Four Click Freedom

This is a really interesting statement, so I thought I would post about it.  Some years ago I would say I used to use my social security number to sign up for anything.  I mean even at the super market they sometimes wanted it.  I asked my parents at the time what they thought, and it kind of just seemed necessary.  Later on I started to refuse and it turns out they really didn’t need it.  Same with my phone number, I usually have never given that out.  And did people from every corner of the earth know who I was?  I doubt it, it’s really just a reference number.  I’m sure the higher authorities could tap into my file, but I would still say I am pretty private.

Now I am not arguing that I feel free to give away information and that I am not scared that someone will be able to access and use information to stalk me.  Rather I am discussing what privacy is.

Privacy is actually a method of control.  When people built motes around their castles, it wasn’t really to be private, it was to control who could get in.  Thus privacy on the Internet is the ability to control who can see you.

But unlike the mote, these days privacy and control must be a two way street.  But there is no loss here.  Actually providing advertisers with more information allows them to provide you with more information.  And this is not a battle to kill the advertiser, or the Internet, or all those who sell something, rather it is the battle for optimizing mutual interest.  We all lead simple lives and actually think our buying habits are rather simple too.  So why do we need to see all this advertising?  Well the fact is we don’t.  But we do need to see the advertising that is relevant to us, and the only way to do that is to provide information that matters.

I think if I was tracked for one month to see what my buying habits were, thus giving away my privacy and control, the advertising that I received would be far less.  So how many cannibals are going to cross over my mote and climb the walls to get into my castle when all I’ve got inside is my work and my home cooked meal (although they might want to eat that)?

Yes this title is in fact true.  But in reality don’t you always feel the more you give the less you receive?  By this I mean the more you let people know about you the harder it is for them to target you.  You know how hard it is to buy your best friend a birthday gift.  I think this could be true with advertising too.  You can actually develop more control and more privacy by giving away more of yourself.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Privacychoice Stops Advertisers from Profiling You (lifehacker.com)
• Congressman, privacy groups challenge FTC Web-ad policy (news.cnet.com)
• FTC warns of “day of reckoning” for online advertisers (arstechnica.com)

I was thinking yesterday, ‘who should pay?’  Basically a website that I work with will post the advertisers banner on their site.  This website is promising performance and marketability from their site to the advertiser.  They are promising it is a good place to put an ad.

Well if I can improve the effectiveness of their ads on their site by being an agent between the advertiser and the admin, ‘who’s side am I on?’  By allowing three more clicks to the click-through process, ’should the advertiser pay the same price for each and every click?’ And if so, ‘do i make a cut from each click?’

Or, ’should the advertiser pay me to make their ads more effective?’  But as I stated before the Clickboard is free for everyone to make.  I make my money when the Clickboard has my icon on it, and eventually connects the Clickboard to my site.  Here the advertiser does have to pay me to be incorporated into my site, depending on the depth and presence they want on my site, and how focused the targeting is for the users on my site.

Back to the question.  The advertiser pays me for my icon, ‘but who makes the money on all those clicks?’  Are my ads no more valuable for the admin than regular banners, and if so, should he charge more if an advertiser wants to put a Clickboard on his site?

I hope so!