ted

Wrapped up in our own bubbles – part 1

There are several big picture issues floating around on the internet at the moment all of them revolving around filters, personalisation, social conversations, social media, anonymity and privacy vs conversations specifically tied to your real life and the real you. I’m going to try to tackle these issues/discussions one by one and hopefully finish up with a few summarised thoughts, potential implications and lots of questions worth mulling over in the coming weeks, months and years. The issues are too big for just one post however, so consider this to be part 1.

The first issue to tackle is the discussion around filters and personalisation. Eli Pariser, the former Executive Director of MoveOn.org, argues that more and more individuals and companies are wrapping themselves in ‘filtered bubbles’ of information, and that this is ultimately a bad thing. A ‘filter bubble’, is “A filter bubble is a concept developed by Internet activist Eli Pariser to describe a phenomenon in which search queries on sites such as Google or Facebook or Yahoo selectively guess what information a user would like to see based on the user’s past search history and, as a result, searches tend to play back information which agrees with the user’s past viewpoint. Accordingly, users get less exposure to conflicting viewpoints. And according to Pariser, the filter bubble is “that personal ecosystem of information that’s been catered by these algorithms” which, based on past choices, reflect a person’s existing viewpoint.” Source.

I strongly encourage you to watch the video below as Eli draws out, but stops short of describing, some of the impacts of a filter bubble, and what that means for individuals, groups, collectives, societies and nations.

What Eli touches on, but doesn’t go into a great deal of detail about is what this means in the medium to long-term and about the implications of companies. political and social groups trying to communicate to a broader audience. In an era of ‘over-personalisation’ where your future search and online results are influenced by past decisions it becomes easier to be convinced that you are right, because Search Engines – both algorithmic and social – deliver what you want to hear, read and see, and are influenced signficantly based on what you’ve previously asked for. How does an individual grow sufficiently to take in broad opinion if the search results they receive cater to what they know, not what they don’t know? Over time, the delivery of this personalised information leads to more like-minded searches, which in turn deliver more like-minded results. Breaking out of that cycle could be very difficult – how do you for example tell algorithmic search engines that you want to be challenged, if you don’t know what some of the alternatives are?

The challenge for business should be plainly obvious: How do you talk to the unconverted where they aren’t getting the information they might need because years of search history indicates they don’t know and an algorithm doesn’t isn’t programmed to recognise that they might need it? How do you get to individuals that should be looking at you and considering your services but where you might be prevented from delivering that information to new groups because a search engine, or personalisation algorithms have decided that your message isn’t relevant, even if it is. In an online environment a future challenge (to start working on solving now) is how to get your message to those that aren’t already singing from the same hymn sheet.

This may not be a massive issue right now because the internet is still relatively young, and personalisation more so, but consider the current generation growing up now – next generations students, consumers and leaders – how will their lives be affected, and how will businesses talk to individuals who have never known any different?

Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld said it best when he posited this:
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

On to part 2.

Advertisements

Phone, internet, marketing

The hype around marketing to people via mobile phone has been happening for as long as I can remember.

It’s never really taken off on the scale that many have hoped for, for a variety of reasons, some small, some large. A large one, a stand out, is that the second a company’s message vibrates in your pocket, it’s not wanted, it’s spam.

Why do people consider it spam? Primarily because you’ve been contacted, randomly, and perhaps unwantedly, on your personal communication device – your way of connecting with the world and the people most important to you – by a company (usually) for one reason: they want to sell you something.

It’s the randomness that’s unsettling too I think. A company rarely asks you when you’d like to be contacted on your mobile phone, they just contact you when they want, thereby taking the power away from the consumer.

I don’t care if someone has opted in to receive text’s from a company, the second the consumer has no power over how and when they’re contacted, that’s no longer permission marketing, that’s oppression marketing.

But with the internet, the production of the iphone, the blackberry thunder and dozens of other big screen, touch phones, they allow the user to get online quicker, easier and in a more visually friendly way.

David Pogue, the NYtimes.com technology editorĀ  recently spoke at TED about his thoughts on where mobile is headed next and the opportunities for companies and marketers as a whole is exciting.

Check it out.

Seth on bread at TED

I never get tired of watching Seth Godin at TED, talking about bread.

It’s fantastic and during the financial crisis marketers and general managers should watch it over and over and over.

It’s easy to get swept up in social networking but it’s important to remember the roots of marketing and what you’re ultimately trying to achieve.