Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Microsoft Watching What You Watch 264

Arkham writes "According to this Wired article, Microsoft has contracted with a company called Predictive Networks to track the viewing habits of Microsoft TV devices. The Predictive software creates a "Digital Silhouette" that is described as being able "to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor."." I've always said that I'm cool with my Tivo tracking what I watch, provided it never tells anyone my name and address to anyone. If it meant I watched more targetted advertisements, I'd fast forward less.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Watching What You Watch

Comments Filter:
  • I leave my TV on all day while Im at work. Then when I go to sleep change the channel. PBS ratings are about to skyrocket.
  • Why do I get the feeling that MS is building it's own Magic Lantern/Carnivore type thing. This is the app that I'm really scared of.

    MSN tracks our shopping, email, surfing, and chatting. Now they are going to track our TV watching habits. I don't know whether to throw the Ultimate TV out the window or just give up and just start send Redmond my stool samples.
    • Good idea! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Byteme ( 6617 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:38AM (#2698637) Homepage
      I think everyone should start sending stool samples to Redmond... unlabeled with no return address of course, and they don't have to be yours... could be from your dog or pet llama.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Wired blew this story. Microosft did not announce anything. Predictive were the guys who issued the release and basically all they said is "we're building our stuff to work on the MS TV platform". That's it. No big brother built in to ultimateTV.
  • Hammer time (Score:4, Funny)

    by KarmaBlackballed ( 222917 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:32AM (#2698602) Homepage Journal
    If I see a big face wearing glasses show up on my TV I'm chucking a hammer through it!
  • by mblase ( 200735 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:32AM (#2698603)
    ...Web sites across the Internet are tracking which ad banners you see and click on by using a sophisticated "cookie" file.

    This article would be "news" if we weren't already familiar with the technology, I think.
  • data mining (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mknapp905 ( 527716 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:32AM (#2698604) Homepage
    I understand that companies are trying to gain as much data as possible on the population. But at what point does this become intrusive?? You know what I watch on TV, You know where I shop, You know what Prescriptions I take, You know what Web Sites I go to. Is there such a thing as privacy anymore???
  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:34AM (#2698611) Homepage
    There are some good uses of this sort of technology as well, beyond targetted adverts. Being able to draw on what other people like to watch to suggest things to see, for example. If I like programs A and B, and the vast majority of people who also like them like program C as well, the system should be recommending that I try it. A step forward from the single-user service that TiVo offers.
    • And this is why this technology is BAD!!! Personalization is not about pigeonholing a person. This is why personalization has not worked for anyone. Companies think that just because a person likes such and such then they must also like that. Well beep, wrong answer.

      The problem with personalization technology is that it works on past behavior. And the thing is that we humans tend to be quirky and fad based. As a result it is basically impossible to tell what people want. Hence why did things like Rubik cubes, Beenie dolls, Cabbage Patch kids cannot be predicted.

      What is harder and companies are not solving is contextual personalization. Basically what happens is that instead of attempting to figure out what the system thinks you want, the system helps you figure out what you want.

      For example lets say you want to buy a stero. Well you goto store 1 and get quotes for pieces A and B. Then Store 2 get quotes for piece A so long as you buy C. Get an agent to optimize the situation.

      How could I see this in TV? Simple, lets say that I am cleaning the house and feel blue. At that point the "agent" should set the channel to something like "The Country Music Channel". This is a system that I would like!!! But it is very different...

      This is basic agent technology and very difficult to do.
      • I would say that personlization is Good[tm] if can be done at my computer and nobody else gets to know about my preferences (unless I voluntarily tell them), but Bad[tm] if it's so that a marketdroid can get hold of it.

        I think this could be done decentralized with some good thinking about metadata.

      • Actually it can work. A few years ago some british researchers created a quasi artificial AI software that can predict what people will buy. I think I saw it on discovery channel, but forgot the name of the software. They tested it on a mail order catalog company and the customer reps tried to recommend what the software recommended. Orders and revenue jumped. Before the software only a small percentage of customers bought the products pitched by the customer reps. After they installed the software it jumped to almost 60% of customers buying the products pitched. And a lot of those who didn't buy just recently bought the pitched products from somewhere else.
  • Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mckeowbc ( 513776 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:35AM (#2698625) Homepage
    People that actually buy Microsoft TV devices? Middle aged men, that like expensive toys. Looks like ratings for porn, sports, and the Man show are going to sky rocket...
  • Cable (Score:2, Funny)

    by The_Flames ( 184659 )
    I leave my cable box on 24 /7, usally on a info channel :) does that mean the cable company would make more "how to use this service" channels if they were tracking me?

    I dont think so, MS will probably only log about what is on your tv for about 30 min after the channel has changed :)
  • by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:36AM (#2698633) Homepage
    I think it's a given that any set-top box that you buy today (TiVo, ReplayTV, anything by Microsoft) is likely going to track viewing habits and use that data for market research. I'm not 100% against the concept--if it means that there will be more shows that I actually like, I think it's a good thing. What we have to worry about is when the media line is crossed, where the data is used to target you for direct mailings, telemarketers, spam even.

    Imagine you are watching TV, and you watch a lot of National Geographic. Suddenly, you find yourself getting magazine subscription requests in the mail, telephone calls from NG about becoming a member, and e-mail in your Inbox about the Web site, all just from watching TV. This is something we need to remain vigilant about, that the companies don't use the data they collect in an all-out attempt to sell us their wares (no pun intended).
  • by Uttles ( 324447 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [selttu]> on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:37AM (#2698636) Homepage Journal
    The Predictive software creates a "Digital Silhouette" that is described as being able "to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor/

    How in the hell does it know how he responds to the humorous commercials? Hopefully they just know that he doesn't change the channel away from them, and that they don't actually know his response somehow....
    • > How in the hell does it know how he responds to
      > the humorous commercials?

      Simple. Joe watches a funny commercial about margarine. Joe goes to the store a few days later, picks up some margarine. Since the funny commercial is fresh in his mind, he's more inclined to pick up the margarine that made him laugh.

      So he goes to the checkout line, swipes that handy card the store gave him to get discounts on certain items, and the computer promptly inserts into a database somewhere every item you just bought.. including the funny margarine.

      So now the TV people and the grocery store people link up their databases, and discover that Joe started buying brand X margarine three days after they ran this new funny commercial.

      It's not a direct connection, and probably not even terribly accurate, but if enough people respond to an advertisement this way and margarine guys end up selling 1% more product, that is a major deal to them. So even if they miss a few times, they come out ahead.
      • It's not a direct connection, and probably not even terribly accurate, but if enough people respond to an advertisement this way and margarine guys end up selling 1% more product, that is a major deal to them. So even if they miss a few times, they come out ahead.

        That's quite an interesting thought... It would be nice to have a comparison between "traditional" and web advertising, then, in terms of effectiveness. After all, advertisers always complained about the low click-through and even lower "buy-through" rates from web advertising...

        I'm not at all convinced that TV ads score much better in this area. I just hope this doesn't mean they'll become even more annoying and people start talking about "micropayment" for all the dumb stuff that's on TV...

      • "Ho ho... ooooh, that margarine! It makes me laugh, hee hee hee!"

        That's a 'funny' example 'cos 'funny' commercials actually suck at persuading anyone to buy anything. It's not about whether you like the commercial, it's about whether you like the product...

  • by AntiPasto ( 168263 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:38AM (#2698640) Journal
    I'm sorry to be anti-anti here, but seriously, the #1 factor in business is Marketing!!!! Marketing! I mean, admit it, when ThinkGeek has something phat on the banner ad above the news, don't tell me you don't click on it...

    I think privacy went out the window a long time ago with marketing, but we have to consider that our privacy has two parts: our unique life, and our generalized interaction with this world. If you look at my mail, I bet you could guess that I work on computers. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, and I think privacy on a large scale is still very much in tact. Microsoft doesn't care that I went to Meijer [meijer.com] this morning for coffee, and that it was exactly 3.5 miles from my house, and that I walked about 20 steps to get into my place. That's my privacy!!! Not the fact that I work in computers. Yes I would like less junk mail... no I do not want my government records available for download, but as far as everything else, I accept that this is what drives the money around.

    • no I do not want my government records available for download, but as far as everything else, I accept that this is what drives the money around.

      Those who don't care right now might feel differently about this when their wife's lawyer supoenas Microsoft for their Playboy channel records...

    • I'm sorry to be anti-anti here, but seriously, the #1 factor in business is Marketing!!!! Marketing! I mean, admit it, when ThinkGeek has something phat on the banner ad above the news, don't tell me you don't click on it...

      Phat? Sorry. Not everyone who reads Slashdot is a 12-17 year old kiddie. Not everyone shares your habit of clicking on 'phat' ads. I have yet to click on a banner ad on Slashdot, so yes, I can tell you that.

      Yes, marketing is a major portion of business trying to sell us products. But there's still a point where it becomes less of an information source (which is marketing's purported goal, to inform us of a product or service), and more of an unwelcome intrusion.

    • by jkorty ( 86242 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:57AM (#2698740) Homepage
      You were doing fine until you gave an example. Microsoft *is* interested in knowing that you are 3.5 miles from Meijer .. they can sell that info to Starbucks who then sends you a coupon to the Starbucks 2.5 miles away. They *do* want to know that you take 20 steps from your car to your front door..they can sell that info to a canopy company who will then send a salesman over to pitch a beautiful blue canopy so that you will be protected from the rain during those 20 steps.

      There isn't *anything* about you that isn't interesting to *someone* who would be willing to pay for it.
      • I think the original poster's comment about being happy to see better targeted ads applies here, too. The starbucks coupon would be welcome! The canopy? At least it would be a relevant pitch. How much do you hate telemarketers who call up and say "hi, can I clean your chimney?" and you say "sure, if you can find it. I have no fireplace!", frustrated at the irrelevance of the sales call. If, on the other hand, you get the call "Hi, it's Bob from Shyzmecca BMW. I see you bought a 328i last year, and at your last oil change, you had 16,000 miles on it. So you know, we have a promotion on this week, where you get a free interior shampoo and hand wax with every front brake pad replacement. When can I book you in?" Even though those BMW pads are twice the price of aftermarket pads, and even though BMW mechanics get paid on par with laywers and dentists, for the most of us, we'll still bite.

        If tracking is used to give us relevant offers on stuff close to what we need, bring it on! The alternative is advertispamming, with every square inch of the earth covered in junk mail, billboards, and other strange advertising ideas [thestar.com].

        Advertising, done properly, is only informing us of products or services that we might want. Isn't that half the reason we buy magazines, surf sites like pricewatch.com, etc?
        • I know a stock broker that would abuse that same information. He would call up that person that bought the BMW and say, "Hi, I'm just responding back to tell you that I found a stock that is perfect for you." ... "What? You don't remember? Well the last time we spoke, you told me about the BMW you just bought...". Believe it or not, this would work. Usually the people he calls are very busy and interact with lots of people. So the person on the other end would think "Yeah I did buy a BMW last year, I must have spoken to him". This doesn't always work, but when it does, he does well.

          So there are ways to abuse this.
    • by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:57AM (#2698742)
      I'm sorry to be anti-anti here, but seriously, the #1 factor in business is Marketing!!!! Marketing! I mean, admit it, when ThinkGeek has something phat on the banner ad above the news, don't tell me you don't click on it...

      I don't click on it.

      They don't deliver the really cool stuff to the UK :-(

      That's my privacy!!! Not the fact that I work in computers.

      But I want that sort of privacy, too - what I do for a living is my own damn business, I should be allowed to choose who I divulge that knowledge to. I know that marketing people are just trying to make a living, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it, just like some people here probably don't like the fact that I get paid to write closed-source software, now that they know. That dislike isn't going to stop me, and my dislike isn't going to stop the marketers, but it doesn't mean that I have to make it easier for them.

      Cheers,

      Tim
      • Sorry, but I have to disagree here. As much as I and may others dislike it, what you do in public is not protected by privacy laws, or even concepts.

        Where you work and what you do (for a living) is, in almost all circumstances, public knowledge. If for no less reason than an arbitrary person on the street can observe that you usually drive a red Ford and always appear at a particular office block in the morning.

        What the problem is here is that "they" are starting to invade our homes. "They" can uniquely identify us in private, and build a profile not of a group, but of an individual. THAT is invasion of privacy. If I watch TV screens in the window at a mall, I can't claim privacy. When I watch my TV at home, I expect my activities not to be tracked unless I have specifically been informed AND consented.

        Basically, if you're on public property, your actions are public. On private property, they are private. On corporate property they are representing the company. But electronic media complicates the issue dramatically.

        I can access private property (my home e-mail) from the physical location of corporate property. How is the line on privacy drawn then? Arguably (unless I have permission) I am committing fraud for using corporate resources for private gain (doing personal stuff on company time). Even if I have permission could the content of the private mail, if it were accidently disclosed, negatively affect the company? Being their physical property don't they have a right to "invade" my privacy (as in I can expect my actions and communications to be monitored).

        You may agree or, more likely, disagree. But this is a gray area. The TV issue is related: public property (broadcast signals) being accessed from private property (my television in my house). Where's the line?

        As much as this freaks me and others out, consider that you don't have much better luck with other media (shock, horror!). If you want to watch porno on TV this new system is going to let marketing know that. If you go down to your local bookstore and buy a Playboy, the clerk is going to know (and probably some of the other customers too). If you subscribe then their marketing division knows directly (your name, address, credit card ...), and the postman is sure to know as well.

        The issue is no so much that we are being profiled, but that electronics offers better anonomity than real life, and we should benefit from that. As long as there is no way to identify the connection between a profile and an individual, few people should have problems with this.

    • That's your^h^h^h^hthe point of view you express, but /. readers must understand /. readers are present worldwide and have different sensibilities.
      Once , there were USA/capitalism and USSR/communism, with socialist Europe providing middle ground.
      Now, the middle ground as moved toward capitalism, and as such, a business only view of a social organisation become prevalent.
      The fact you are intoxicated to accept it doesn't mean market-driven is the only way to manage society. Individual protection, and restrictions to what corporations do, are principles you cannot throw away for a big part of the world.
    • Which means, yes, that I don't like marketing. In the final analysis, while I agree we can never eradicate the marketing/promotion/advertising sector of our economy, I think that it's clearly bloated and that, more importantly, it is not, as a whole, serving the needs of the larger society.

      In particular, it is not good for us to have people observe what we do, and then try and configure our cultural environment, which is a huge part of what constructs our consciousness, as adults as well as as children, in order to get us to part with our money.

      I don't want people to find out that I'm an (act surprised) environmentalist, and that start spinning every malarky under the sun as being environmental (Dow-corning hugs trees!) I don't want people tracking my eating habits and advertising junk food when my blood sugar is low. Even if the targeted advertisements aren't 1) lies or 2) promoting an action which is detrimonious to my health or well-being, I don't want them to be tailored in such a fashion that I am less likely to just tune them out.

      Why do I care? Because, even though I don't view myself as especially vulnerable to advertisements, my thoughts and ideas can still be affected by the things, and if real scientific cleverness is applied to the question of "how can we find out what sort of ad this demographic group will respond to?", then, well, damn, they'll come up with ads that more people in my cohort will respond to. Even if those ads don't succeed in selling me more stuff, I think that the advertisers will successfully identify things that make those ads poison my thought processes for a longer time.

      Let me say also that most justifications that people come up with for having an advertising sector to the economy at all are blatantly self serving.
  • On the Predictive Networks website privacy page they say it is their policy that

    "No individual's channel viewing or click-stream data is saved, shared or sold"

    Now, I'm wondering, do they literally just group all television shows into "Situation Comedy", "Baseball", etc.? This would mean that the classifications could be misleading. What if a person only watches shows that star a certain actor? Or shows that feature women/men in revealing outfits? This privacy policy wioll work for ads, but their model of analyzing particular shows could lead to a lot of faulty statistcal analysis.

    What scares me is that once they find out that they can't accurately model viewer behavior with their current privacy policy, they might dump it in favor of a less restrictive one.

    -Darius
  • What year is this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NightWhistler ( 542034 ) <alex.nightwhistler@net> on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:41AM (#2698666) Homepage
    Is it just me, or are more people getting a very strong "1984" vibe here? I already saw myself at my Linux box, just hacking away merrily when the voice of Big Brother Bill came out of the tv... and then I woke up screaming...
  • .. but you linux kids here at slashdot (yes I realize there are a handful like me that LIKE Microsoft) are all up in arms that Microsoft is doing it?

    You all know that if it were 50x better than the competition you still wouldn't buy it because it said Microsoft on it and you have this irrational hatred for them... so why are you worried if they track the fast forward / rewind / channel change habits of people?
    • I wouldn't like my viewing habits being documented even if it was Tux the Almighty doing it...
    • First of all, it is NOT OK with me, TiVo doing it, or anyone else.

      Second of all, MS stuff is NOT 50X better, by any standard. It is not better at all.

      Third, there is nothing irrational about an extreme dislike for Microsoft. You can remain blind to the subject as much as you want; but this is about far more than just an inferior product. And most frightening of all is that they quite sincerely don't see anything wrong with their behavior. So it's your responsibility
      and mine to object in any way you can. Hey, I have to use MS stuff too from time to time; but I try really hard to keep it to a minimum. It's the least any of us can do.
    • by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:43AM (#2698993)
      As far as I know, Tivo doesn't generate a viewer profile like the Microsoft product does. Instead, it's just a larger aggregate of what people watch. Futhermore, the privacy conscious can opt-out by calling Tivo's customer support line. People who have hacked the Tivo have been able to confirm that boxes set to opt-out don't upload the viewing information to Tivo at all.

      However, there's a reason why I actually like Tivo's data collection. I think Taco's dreaming a bit as far as actual targeted ads go (at least for now), but there's a more important benefit: Aggregate viewing statistics are more or less what're commonly referred to as "ratings". Ratings determine whether shows live or die. They determine how much many a network gets from a show's advertisers. This, in turn, determines how much money goes into a show's budget. It should be obvious why having my viewing habits correlate with TV studio's spending is A Good Thing.

      To provide a slightly more concrete example, however, I give you "Family Guy". It's a funny show, it has a decent geek following, and it runs in a time-slot that's otherwise dominated by stupid reality TV. The network it's on, Fox, keeps playing the stupid game of repeatedly cancelling the show and then bringing it back. Apparently, they decided that last week's ratings were going to decide whether or not they cancel the show yet again. I recorded the show on my Tivo and watched it. Assuming that Fox subscribes to Tivo's viewer information, that's one more vote in the "Keep it on the air, dammit" column. Even better, given that viewer statistics are collected from a relatively small portion of the viewing public, it's a disproportionately large vote.

  • "I've always said that I'm cool with my Tivo tracking what I watch, provided it never tells anyone my name and address to anyone. If it meant I watched more targetted advertisements, I'd fast forward less."

    The whole idea behind cookies and tracking what I watch or someone watches to personalize advertizing frankly doesn't work. Why?, because that information is used to develop stereotypes for the advertising industry to appeal to. Since its impossible, even with cookies and other collected internet information, to properly read our minds, Advertisers instead go with broad generalized stereotypes to appeal to. Think I'm kidding? Notice how they run certain ads only on certain channels during specific shows designed to appeal to a chief "demographic". The advertising world has no problem designing ads that appeal to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant on one hand, and Black Southern Baptist on the other, using all the stereotypes (both positive and negative) that go with those stereotypes.

    So if Microsoft can know what I watch and target it, they'll just instead shove more lacklaster products my way that I'll have to fast forward through. Frankly, I'd rather have a random sampling of ads for me to choose, with no one's input but mine, to fast forward through or not.
    • This whole need to 'know the customer' is not necessary. It's also why a Tivo would be nice, but I think I can make due without one. I'll just build a nicer computer that can do all that a Tivo can do (All-In-Wonder Radeon Pro, anyone?).

      Anyways, I'm sure all this info that they supposedly need is certainly helpful to them as a company, but I think those surveys they send to your house are more effective than this. Besides, you're opening up a whole can of crackers who will want to break in and steal all the data on their neighbors that they can from MS's database, just to say they can. And if they're really malicious, they'll know exactly when you're watching TV, and when you're not, and can then rob you.

      This paranoid delusional tirade has been brought to you by the number '5', and the letter 'F'. :-P

  • Imagine setting up a small standalone circuit with a timer, an infrared LED, and the necessary circuitry to emulate one small part of a cable box's remote: The channel up button. Every few seconds, perhaps with a bit of randomness introduced, change the channel up one. Leave this running when you're not actually watching the one-eyed-idiot.

    Meanwhile, back at Microsoft:

    "This guy has the worst case of channel surfing we've ever seen!"

    Unable to target the viewer with anything but blipverts, landmail advertisements start arriving for Ritalin at wholesale prices. ;-)
  • Where they know what you watch, what you listen to, who you are and where and what you surf, where you live, where you work, what games you play, your credit card number, and some day who you voted for.

    And much much more.

    With all their products spread across from one end of the spectrum to the other, wouldn't be that difficult for them to stich all the user info together and actually end up knowing more about you than your mother does.
  • by twocents ( 310492 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:45AM (#2698684)
    The more I watch the news, especially since September 11, the more I realize there is very little new information dispersed to the masses. Instead I see people waving signs, but no mention is given to their history or how those signs were written in English. News, more and more I think, just tells us mostly what we want to hear or think we would hear.

    It seems to me that one of the primary purposes of advertising is to sell you things you didn't know you needed. So if advertising is so targeted that the commercials and products only reflect ones already forged tastes, then how does that help to sell more widgets? Like the news, this sounds like a way to sell us what we already know about or what we already want, and doesn't seem to lend itself to increasing sales or opening new markets.
  • by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:50AM (#2698704) Homepage Journal
    consider, say I watch a lot of p0rn when my wife and/or girlfriend is away or goes to bed early, and my wife suddenly wonders why all the targetted TV ads are for sex chatlines and hot hard action......
  • by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:50AM (#2698705)
    Tin foil helmet firmly on...

    Police forces and intelligence agencies currently use psychological profiling when trying to hunt down serial killers, terrorists, etc.

    Imagine a profile suggested the criminal in question would probably respond "favorably to commercials that use humor". Do you think that Microsoft has done a deal with the FBI to share the data they get from this?

    Are we going to have to start to worry about our profiles if we start watching too many violent films or are obsessive fans of the X-Files?
    • So if the police interviewed your coworkers, they wouldn't figure that out? I would think the police can make a better profile of you by interviewing people close to you than using Microsoft's database.

      And I doubt the police will have a case where the suspect "responds favorably to commercials that use humor", and get a list of those who do for interviews. Do you get pulled over becuase you drive a Honda and a Honda was recently used in a bank robbery? The police use department of motor vehicle records all the time!

      I see this issue as related more to marketing. I don't want 50 people calling/mailing/e-mailing offers for a computer because I happened to watch three commercials for computers. If I really want a computer, I'll research what I want and compare. But then not a single commercial prompted me to buy anything (but did provide an alternative choice during shopping). So maybe I'm not the right kind of consumer.
      • Tin foil hat still firmly in place...

        So if the police interviewed your co-workers, they wouldn't figure that out?

        Yes, if you've got 50 people as suspects, the police can go interview your friends. But if you only know that the person probably lives in San Francisco...

        And I doubt the police will have a case where the suspect "responds favorably to commercials that use humor"

        That was just feeble humor - it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. However, what if the profile suggested a white man who had converted to Islam, living somewhere in San Francisco? And that's all you had to go on? Then you might be able to predict the suspects television preferences quite well, and they might be unusual, so Microsoft's records might suddenly become more interesting.

        Do you get pulled over because you drive a Honda and a Honda was recently used in a bank robbery?

        No, but if they know that it was a dark green Honda, and that the first letter of the number plate was X, and you have one of those, then you might find the police come knocking on your door.

        As a poster to Slashdot, you might be interested to know that recently the Secret Service paid a visit to interview someone who had posted an opinion on kuro5hin, to see if they were a potential threat or not. Yes, they read kuro5hin - they probably read (albeit automatically) Slashdot too.
      • > I would think the police can make a better profile of you by interviewing people close to you than using Microsoft's database.

        Sure, if they know they want you specifically.

        But if they're just going fishing, let's look at what was left out of the article:

        "So if the FBI came to us and said, 'We need to know what Joe Smith was watching last Tuesday,' we wouldn't be able to tell them," Oddo said. "First of all, we wouldn't know who Joe Smith was, but if the FBI went to his house and cracked open his set-top box and somehow figured out he was ID 254238, we still wouldn't be able to tell them what he watched last Tuesday. We would be able to tell them that Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor."
        "Please give us the set-top-box ID numbers of all people who match the following set of targeted criteria -- people who watch Babylon 5 but who no longer watch any network news. Please give us a copy of the database that matches set-top ID numbers with credit card billing records. The Night Watch will take it from there."

        Frankly, why the FBI doesn't do this now via subpoena to Doubleclick and the company DC bought with the intention of matching online profiles with real-world identities is beyond me.

        ("Show me all 15-year old rappers with wack rhymes living with confirmed nutbars in Marin County who recently purchased Autobiography of Malcolm X through Amazon with their mother's credit card...")

  • by webwench_72 ( 541358 ) <webwench_72 AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:51AM (#2698713) Homepage
    I can't get too worked up about this... as long as the consumer knows when he buys a Microsoft TV product that it 'comes with' this kind of monitoring. That, to me, is the key -- full and open disclosure, and a consumer educated enough to know what that means.

    Really, if you have a Yahoo 'home page' configured, you're already providing information about your preferences -- voluntarily -- albeit on a lesser scale then what MS TV will do.

    If you use one of those 'shopper discount' grocery store cards [chron.com], you're also providing this kind of information, in even greater detail. If you purchased a pregnancy test or jock-itch ointment last week, it's in a database somewhere if you use one of those cards, and the fact that they don't individually target you NOW for marketing based on this information doesn't mean they won't in the future.

    From the above article: "...61 percent of retailers surveyed either have or plan to have frequent-shopper programs. Already, more than a quarter of all supermarket sales are tracked with the cards."

    That shopper discount card sounds much like what MS TV plans:

    "Scott Oddo, director of research at Predictive Networks, said the collected information does not connect viewers' interests to their names or other personally identifiable information."
    • by demaria ( 122790 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:40AM (#2698969) Homepage
      This would be nice to have one day. On my PDA on the way home from work.

      Computer, connect to SuperFoodMart and SmartShop database. What might I need today?

      "You buy corn approximately every 14 days. It has been 8 days since you last bought corn."

      Hmm. Nah, I do not need to purchase corn.

      "You have bought milk 4 days ago. You normally buy milk every 6 days. Milk is on sale at SmartShop today for $3.48."

      Ah, indeed. I will pick up milk today so I don't need to go get some over the weekend when it might not be on sale.

      They're tracking the information anyways, we might as well use it. Interconnect multiple stores and you can find the cheapest deal in town. I'm not sure how practicle this application would be in real life, it might be too inaccurate or intrusive to work effectively.
    • The article quoted had bad examples.

      The article suggested:
      For example, they may show that customers are buying more of a particular brand of corn, indicating that brand may need more shelf space, Postell said.

      Discounts also can be offered to move selected stock quickly, thus altering customer buying patterns. For example, Postell said, if bakery items are slow sellers in one store, bakery specials might be offered in that location.


      How does a discount card accomplish that? Can't a shelf stocker look at the shelf and see all the missing Kraft Mayo jars, and only one Best Food Mayo gone? To me, that would suggest more demand for Kraft Mayo than for Best Foods. Same with the bakery. If all the Custard filled donuts are gone at the end of the day, but the chocolate glazed donuts still occupy three racks, I would make less chocolate donuts and more custard filled donuts.

      A card doesn't add any value except the following example the article mentioned:
      Data collected from frequent-customer card applications can show how far customers are driving to get to a particular location and whether opening a store in another neighborhood would cannibalize the customer base for the existing store, Fowler said.


      Even then, my cards must be freaking out the managers, since I shop at the same store at a variety of locations, depending on where I am (work, home, anywhere in between, grandma's, parents, etc.).

      In the end, what will make the card worth it, is the fact my name is associated with many Dorito purchases. Anything else is just misleading.
    • > If you purchased a pregnancy test or jock-itch ointment last week, it's in a database somewhere if you use one of those cards

      And if you purchased both, I hope you're one of those who "respond favorably to ads that contain humor", 'cuz you're gonna get some seriously funny ads in the mail.

    • I can't get too worked up about this... as long as the consumer knows when he buys a Microsoft TV product that it 'comes with' this kind of monitoring. That, to me, is the key -- full and open disclosure, and a consumer educated enough to know what that means.

      Bingo! The article was made to make sure you know and have a valid reference, not to get your worked up. Most people who read Slashdot knew that M$ would be doing this. Now we have a place to point because the brazen bitches have admitted what they are going to do. Don't look to M$ to make anyone aware of what they will do with the information. 99.99% (If they manage to sell 10,000, heh!) of people who buy this will have no idea.

      Strangely enough, this is much closer to the grocery store card than you might think. I've never, ever seen a grocery store card contract that says, "we will collect infomation on your buying habbits to sell to advertisers, the FBI or anyone else who will pay, and the information will be passed on to creditors in case of chapter 11 filing by this company." I have, however, lived in a place where there were NO grocery stores that did not REQUIRE one of their stupid cards to buy groceries with a check. "Security" against bad checks is the only reason I've ever heard. The alternatives were to carry cash (inconvienent) or use a credit card (even more invasive).

      What these companies are abusing is your image for comercial gain without your consent. While a collection of buying habbits, credit records and contact information may not look like a photograph or other traditional likeness, it is a model of your person. Just like that photograph, it is built entirely at the expense of the abuser. In the US, at least, use of your image for comercial purposes without express written consent is against the law.

    • f you use one of those 'shopper discount' grocery store cards, you're also providing this kind of information, in even greater detail. If you purchased a pregnancy test or jock-itch ointment last week, it's in a database somewhere if you use one of those cards, and the fact that they don't individually target you NOW for marketing based on this information doesn't mean they won't in the future.

      Bong! They do use this stuff - well, something like it. I use Tesco [tesco.com] in the UK, and I get a bunch of vouchers through the mail every quarter. There are a few 'general purpose' vouchers for points, and a few 'specific purchase' vouchers which give you a discount off a certain class of good. I noticed, in the bunch of vouchers which arrived this week, that all 5 (I think) vouchers were directly relevant to me, and I'll probably use all of them. I really don't think this is a coincidence, since there are a number of things I never buy from that supermarket (meat, alcoholic drinks, fresh fruit/veg, pet food, as examples), and none of the vouchers hit those classes - and previous voucher drops have hit those things I never buy there. Either they've got very lucky picking their vouchers, or they're tailored to me. The voucher 'target' is printed onto the voucher separately from things like the T&Cs, so I know they can do this kind of thing.

      Hey, it impressed me :-)

  • by Jon Erikson ( 198204 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @10:52AM (#2698718)

    It's not like some kind of database where the Evil Goons at Microsoft can look up exactly what you were doing minute-by-minute every day of your life now is it?

    Systems like this already exist in other areas - think of the loyalty cards that many shops now run for instance. In fact, loyalty cards store more detailed information than this system does.

    I for one don't oppose the idea of having a TV that didn't show be some of the quite incredible amounts of crap that I would never want to watch. I don't much like adverts either, but if I have to watch them I'd rather see relevant ones than more pointless rubbish about stuff that I can't even use.

    • I hear an awful lot in terms of comparing this device to shopper loyalty cards, but there are (at least) two very major differences. First, the store actually pays me to use the card. If I use it, my stuff costs less. This device isn't likely to reduce the number of commercials I have to watch in return for the information it gets. Second, if I decide I'm buying something I don't want in the database, I can pocket the card and they're none the wiser. Is there some method by which I can temporarily turn off the tracking on this device? Not likely. So, this comparison is essentially invalid.

      Virg
  • Somewhere in it (or one of the previous bills) you have received "terms of service and privacy notice". That clearly says your cable company is collecting the data and shares it with affiliates "to provide better service" ("this call can be monitored for quality assurance"). In other words, they do know how much time you spent watching Enterprise and fact that you flipped channel during commercials. Why nobody screams about that? And lining up all "affiliates" of cable company will lead to a whole lot of companies that they have business relationship with.

    p.s. as MSNBC is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC, they do get report from your cable company on how much time you've spent watching them (so cable company would be able to calculate costs/pay adequately). Question is how detailed that report is now and how detailed it will be but nothing prevents "single user" report from cable company. Read the fine print :)
    • Speaking unofficially from inside the cable company...

      Marketing would dearly love to know what you watch and what buttons you click to get there and when you change channels and all of that. For at least the large majority of subscribers, they certainly don't know it now. Cable network ratings come from the same Nielson household monitoring service that over-the-air ratings do.

      As noted, if you hook the coax straight into the TV, or if you have a typical analog cable box, there is no return path for usage data, even if the devices were collecting it, which they are not.

      If you have a current generation digital box there is a return path, but none of (a) the software in the box, (b) the bandwidth available in the return path or (c) the systems receiving data from the STB is geared to handle the volume of data that channel changes and viewing patterns would require be transmitted.

      Advanced STBs with built-in cable modems may be capable of recording and transmitting such data in the future. At least some of us technology folks at the cable company are worried about the privacy concerns of doing so.

  • The more companies know about us, the more they can charge for their products. Example: a national grocery store implements a "membership card" system and tracks what I buy. Pretty soon is knows exactly how much it can raise the price of a loaf of french bread before people will stop buying it. Next thing you know, my 79 cent loaf costs $1.39 and I'm supposed to feel lucky when they sometimes offer a special membership price of $1.10. Uh huh.

    Oh, and that situation isn't so hypothetical in my neighborhood.
    • Lest anyone think my message is off-topic, consider what happens when corporations know what products to pitch to you, how to effectively pursuade you and what your price-point is. They are optimizing their methods to squeeze as much money from you as possible. Sure they've always tried to do that, but now they have the tools to be precise. Before there was much more guesswork involved.

      Oh, but don't worry, since Sept. 11 it is has been determined to be your patriotic duty to spend, spend, spend. If your credit history isn't active, well, you must be a commie.
    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:29AM (#2698911)
      Ummm, I would highly suggest that you do a little refresher from Econ 101, and don't think so highly of yourself. The companies couldn't care less about you personally in terms of pricing. You are just one of several million customers. The price of their goods is easily summed up in one sentace:

      Charge the price that maximizes profits.

      It's really that simple. As you raise your price, you sell less, as you lower it you sell more. Each and every person has a different threshold for when and how much they buy (and it varies day by day). So the job of a company is to find the price point that maximizes profit. If you sell too cheap, ya you sell a lot, but it doesn't make up for cost. If you sell to expensive you make more per unit but don't sell enough units.

      Well because the objective of companies is to make the most money, the price that they seek is the one at which all the costs and profits balance the best, and they make the most profit. Now of course there are other factors like when competitors get into price wars and such, but all other things being equal, a comapny is going to charge the price where they make the most profit.

      Now they don't need any kind of special traking cards to determine this price, inventory control can tell you this. You charge a buck, you sell X many units/wekk. YOu rase the price toa buck and a quarter and now you only sell Y many. Then you just do the math, and figure out where you make the most money.

      They care about your data for reasons of marketing and such, not pricing. The methods for figuring that out are very, very old.
      • Hmm, if that's true, explain to me how the price of a loaf of bread at this chain has a different price at each outlet in each city. Hmmm, the same chain stores 5 miles apart charge different prices. Hmmmmm. They know the demographics of the people coming into each individual store and they know their specific spending habits at the stores. Hmmmmmm.

        No duh. I don't think they care about me specifically. They track us as a group and determine how to manipulate prices that way. I just refuse to be part of the group being tracked.
        • Again, this is just capatalism in action, and NOTHING they couldn't do before.

          Inventory is tracked on a PER STORE basis. So, store A over here sells 5,000 loaves at a certian price. Store B sells at the same price, but only sells 3,500. Hmmm, so they drop the price at store B to below what A charges. Now they are selling 6,000. They do the math and find that even though they make less per loaf, they are making more money overall. Or maybe it doesn't work, they drop the price and they don't sell anymore, or they do sell more, but not enough to make up the difference, so it goes back up. That's often why a store will run a special, they want ot try out a new price and see how it does. That, or they have an excess of inventory they need to offload (it costs money to keep things ina warehouse, and more tha you'd think).

          This is not complex shit, anyone with a calculator and a bachlor's degree in economics can figure this out. You track what comes in, you track what goes out, you track what it costs. You throw it into some forumlas, and figure out how to change your pricing to make more money. This is not, as they say, rocket science.
          • As I said in my other post above, this isn't correct. If you rely on this, you'll end up with results contrary to those that you expected (especially for proportionally large movements in price). Here's a link [slashdot.org] to my (brief) explanation. A Bachelor's degree does not an Economist make.

            Incidentally, perfect information would allow a monopolistic firm to perfectly price discriminate, which would lead to price variances similar to the one the original poster described. Tracking would assist this process. And remember, a monopoly is defined by the market. Ergo, if you don't have access to other, competing grocery stores, you are in a monopolistic situation (regardless of whether other groceries compete elsewhere nationally).

      • > don't think so highly of yourself. The companies couldn't care less about you personally in terms of pricing. You are just one of several million customers.

        False. Amazon has done precisely this -- altered the pricing of certain products based on the content of cookies indicating previous visits.

        First-time or infrequent buyers got better discounts, when compared to regular customers who had already demonstrated a willingness to pay at a higher price point.

      • Econ 101 doesn't tell you the full story. There isn't a clear linear relationship between price and demand, regardless of what they told you in Econ 101. It's one of the biggest fallacies in modern undergrad economics. See Modigliani for a discussion. The simple linear relationship generally holds true for an individiual, but as utility cannot be compared between individuals, you technically cannot aggregate demand and expect the same simple curve. In reality, it's a higher-order non-linear relationship, leading to demand that may increase when prices go up and fall when prices go down, depending on the price being examined.

        Bringing it back on topic, this means that it's not actually as easy as increasing or decreasing prices. You can increase the price and have more people subscribe, simply because you've moved into a different type of consumer who sees the good as now being a luxury (increasing their image, giving them utility). It sounds heretical, but it's true. If you're interested in a fuller explanation about why the foundations of Economics are incorrect, reply to this post.

        If you're doing economics, check out Modigliani. If he and his supporters even get enough momentum, a lot of the tenets of micro and macroeconomics are likely to fall (as they're not mathematically sound). Neo-Keynesian economics and the Austrian school of economics are also worth looking at. They normally only teach you basic Keynesian economics and (maybe) monetarism in undergrad at Uni.

    • Next thing you know, my 79 cent loaf costs $1.39 and I'm supposed to feel lucky when they sometimes offer a special membership price of $1.10. Uh huh.

      If we assume that:

      A) every company is out there to maximize their profits, and that the best way to maximize those profits is to balance margin (markup) with # of units sold,

      and

      B) in a proper implementation of such "tracking", every company in a given industry (in this example, a grocery store / supermarket would track ALL products, not just those of a certain brand) would take advantage of such technology,

      then one would assume that the technology would be used to find the "best" pricepoint for every product. Best being defined as the point at which raising the price hurts unit sales to the point that net profits go down, and lowering the price does not increase the nunmber of units sold, but detracts from profits. A BBA-type can probably tell us the proper terminology for this, but I think its a simple concept.

      Let us assume that, on our way to buy groceries tomorrow morning, instead of walking into our normal grocery store, we walked into a store with a solid tracking system. Every item in the store would be effectively priced and positioned - nothing would be "overpriced" for the effects of overpricing would be noted and corrected for. True, nothing would be underpriced either, but (and here's the contentious part of my post)... would we really be paying more on our grocery bill? How many times do you look at a product and think to yourself "if this was x dollars cheaper, they would sell TONS of these!"

      Of course, if the grocery store sells only one brand of stuff, and/or there is only one grocery store in town, (ie monopoly) then the whole theory gets ugly, quickly. But assuming that grocery stores remain grocery stores, and they compete, and carry many different brands, then tracking would produce a net benefit for the consumer.

      Of course, all of this tracking (grocery store concept) doesn't really need to be tied to an individial identity, but there are other benefits to that. All I am suggesting is that shopping at a place where our purchases are tracked has the potential, though healthy competition, to serve us in the long run, by killing off the inferior products and effectively pricing the good ones.

      I just wish some of the restaurants around here (I live in Antigua, in the Caribbean) would grasp the concept that, in times of tourism downturn, restaurants would grasp that if they didnt charge $30USD for their entrees, they wouldn't sit empty, and that lowering their prices would result in an INCREASE in profits... but I digress)
      • > Of course, if the grocery store sells only one brand of stuff, and/or there is only one grocery store in town, (ie monopoly) then the whole theory gets ugly, quickly.

        Whew! You had me worried. It's a good thing that never happens in telecom, cable TV, or products with "Microsoft" on the label.

    • Hi!

      You may well have seen a grocery store chain experiment with prices--that's a practice that's been going on for decades. (Grocery stores routinely change different prices in different neighborhoods--a few cents more in rich neighborhoods (where consumers will pay more for convenience) and a few cents less in poor neighborhoods (where consumers may be more price-sensitive). The "frequent shopper" card systems won't really impact that--grocery stores can map price/demand (elasticity) curves already.

      What the frequent shopper programs do is help the stores manage what products get displayed, how they get displayed, and how they are priced. They do this by identifying the "core customers"--both of the chain, and of that particular store.

      Most consumers purchase most of their groceries at one particular store. They might shop at a different store (it's adjacent to your child's school, so you can stop in on your way to work) occasionally, but that big hundred-bucks-a-week trip usually happens the same place. By offering lower prices on selected items, the stores entice the frequent shopper to sign up for the card, and permit his shopping habits to be tracked. While this offers the theoretical possibility of monitoring the customer (we get our prescription drugs at the grocery store--if I start getting scrips filled for AZT, does that mean I have AIDS?), it offers the immediate opportunity of selling coupons to advertisers. (To wit: I buy dog food--even when I am not buying dog food in that particular trip, I almost always get a dog food coupon at the register.)

      The real advantage of a frequent shopping card, though, is identifying the buying habits--in the aggregate--of the store's core buyers. It helps enormously in making "plan-o-gram" decisions: how much of what to stock where. Example: last week the deli ran out of salmon four days running. Should we increase our daily order of salmon? Well--if our data shows that most of that salmon was bought by frequent shoppers, the answer is obviously yes--these are customers who will likely be back for more seafood. On the other hand, if very few of our frequent shoppers bought that salmon, it might be wise to wait--we may have had a statistical cluster of salmon-swallowing tourists in the neighborhood. In a similar way, we can identify whether our core customers buy more of our store brands or the name brands for particular products. We may find differences between this behavior in different stores: in stores where our brands do better, we give those brands more space; where our core customers prefer the name brands, we give the name brands more shelf space. In any case, we tailor the shelf space in each store to focus on the product mix favored by the frequent shoppers in that store--that may mean more salmon in some stores, and more produce in others. (Real live example: there is a chain grocery store in Morrisville, Vermont--a tiny town thirty miles from the Canadian border--that has five different varieties of fresh mushrooms in the produce section on any given day. Why? Because their core customers like mushrooms. [Real Vermonters might suggest that this store caters to quiche-eating flatlanders, and offer this as proof, but I digress....)

      In the example that you cite:

      ...Next thing you know, my 79 cent loaf costs $1.39 and I'm supposed to feel lucky when they sometimes offer a special membership price of $1.10. Uh huh.

      The store might test different prices to determine your resistance to a price increase (this is called "elasticity" by economists--elasticity is to Econ majors as pointers are to CS majors: if you don't get the concept, you tend to go find another major). If you're going to buy French bread, and you're willing to pay $1.39, that's the price. The frequent shopper cards may help in letting the store measure price resistance among the core shoppers (that is, if 80% of the store's french bread is sold to frequent shopper cardholders, and they demonstrate a near-horizontal elasticity curve [change the price, they don't care] then the store can safely hike the price of french bread). But stores have measured elasticity like this, as I wrote above, for decades--all the frequent shopper cards do is let them measure price resistance more accurately.

      John Murdoch

      • Well, I hope that this does represent something of a new development- you're absolutely right but interestingly I may be seeing it happen in my own hometown with ONE supermarket available.

        I am a Coke-drinking slashdot geek, but will also tolerate Code Red and Mtn. Dew. I like to consume mass quantities of soda pop ;)

        Recently the local store hiked prices of 2 liter bottles of Coke to $1.39 in an effort to see if they could. I shit a brick, and swore I'd simply not buy it at that price. Loaded up on Code Red instead, cashiers remarking 'what, no Coca-Cola?', and that only when it was on sale for 99 or 89 cents. If there wasn't anything for 99 or 89 cents, I'd drink tea, or water. I was _not_ about to get jerked around on what I considered a staple beverage (shudder).

        Suddenly- either Coke or Dew are _always_ on sale now, to card holders- and often at 89 cents- and O could float a raft with how much I bought, stocking up while it was cheap.

        It seems that some types of tight consumer monitoring ARE beneficial, granting only one key point: you've GOT to be willing to refuse to buy what you don't like! I seem to have personally put a big 'don't even think about it' into the data for hiking the price of Coke- other people reacted the same as they mistrust this supermarket anyhow, and the result was, sales got SO hammered and people were SO prone to hunt down only the sale items that the store quickly learned to offer competitive prices, even with stores in larger towns with actual competition. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's happening.

        One key point there is, this particular area is the subject of direct competition between Coke and Pepsi, even in this store that's alone in the town. The store could price everything at $1.50 and still sell vaguely well due to location- but it sets up a situation where Pepsi can run a sale at 99 cents and _hammer_ the _crap_ out of Coke sales for that week. The additional price pressure makes the effect even more striking. Coke's only recourse is- another sale! So they alternate weeks at 99 cents or 89 cents, and you need only wait.

        I wonder how a similar effect can be made to happen in the computer industry, or other industries that seem to be wedged into a non-price-sensitive mode? If we had two Microsofts we could play them off against each other like that. People have been doing this for PC vendors for a long time...

      • Good post - excellent application of elasticity theory. My only quibble is that while it holds true in theory, it falls down in practice. Price elasticity is based on personal utility, which cannot be aggregated (in a mathematical sense - this has been proven, but is overlooked in most undergrad economics for simplicity). This has some fairly major impacts on micro and macro in general, but in this case, the assumption that a demand curve can be extrapolated is therefore flawed. You can only therefore predict what you have already observed. If you increase the price from $1.00 to $1.10 and your consumers continue to buy the same quantity, you're lucky. However, that is no guarantee that the same will happen if you increase the price to $1.11.

        However, you've hit the nail on the head when you say tracking purchases helps you to know formally whether a price change has had an impact on purchases, and if so, on what type of consumer it has had an impact on. You can then extrapolate this to your broader population and forecast demand / profitability. The supply chain stuff potentially offers huge savings. Good data rocks :)

  • This isn't new (Score:2, Insightful)

    by saqmaster ( 522261 )
    How many other companies do you think the cable companies etc. sell this statistical information to?

    I mean, come on, this is not new. You get a ton of questionairres through the post all the time, some people fill them in, some don't. But those who do wouldn't turn around and complain that company X is using their data, which they submitted.

    You'll probably find that somewhere in your contract for your cable/satellite TV, it states that the company may use information based on your viewing to form statistics, or for supply to an external statistics company.

    I'm sorry, but I don't see Microsoft obtaining this information (in a perfectly legal way) being anything other than 'standardly' competitive, along with several other companies. Do you not think even people like TiVO use this kind of information? The whole media industry relies on statistics such as this. Stop being paranoid.

    Talking about banners etc., from other threads. Has anyone heard of CMS perhaps?

    Many large sites are keen to track their visitors. They are keen to find trends and to personalize content based on what the user likes. If the user clicks on a banner about 'cars', then maybe that user would like the 'portal' site more if there was more car content on it. I don't see that as snooping. I see that as feature enriching the users experience, which in turn brings in more cash, which in turn improves the experience and the site. What is so wrong in that?

    Everyone is getting paranoid.
  • by IainMH ( 176964 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:13AM (#2698819)
    M$ Maketeer#1 Joe watches a lot of baseball, likes Situation Comedies, and responds favorably to commercials that use humor.

    M$ Maketeer#2 He sounds like our kind of brain-dead moron.

    M$ Maketeer#1 Send him a brochure.
    • ClippyChip: You click like a retard! Let's watch WWF Bitchslap!
    • You: What the...? I was watching Junkyard Wars! Change it back!
    • ClippyChip: You click like a retard! Let's watch WWF Bitchslap!
    • You: God damn it! <crash><tinkle>
  • From my experience with marketroids and web server logs, I'm not sure they actually *want* to know people's likes and dislikes. They actually get quite shocked with hard evidence contrary to their own beliefs, immediately claiming that the "server must be broken" or "we're being hacked". Some even go as far as removing links to sections of the site that they think are overly popular, to "direct traffic back to the more important part of the site". With this system:

    "Sir, the latest tracker results say that people are 92% more likely to change channels when the Microsoft flying-through-the-air XP ads are on!"

    "WHAT?! That's impossible... hmmm, can we pay for the other channels to be blank while our ads are on?"
  • I'm trying to figure out how this would work on me. Being a typical American male, I was born with my right thumb on the channel-up button of a remote. I watch every channel on TV for no more than five seconds at a time. It drives my wife crazy and she'll eventually leave the room and go watch the bedroom TV instead.

    So how is this logging going to be useful to anybody when the database on my set-top has 3500 entries in it between 6:00 and 9:00 PM?

    • I'm trying to figure out how this would work on me. Being a typical American male, I was born with my right thumb on the channel-up button of a remote. I watch every channel on TV for no more than five seconds at a time. It drives my wife crazy and she'll eventually leave the room and go watch the bedroom TV instead.

      So how is this logging going to be useful to anybody when the database on my set-top has 3500 entries in it between 6:00 and 9:00 PM?

      Well, now we know normal ads won't work on you because you change the station. So, we're going to devise other ad systems that aren't so easily avoided. We also suspect you're in the market for another set-top box and a larger bedroom television.
  • At what point... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Thursday December 13, 2001 @11:42AM (#2698983) Journal
    I'm wondering at what point even the staunchest Microsoft supporters will say "Woah." How long before they dominate information in all areas, TVs, Media, Computers, Internet, Advertising, etc., before it becomes a problem to you apologists?

    It's not so much that it's been done before, it's being done by one that is troubling. Then you get data mining where all those innocent little bits of information about you are collected, analyzed, and determinations made about you.

    My guess is, the only ones left defending Microsoft at that point will be the Microsoft plants. I wonder how close we are to that being the case now...

  • Things like this could make the Neilson ratings a thing of the past!

    Shows could be canceled or renewed based on who actually watched them. Instead of a sampling which may or may not reflect the actualy popularity of a show (I know it has a good confidence interval and all, but it's still just a sampling), this kind of thing would tell the networks what people really watch!

    Knowing something like this was the case, I'd be more likely to watch reruns! I often skip reruns to catch up on other things, but if I knew I could help make sure my favorite show stayed on the air by watching reruns, I'd be much more likely to watch them.

    Frankly, as long as they are tracking what I personally am watching, i.e. I'm just a statistic, I don't have any problem with it.

    --Ty
    • There is a flip side to that:

      Shows will be continued or canceled not just based on how many people watch, but what types of people watch. Millions could enjoy a show, but unless those millions sit in a specific target demographic, it could still fail.

      This is all well and good right now while if you sit in the 18-35 year old high disposable income, but watch what happens to your favorite shows when you're older and your money goes to the mortgage or into bank.

  • In related news, Starbucks [starbucks.com]'s coffee card [starbucks.com], one likely gift to be in your stocking, comes with an interesting caveat... if you want any value-add to your card, you have to tie it to a Microsoft .NET Passport account [starbucks.com].

    All your coffee are belong to us.

  • what men don't like watching commercials about the 'wonder bra'???

    Oh come on, don't tell me you don't love those mother daughter commercials about tampons... ROTFLOL..

    Today they target by demographic and what they think is watching, tomorrow they target by who they know is watching.

    Why do I feel like somebodies watching me???

  • When you find yourself flipping through ninety five channels and the most interesting thing on there can't slop the flipping, its time to read a book, kiss the girlfriend or slam out some code.

    Nuff said.

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...