Time to see if users want Phorm
Phorm is requiring that users opt in to the latest test of its ISP-based behavioral targeting platform, according to Online Media Daily:
Unlike the case in previous trials, BT will only deploy the platform, “Webwise,” with subscribers who have affirmatively agreed to receive targeted ads. For the initiative, BT intends to intercept 10,000 users with a Web page asking whether they wish to sign up for Webwise, which it touts as offering “more relevant” ads. The company also promises that it will help protect users from online fraud by alerting them when they land on suspected malware sites.
I think this is the appropriate move — that people get to choose whether they want it — but what I’m really interested in is how many will? How compelling is the ‘relevant ad’ offer? What percentage of the 10,000 will go for it?
Personally, I think anything better than 100 could be considered a success for the company. 1% acceptance of an untried and uncommon service is a pretty good return.
Phorm’s uptake is critically important, because it will represent the best test to date of how people value privacy and relevance.
We Internet users have shown ourselves more than willing to trade privacy for functionality: think Google or Facebook. When we are the ones who want the access, no data price is too high.
But the Phorm test doesn’t dangle a functionality demanded by consumers. What’s on offer from them is more relevant ads, something that is more of an active pain point for underperforming advertisers than for us users.
We complain about egregiously bad advertisements (see David Berkowitz’ The Chutzpah of Facebook’s Jewdar for a superb example), but are we willing to pay the price of privacy for something different?
We’ll soon find out. In the meantime, would you agree to the Phorm test if it popped up on your machine?
October 9th, 2008 at 1:28 am
No, I wouldn’t. And my ISP interrupting my surfing to ask me questions (ie, not behaving like the big dumb pipe I paid for) might be somewhat disconcerting. Why not send me an email instead? But then, I also use adblock, so not really a good candidate for such a program.
I like the malware protection built into firefox 3 – it works via a downloaded blocklist, maintained by google and stopbadware, rather than checking a master list for every single page I visit. It might not be a comprehensive solution, but it’s free and enabled by default.
But most people don’t even realise it’s built in, so the BT/Phorm scheme might seem attractive to them for that reason.
October 9th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Thanks for your comment, Seth.
I think I would find it disconcerting as well, although you never know. Perhaps when the message popped up my conditioned ‘must-respond-to-official-messages-from-the-cockpit’ response would kick in.
It would also be interesting to look at how much more people are likely to say ‘yes’ to a message from or endorsed by their ISP, versus one from a random ad company. Consider, for example, how we all say ‘yes’ to the Terms & Conditions of any other software we install. I personally tend to think, “Come on, it’s a company I know… How bad could it be?”
October 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The BT/Phorm pop-up is cunningly disguised as “do you want protection from phishing”, so what would your average user do?
When inphormed of what they have actually agreed to, most customers are appalled.