancy, providers decided to invent a different business model: you’d be paying for calls now whether you started it or not.

As far as I know, mobile phone companies have never had to justify this to their customers en masse.

AOL vs. World of Warcraft

Remember those CDs of AOL software? They were everywhere. It seemed like you’d get a new version in your mailbox every three months, especially if you weren’t even a customer. They were free, because AOL’s business model was a monthly fee for access, content, and software upgrades. And AOL did fine for a long time.

Everquest came along and messed that all up, charging both a monthly fee and an upfront fee for the software, and now WoW players suffer the same fate. You’re paying the company twice for the same things they were going to be doing anyway. What is wrong with us? Why do we enable companies to use more than one business model at a time?

Advertising is a replacement for subscriptions

And vice versa: subscriptions are a replacement for advertising. Advertising is one business model, and subscriptions are another. Employing both for the same product is unacceptable.

I’d like to ask for your help now in spreading this message to the managers at Hulu, so they understand the intelligent way to move forward is to either saddle us with a recurring fee and remove the commercials, or leave the commercials in an otherwise free service.

On Hulu’s discussion forum, there are already many threads decrying the decision to start charging. You could try adding your own voice there, or e-mailing feedback@hulu.com. Another less elegant method would be to add an irrelevant comment on one of the entries at the official Hulu blog. In my experience, site owners are more likely to read blog comments than they are discussion forums, but your mileage may vary.

Hulu’s Free Glory Days Are Official Numbered, John Herrman, Gizmodo, Oct. 22 2009

{ 12 comments }



Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Net Neutrality Simplified

by Smithee on October 23, 2009

in Consumer

Depending on how you get your news, the topic of network neutrality can seem boring, or confusing, or both. Possibly you haven’t yet heard about it, or you’ve already formed an opinion. The reports I see are too often complicated, lacking reasoned arguments and full of hyperbolic guesses as to what the future might hold. Not to mention that both supporters and critics say that their side is the one promoting “freedom”. I’ve read all the boringly-written PDFs about the FCC’s new guidelines for you, and here’s what it means.

Same as it is now

Enacting an official policy of network neutrality means that the Internet you use now will not change. Broadband providers have ideas about limiting access to some content for customers who don’t pay as much, or aren’t on their networks.

As the specific FCC guideline is written:

broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications

Without Net Neutrality

For example, imagine if you needed to be a Verizon FiOS subscriber in order to access www.startrek.com. Star Trek fans who didn’t have FiOS would throw a fit (those same Star Trek fans might recall this actually happened on AOL many years ago). As an alternative, the owners of www.startrek.com work out a deal with the other big broadband companies and they say, “okay, fine, you can have access to it, but your broadband bill will be $5 more per month”. Meanwhile, FiOS subscribers aren’t paying $5 a month for the Web site. Sound fair?

Here’s another made-up example of a world without net neutrality: you have AT&T broadband at home, and a Sprint mobile phone through work. Your company uses Google Apps, but AT&T decides they don’t like Google, so you can’t get to your work e-mail from home. Does that sound like a good idea to you? If you’re against that idea, then you are in favor of net neutrality.

No reason for prices to change

The Internet was built by a bunch of nerdy scientists to be open and accessible to everyone. It isn’t free, because moving data requires paying people to do various jobs. At my house, we’re paying about $60 / month for some very fast Internet. Critics of net neutrality claim that “new rules” will force providers to raise prices. But remember, neutrality is what we have now, as it’s been regulated by the FCC in the past on a case-by-case basis, so there’s no logical reason to raise prices for anyone. Besides, $60 a month is almost highway robbery as it is.

Internet providers charge more for faster speeds, and less for slower speeds. Critics of neutrality want to invent new ways to charge people in addition to this one simple rule.

Regarding congestion and illegal activities

The FCC’s published guidelines (they’re just getting started writing the actual rules), make exceptions that give Internet providers the ability to manage network congestion and prevent illegal activities. So if you’re on cable, and you’ve got neighbors downloading (and uploading) 68 gigabytes of Star Trek movies, providers can find a way to stop your speeds from being negatively affected. The new rules do not prevent throttling, and they do not encourage illegal activities.

Avoiding an ugly fight

I’m speculating here, but ensuring network neutrality will also mean side-stepping huge Public Relations nightmares for broadband companies. I think a provider has the right to consider limiting access to certain content or applications, and I think it would be massively stupid of them to go through with it. Millions of people would be instantly enraged.

Back when you needed to be an AOL subscriber to access www.startrek.com, they got complaint after complaint, and it was less than a year before access was returned to everyone. Why would anyone want to go through with that again?

Preserving a Free and Open Internet, at the FCC’s OpenInternet.gov web site (which is accessible to everyone)

{ 7 comments }



Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Google Editions: E-Books From Anywhere

by Smithee on October 16, 2009

in Consumer

In addition to Sony’s and Amazon’s electronic bookstores (about 100,000 and 330,000 titles available, respectively), booksellers now have another huge option for getting their books into our hands: Google Editions, which will launch next year with between 400,000 and 600,000 titles.

Not necessarily a store or a device

Google Editions is built on top of Google’s enormous book digitizing project called Google Books, and is a platform that stores can take advantage of.

Google plans to share the sales with both publishers and the online bookstores. For books sold directly from its Web site, the search giant said at the book fair that it would give publishers 63 percent of the sales and keep 37 percent itself. For books sold through Amazon or other retailers, the publisher would get 45 percent, while the retailer would get almost 55 percent with a small share for Google.

Google has not (yet?) announced any plans to sell a reader device, primarily because they are making the purchased books available on any device with a browser. In theory, as long as you are logged into your Google account, you can read the same book on your laptop, mobile phone, the netbook you keep in the kitchen, etc.

The electronic ink difference

I’ve periodically tried to read entire books from a computer screen, and I’ve never been able to finish one. Daily computing tasks are different from reading paragraph after paragraph for hours. Conversely, devices like Amazon’s Kindle use an electronic ink that is much easier on the eyes and feels like reading off of paper.

In addition, computers like the iPhone use a kind of screen that drains the battery much faster than the Kindle. Hopefully, competition will be spurred forward with an electronic ink device that has support for Google Editions.

Saving money and peace of mind

2771611344_b87477aef4_mMy wife has had a 2nd-generation Kindle for about eight months, and loves it to pieces. I asked her the other day whether, because electronic versions of books are cheaper, she thinks she’s saved money on her book purchases, and she nearly guffawed. She figures she’s bought three times as many books as she otherwise would have. It even affords her the ability to read books that normally she’d be embarrassed to be seen with, like the “Twilight” silliness series.

However, having your book purchases on one thin device also means that you’re not storing the ones you’ve already read somewhere in your house, on the off-chance that someday you might read it again. Many of you might be in the habit of donating your old books to a local library or Goodwill, and for that I salute you, but at our house we never seem to get around to it.

Conclusion

No matter what, it’s always better to have more than one store for a given product. I’m particularly pleased that Google is entering this market, because in addition to their motto, they actually do have a strong past record of not being evil.

By the way, did you know you can subscribe to Consumerism Commentary on the Kindle?

Photo credit: Robin Iversen Rönnlund
Reports: Google to launch online bookstore, Lance Whitney, CNET, Oct. 15 2009
Google to launch Google Editions platform, Peter Zschunke, Associated Press, Oct. 15 2009

{ 3 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

How to Create Your Own Extended Warranty

by Flexo on October 15, 2009

in Consumer

In my article the other day about the deal I got on a new computer despite my immediate need, I neglected to mention something important: I refused the extended warranty that the salesperson offered numerous times. Any extended warranty is almost always a bad deal.

When I was a teenager, I had a short-lived job at a ubiquitous electronics store; let’s call it “Transistor Hut.” This was the only job in retail I ever had, and I can’t say I was a fan. Our bonuses were determined by our success in selling the “TSP,” an extended warranty. Let’s say that stands for the “Candy Service Plan (with a T),” and I don’t know whether this is still in existence.

The price of the TSP depended on the price of the item, and TSPs were available for almost every product. If you buy a $19.99 pair of headphones, you could spend another $9.99 for unlimited replacement, no questions asked (other than your phone number). If you buy a $299.99 DVD player, $79.99 (or so, keep in mind this was fifteen years ago) would allow you to bring the broken device into the store, have them ship it to a repair facility, and fix or replace it. That’s a process that would likely take several weeks.

The TSPs and any other store’s extended warranties are pushed hard by salespeople because they are often rewarded for them, and they are rewarded because they are very profitable for the store. Most people who buy the warranty will not use it, so the funds become significant income for the company.

Most credit card companies automatically double the manufacturer’s warranty on products purchased with the card for up to one additional year, so that automatic, free protection is often more than enough. Check your credit card’s terms to see if this is available to you. I knew it was available to me on my American Express Blue Cash for Business Card when I purchased the new desktop computer for Consumerism Commentary’s multimedia production.

Perhaps a smarter way to deal with the possibility of broken items — besides not buying anything — is to self-insure. Rather than spending an extra $50, $300, or $2,000 for an extended warranty depending on the product, put that amount into a new savings account designated for your own personal warranty extension. Do the same for all the products you buy for which a salesperson attempts to sell you the extended warranty. What you have created is a pooled funding source for repairs. It is unlikely that all of your products will break or stop functioning, so you can withdraw from this fund to pay for repairs for the one item that fails.

With this strategy, you keep all your money if nothing goes wrong, and if the money is sitting in a high-yield savings account, it’s working for you rather than lining the pockets of major retail chains.

Here is the step-by-step process.

Step 1. When you purchase an item, make note of the cost of the extended warranty. Don’t buy it.

Step 2. Transfer this amount to a special savings account that you will not touch until one of your “protected” items needs to be repaired. ING Direct lets you create sub-accounts, one of which you can name “My Extended Warranties” or “Warranty Fund.” Don’t create a sub-account for each item. One for all of your items will do. Thus, the “Warranty Fund” is pooled.

Step 3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 using the same Warranty Fund you already created for all products you buy that might break or are associated with an extended warranty. This will build up a sizable Warranty Fund in your own name at your own bank earning interest for you.

Step 4. When one of your self-insured products breaks or otherwise needs repairs, dip into your Warranty Fund. Try to avoid using your Emergency Fund unless the Warranty Fund doesn’t cover the full expense and the product must be fixed or replaced.

The strength here is that you are pooling your own funds. This is what the retailers do to ensure warranties bring significant profits to the company. Just like not every customer will take advantage of their purchased extended warranty, not every product you self-insure will break unless you are extremely unlucky or extremely careless. In addition, the best benefit of self-insuring is that you will never have to argue with a store representative about whether certain type of damage is “covered.”

{ 13 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Always Try Bargaining: Here’s How it Worked for Me

by Flexo on October 12, 2009

in Consumer

Tom Dziubek, the producer of the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, and I have been having some difficulties with the Acer Aspire desktop I purchased earlier this year. I believe the problem can be fixed, but it will take some time. The problems have unfortunately affected our recording and interview schedule, so when an interview on Friday was cut short due to yet another glitch and more interviews were scheduled for today that were already postponed due to technical difficulties, I wanted to resolve the problem this weekend.

At this moment, it is somewhat difficult to get a powerful desktop computer on short notice. Retail stores are gearing up for the release of Windows 7 and manufacturers aren’t providing the stores with much. The belief here is that consumers would rather wait for Windows 7 to be installed at the factory rather than buy a computer whose operating system will be out of date within weeks, even if it includes a free upgrade.

I spotted one major regional chain electronics store that not only had something better than eMachines, it had the exact desktop model that I probably would have purchased online, with a few modifications, if I had more time. Most of the computer’s specifications were excellent, but the only drawbacks were a 5400 rpm hard drive — too slow for audio recording — and an integrated graphics chip. The graphics chip was probably fine for what we needed but I prefer discrete graphics.

The salesperson and I spoke for a long time, and I eventually got a discount on the purchase — a larger discount than I asked for. Here is how I won this battle of money.

1. I was very knowledgeable about what I wanted. I have been researching the best desktops currently on the model for the past few weeks, ever since the first sign of problems with the Acer Aspire, even though I believed and still believe the problem can be fixed. I knew exactly what I wanted and the price range I wanted to pay for the features I wanted.

The salesperson knew I was knowledgeable because I discussed the system in detail with him and explained my other options. I could tell he wasn’t as technically inclined as I am so I didn’t try to show off; I kept the conversation on his level but I was able to express that I had done my research.

2. I pointed out the flaws. It is true this machine had the two drawbacks I mentioned above. I made sure the salesperson was aware of my observation that these factors were detrimental to my choice and might hold me back from buying.

3. I asked for a discount. On the basis of the machine not matching my expectations exactly, and knowing that a 10% discount is common in retail electronics, I asked for 15% off. The salesperson explained that they cannot offer discounts on computer systems, but they could offer me a rebate if I purchased a printer or possibly some other accessories. I considered this; I didn’t need a printer, but if I could get a good discount on a replacement hard drive or graphics card, I might take that option.

The particular store I visited does not sell these types of computer components, so I wasn’t going to find something I needed. The salesperson did work very hard as we thought about different options that might satisfy me.

4. I was patient. When we couldn’t find a good route for a discount other than, in my mind, the computer itself, the salesperson went back to his manager. Still, the word was that they could not and would not offer a discount off the price of the desktop. We looked online, the salesperson on the store computer and me on my BlackBerry, to try to find other stores offering the system for less.

The store’s system of price matching is designed to wear the customer down. The salesperson has sixteen competitors’ websites bookmarked in Internet Explorer, and the process calls for searching for the product on each website in order to find a store with the product in stock and for sale at a lower price.

As I mentioned above, this is a very bad time for buying a computer with stores keeping not much in stock, so I knew this search would be fruitless.

On my BlackBerry, I did find a better price on NewEgg.com, but as expected, the store would not match an online-only price. The price at NewEgg was $30 better than the price in the store, which would have been a discount of less than 5%.

5. I made my final offer. After about thirty minutes in the store, we still weren’t going anywhere. The sales manager wasn’t ready to budge, and I wasn’t going to pay full price yet, even though I knew I needed a new computer by the end of the weekend. I didn’t let the salesperson know that I needed the computer immediately. In his mind, I could just buy the computer online. I told the salesperson that unless they can give me $30 off, that is exactly what I would do.

6. And then I walked out the door. But I didn’t get very far. As I was walking towards the door, I could see the salesperson and the manager in a frantic discussion, and as I stepped outside, I was called back into the store. There were going to make a deal on the desktop.

Patience still played a key role. I waited for what was probably another twenty minutes as the salesperson was in the back of the store, bringing the computer out. There were obviously some more problems because he came out twice without a computer and spoke to the sales manager.

Eventually the salesperson brought out the computer. The box had been opened, but the machine had never been used. It was not a display model or a customer return; the box had been opened because another customer’s keyboard was defective. They took the working keyboard from this computer and gave it to that customer, so mine was without a keyboard. They gave me the working keyboard from the display model and knocked $80 off the price.

That was more than my final offer, so I accepted. My discount in total was more than 10%. I spent more time in the store than I had originally planned but I got what I wanted for a price that was better than I thought I could have received. Even considering the replacement hard drive and the graphics card I purchased later, I talked my way into a great deal.

In the end, I got what I wanted, and so did the salesperson. Everyone wins.

I am not a very persuasive or aggressive person, so it’s a bit against my nature to work so hard just to save $85.59 including tax. I definitely think it was worthwhile. I always suggest at least trying to bargain, even when faced with resistance.

{ 16 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

TV Ad Volume May Finally Be Moderated

by Smithee on October 9, 2009

in Consumer

This is something I’ve wanted to see happen for my entire life. I never thought it would, and I’m only mildly political so I never pushed for it, but we may see a new law that says a TV commercial can’t be “louder than the program it accompanies”, nor can it be “excessively noisy or strident”.

At our house, we don’t get to see a lot of commercials, but our TV-service-provided DVR isn’t as elegant as a TiVo, and the 30-second skip button leaves a gap between skips, and some of those gaps are obnoxiously loud. Usually it’s people wanting to melt down my “extra” gold or sell me some unpainted furniture from a warehouse, but it could be anything. It makes me instantly angry, every time.

But just yesterday,

The House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet on Thursday approved a bill that would prohibit television commercials from being excessively loud. The FCC would be required to come up with recommended volume levels for commercials.

Broadcasters, TV stations and cable and satellite providers would then have one year to purchase the necessary equipment to temper noisy ads.

I wasn’t expecting new equipment to be necessary, since when we watch things on Hulu, the ads are never louder than the show I’m watching. When we watch videos on the Xbox, a TV show’s volume isn’t any louder than it would be if I were playing a game, and the same goes with a DVD. Even when watching any of the dozen channels on Boxee, I never have to scramble to adjust the volume. But I guess that “old school” TV providers (I have the extremely recent Verizon FiOS) are a mish-mash of suppliers and delivery devices, and there’s still a hole that needs to be plugged.

House panel seeks to hush noisy ads, Kim Hart, The Hill, Oct. 8, 2009

Hit the mute! Why TV commercials are so loud, and how that may change, Jeff Bercovici, Daily Finance, Oct. 8, 2009

{ 8 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Overkill At the United States Mint With New Coin Designs

by Flexo on October 8, 2009

in Consumer

In 1909, the U.S. Mint decided to honor assassinated President Abraham Lincoln by putting his likeness on the obverse of the lowest denominated coin in regular circulation, the cent. This new design, introduced for the centennial anniversary of Lincoln’s birth, replaced the “Indian head” cent. The model for this design was most likely not a native American; most sources point to Sarah Longacre, the daughter of the cent’s engraver, wearing an Indian-style head dress.

This was the first time a coin in this country would depict a political leader. Those who created the first coinage in the country several centuries prior desired to distance this country from the monarchies of the Old World, where it was common for state leaders to decree their countries’ coinage should depict their images. American coins, for the most part, would depict a representation of “liberty” until the introduction of the Lincoln cent.

Public reaction

The design change in that year drew mixed emotions among the public. Some welcomed the change. As A.A. Leve wrote on August 15, 1909, in his letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1909, “… [T]he long line of illustrious Americans on our coins will have more education and patriotic influence on the citizens of our country than all the biographies and histories ever combined.” At least in the coin collecting community, you often hear of long-time collectors using their coins to teach their children and grandchildren about American history, so Leve may have been correct.

But there was also dissent. C.F.H. also wrote to the New York Times in August of 1909:

… [T]he chief aim governing a plan to honor such a being as Abraham Lincoln should be to comply with what his wished might be were he given full opportunity to express them. For, in failing to take account of so important a factor, such an honor as that involved in the new product of the mints of this freedom is left incomplete.

To think that Lincoln would find progress expressed in the recent insult to our National symbol of liberty, the “Indian head” on the cent, which, though it might be improved upon, should always remain, is inconceivable.

Throughout the twentieth century, the U.S. Mint was judicious in changing designs on coins. But over the past decade, they, and Congress who has been authorizing these changes, have been on a tear. Although the government’s stated purpose was to incite interest in coins again, it is clear that the U.S. Mint would much rather function like the Franklin Mint, releasing new products as often as possible so they can collect money from coin collectors.

The beginning of redesign overkill

First we had the State Quarters program, which began in 1999. Five new designs would adorn the reverse of the quarter dollar each year for ten years. The artistic and metaphorical engravings of prior centuries were replaced with run-of-the-mill images of whatever each state could come up with to commemorate itself. In 2000, the dollar coin came back in full force with the Sacagawea dollar.

The next coin to be awarded a new design was the nickel in 2004. This year saw two different designs for the reverse. In 2005, two more new reverse designs were used, as well as a new portrait of Thomas Jefferson on the obverse. The following year, the Mint found yet another portrait of Jefferson for the obverse and returned to the pre-2004 reverse.

In 2007, the Mint began a new dollar coin design in addition to the Sacagawea coin. To satisfy Presidents other than those already depicted on coinage, every American President would get a chance to appear on the dollar coin. Four new designs have been released every year since 2007, each with a portrait of a President, released in the order they took office.

The Mint couldn’t go another year without announcing something new, so in 2008 they decided to follow the State Quarters series with additional designs, including representations of D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands.

Are we done yet? No. This year is the centennial anniversary of Lincoln’s first appearance on the cent. If you’ve looked carefully at your change this year, you may have noticed new penny designs.

A better idea

It’s time to stop commemorating people on our coins. Let’s go back to artistic designs depicting the idea of liberty, like this beautiful engraving of “walking liberty” by Adolph A. Weinman or another liberty engraving by Augustus Saint-Gaudens. Choose one design for each coin and stick with it for a long time, at least one generation and perhaps more than two. Give the public some time to get used to each design.

Continuous design changes don’t make coin collecting interesting for the long term. And for those interested in investing, I doubt that collecting any new coins will ever be financially worthwhile due to the vast quantities that are minted each year. All that is left for collectors besides the coin’s face value is the art. It might as well be good art rather than homages to elected leaders.

The Lincoln Cent (Letter to the Editor), A.A. Leve, The New York Times, August 15, 1909.
The Lincoln Cent (Letter to the Editor), C.F.H., The New York Times, August 6, 1909.

{ 16 comments }

Comments
Email this article Email this article
Print this article Print this article

Facial Recognition and Billboards

by Smithee on October 2, 2009

in Consumer, Privacy and Security

I have a fascinated/disgusted relationship with targeted advertisements. On one hand, I’ve seen enough Playtex commercials in my lifetime that I could probably draw you their logo from memory, and I’ve never been in the position to decide, “should I buy the Playtex version, or a different brand?” All those ads in my face have been a complete waste of my time, and the advertiser’s dollars. So, I think it would be really neat if I only saw advertisements that would interest me.

On the other hand, even though I’m blessed with A.D.D. and therefore daydream my way through most ads, I’ve read enough studies about how ads work, and I know that in some cases I’m more likely to buy a brand I’ve heard of. In other cases, a simple Google search will suffice, and the recommendation from people I trust is worth more than a hundred well-produced ads.

Privacy LatchSince the seminal work on the subject—Minority Report—came out in theaters, I’ve been waiting to see just how close we’ll get to individually-targeted ads. And this morning I see that Germany is beginning to place video cameras inside of street-level billboards, designed to recognize people’s emotional reaction to specific ads. If the advertisers sees that more people are smiling, or at least interested, than sneering, they’ll feel encouraged to keep the ad going.

Granted, this is quite far from a commercial that speaks to you or knows your habits, as in “Hey, Bill Braskey, it’s been 8 days since your last vanilla latté. Don’t you think you deserve one?” And I’m thankful for that. At present, I don’t feel like an advertisement that judges my emotional state is an invasion of privacy, but if they start to recognize my identity, I certainly will.

We do, however, already see ads based on our habits. Google and its advertising partners have the ability to show you ads that other visitors won’t see, because your Internet browsing habits are not exactly private. They call it “interest-based advertising”, and because Google is Google, they were very open and up-front about it, and have provided permanent methods for anybody to opt-out of the program.

Billboards shouting out your name aren’t a reality yet for a couple important reasons: 1) recognizing an individual face isn’t foolproof yet, and 2) advertisers don’t have access to a database of, say, driver’s license photos. Although, there may be a way around that last requirement, if Facebook starts selling access to names tagged in photos. In any event, you can rest assured that we’ll keep on top of this for you and help you protect your brain.

Big Brother is watching you shop, Michael Fitzpatrick, BBC News, Oct. 2, 2009

Photo credit: rpongsaj

{ 3 comments }

Page 1 of 3712345Earlier Articles »···Last »