The luxury of silence

We are assaulted everyday by noise — sounds from cars, alarms, security people yelling in airports and music (or muzak) in stores, cafes, bars and restaurants. We can’t have decent conversations or concentrate on what we are doing. So I enjoyed this article from Salon talks about No Music Day in Britain (November 21) where “radio stations, stores, recording studios and scores of music lovers took a laudable vow of musical silence.”

How about no TV in restaurants unless it’s a sports bar where people gather around to watch a game? Recently I was in a Vietnamese restaurant with my parents and my brother. We couldn’t keep our eyes off a large TV screen that was showing a Vietnamese song-and-dance program. It definitely interfered with the flow of conversation. That TV screen was intrusive. A lot of Asian restaurants have these big-screen TVs and I wish they’d just take them down. The staff are not watching it because they’re too busy serving customers. So who’s it for? The customers? They’re trying to eat and having conversations!

But even that’s not enough. There should be less advertising all around. We are assaulted by billboards on the street, ads on the Internet and TV, phone calls from telemarketers, junk email, spam, everywhere! There’s no place to hide. The result is the opposite that advertisers want to accomplish: people tune them out because they have become part of the landscape like street lights. But that act of tuning out takes a lot of energy and having all that stuff around disturbs our peace of mind. It comes at a real cost.

Is this all Facebook can do?

Here is a screenshot of my Facebook newsfeed dated 10 November 2007. Pay attention to the California Car Insurance sponsored ad in my feed. Is this all Facebook can do – insert stupid irrelevant sponsored ads about California car insurance to a person who lives in Amsterdam?

Facebook is purportedly worth $15 billion. If my company were worth even $1 billion, I would spend at least $100M working on a super-targeted advertising solution and with that kind of money, $100M, I could do it. First, I would definitely ask the person to whom I am showing the ads what he or she is interested in.

Clearly, I don’t live in California. Even without asking me, Facebook would have known NOT to show the ad. Who gets ripped off? The advertiser. Who gets annoyed? Me.

If this is all Facebook can muster, what can I expect next in my feed? Dog and cat food ads, even though I own no pets? Weight-loss diet ads even though I weigh 100 lbs (five feet four inches in height)?

Wouldn’t surprise me. Sloppy, unprofessional work from a company worth bucket loads of money. I am not impressed.

UPDATE: Several hours later, I see on the left hand side of my Facebook feeds, two ads delivered one after the other: (1) Botox and (2) Tired of Dating?

First, I do NOT need Botox. I may be 46 years old but I don’t have hideous wrinkles and the thought of getting large needle next to my head to inject poison sounds gruesome to me. Second, I don’t give a damn about dating or being tired of dating. Where the hell does Facebook get this idea that I need wrinkle-reducing treatments or help in my romantic life? Is my photo THAT bad?

Blyk: ad-supported mobile operator launches

blyk.jpgBlyk has finally launched in the UK, with service coming to other European countries in 2008. I’ve been waiting for Blyk to begin its service because the model is totally different from that of other operators:

  • only 16-24 year olds can get the service
  • they get 43 minutes and 217 text messages free every month
  • they agree to receive up to 6 messages per day from advertisers of their choice

Read more on Muniwireless.

This is a much more acceptable way of advertising that Pudding Media.

Most loathesome business model: Pudding Media listens in on your calls, delivers ads

no-ads.jpegI don’t know whether to call Pudding Media the most loathesome business model in the world or the most cynical, or both. Pudding Media is the latest company to take advantage of the “free services in exchange for ads” business model. We’ve seen free Wi-Fi in exchange for viewing ads (MetroFi) and free mobile phone service supported by ads (Blyk).

Now comes Pudding Media, founded by two guys who used to do intelligence work for the military. You can see where they got their ideas. This is the ultimate monetization of phone surveillance or snooping. They have a web-based phone service that lets you call any phone number for free (in the US for now), but they (or rather their software) listen in on your conversations and display ads on your browser.

Here’s what the NY Times says:

. . . Pudding Media is eavesdropping on phone calls in order to display ads on the screen that are related to the conversation. Voice recognition software monitors the calls, selects ads based on what it hears and pushes the ads to the subscriber’s computer screen while he or she is still talking . . . The company’s model, of course, raises questions about the line between target advertising and violation of privacy. Consumer-brand companies are increasingly trying to use data about people to deliver different ads to them based on their demographics and behavior online. Pudding Media executives said that scanning the words used in phone calls was not substantially different from what Google does with e-mail. Still, even some advertising executives were wary of the concept.

You might think it’s not different from Gmail, Google’s free web-based mail service that delivers ads on the side. But I think it is. There’s something very intimate about phone calls and I would be completely freaked out if strangers, even if it were a software bot, were listening in on mine. Of course Pudding’s founders don’t think so, having been in the military intelligence business. Does it help them to have the former chief privacy officer of Microsoft on their advisory board? It depends on whether you think Microsoft is a friend or foe of privacy.

I think most people will be freaked out by the idea even though Pudding says they don’t record your conversations.

Where it might work well: the sex chat industry

But I can see where it would be quite popular: in the sex chat industry. The caller dials a number via Pudding’s web-based service, sees ads on the side while he or she is chatting — although I think this destroys the pay-per-chat business model of sex chat businesses unless they offer this free version to their customers in exchange for seeing ads on a web browser (and the ads actually make up the lose in revenue).

Young people hate online and mobile ads

no-ads.jpegNinety-two percent of young people surveyed by Dutch research firm, Qruis, between the ages of 6 and 29 say they don’t want to see ads on their mobile phones. Only 11 and 13 percent of those surveyed gave a positive or neutral reaction to ads on chat and game sites. Ads on websites and in emails received a positive/neutral rating among 13 and 15 percent, respectively. Funny enough, 33 and 41 percent of young people consider ads in traditional media, TV and newspapers, not to be irritating.

Qrius believes that young people consider their mobile phones and chat programs to be private domains where advertisers are not welcome. I think there’s a simpler reason: they’re used to seeing ads in newspaper and on TV.Qrius will present the results of its annual survey next week.

I have not seen Qrius’s report and don’t know what kind of advertising young people find objectionable. Still, I wonder how Blyk, the first free, ad-supported mobile operator, will do when it launches in the UK in a few weeks. Those who plan to monetize their sites (gaming, video, chat, etc.) may be turning off their audience by inserting annoying ads.