Comments on: “Does Anyone Really Like Adware?” My Response to Suzi’s Question

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:40:06 +0000

David, thanks for the comment. Two observations:

1) While it might be easy to learn about the various auto manufacturers who can satisfy your preferences, given that the number is small and they get a lot of word-of-mouth, this is not always the case with every type of consumer preference you have. As a result, the assumption that people will seek out the right information may not hold across all types of consumer searches.

2) People search for information in different ways. For example, when I’m shopping for products/services, I’m a researcher–I tend to look at my options exhaustively. However, I’m in the minority; most people do very limited research and satisfice with significantly less data than I feel I need. Therefore, it would be a mistake for me to assume that everyone searches the way I do. I further think it’s a mistake to assume that there’s a dominant “one-size-fits-all” search strategy that works across all people for all types of searches.

Eric.

By: David

David — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:20:32 +0000

Another analogy that might be relevant to your adware of the future argument: much of the web is already an advertisement that people seek out. Consider the average automaker’s website (I mention because I’m about to be in the market for a new car). Ultimately, 95% of the content on, say, Ford.com, is marketing material (the other 5% is generally investor information – which might also be considered marketing materials). I know this, and I go to the website anyway. I want the information it presents. I’m also going to go to other sources like Edmunds or Consumer Reports, but the information on the company website is helpful, and so I use it.

What is the point I’m trying to make (poorly)? The websites work as marketing because they are targeted to me very effectively because *I* chose to go there. Adware is going to be seen as a positive when it transforms itself into a tool to find desired information. Except that such tools already exists in the form of Google and Yahoo!, both of whom seem to be doing quite well.

By: Joe Chevalier

Joe Chevalier — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:37:24 +0000

Until we see a decline in malicious use of adware technologies, we will not see an increase in user appreciation of the same.

Personally, I see a potential value in ad-supported software and stand-alone adware. It’s the intrusiveness that I have issue with.

Adware applications should sit in the background, compiling their relevant links, and diplaying the results only when asked by the user. The adware purveyors should not care if the user ever checks the results, as they still receive the benefit of additional data (search queries, visited site categories) to use in their practice.

By: Eric Goldman

Eric Goldman — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:18:07 +0000

Thanks, Chris. I do think there are ways to improve advertising’s relevancy without risking privacy. My preferred approach will be outlined in my next big paper–the short answer is that I believe individualized filters can improve relevancy while keeping all filtering “rules” on the client-side (rather than disclosed to third parties).

I’ll have to think more about banning “puffing.” If it’s truthful information, a puffing ban may unconstitutional. And, I think there’s a risk that while the information is not relevant and helpful to you, it may be relevant and helpful to other consumers.

But we already require advertisers to make only provable representations–it’s part of the restrictions on false advertising.

Eric.

By: Chris Hoofnagle

Chris Hoofnagle — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:30:08 +0000

>I know it sounds crazy to most people conditioned >to hate advertising, but advertising can be a >benefit, not a cost

Hey Eric,

I think you’re right about this, but how do we get to a place where advertising is high-value to the consumer. And can’t we do it w/o personal info?

I am overwhelmed by low-value advertising. Billboards. Ads for products that are in parity with each other (coke v. pepsi). Ads for branded products that are really no better than generics. Ads that frustrate choice by highlighting irrelevant facts, such as celebrity endorsement, rather than product peformance.

Instead of moving towards personalization, couldn’t we get to a state of beneficial ads faster by:

1) Banning puffing.

2) Requiring all representations to be provable.