> From: Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of The Fool > > ... > > > http://whitedot.org/issue/iss_story.asp?slug=shortSpyTV > > > > Found this longish article about spyware (in particular set top boxes), > > and how they are used to monitor your behavior. I find that most of what > > the article talked about can be equally applied to the Internet. > > Such capabilities were touted as a reason that advertisers would pay more > for Internet advertising, but to the surprise of most, it hasn't happened. > Despite the fact that Internet services tend to know far more about their > customers than passive media, that information doesn't seem to have made > advertising any more efficient. All it really seems to have done is taken > *some* of the mystery out of who's reading your ads, but unless that results > in more sales per advertising dollar (which it generally hasn't), no one > cares. It's also possible to block internet advertising. It's much harder to block tv commercials. And here I am trying to avoid the Star wars trailers for another 4 weeks. > This supports the idea that most advertising creates demand, rather than > responding to existing wants and needs. I wonder if the enormous trend > toward ever more vertical publications over the last few decades has had any > real impact on advertising efficiency. > > If there's anything very disturbing about this capability, it's that it > might drive the evolution of information systems in a direction that favors > established market leaders by marginalizing truly different points of view. > On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a worse situation than the mass > media before the Internet (with the possible exception of Europe in the 16th > century). Seems like that has already happened somewhat (the rich get richer): http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/18/0348209&mode=thread http://modelingtheweb.com/ Imagine: AOL-TW-Disney-Microsoft-Tribune
