Thursday 10 January 2013

Mooncalves, marketing, midata, my money and yours

We live in a new world, so we're told. Revolution all around us. Is that true?

Is it dishwasher-proof?
Here's Murad Ahmed in the Times newspaper, 9 January 2013, reporting from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas:
For just £60, the world’s first “smart fork” can be yours, boosting your cutlery drawer’s IQ while changing your eating habits and making you thin ...

The HAPIfork gets smarter over time, tracking a person’s rate of eating across several meals and slowly increasing the seconds before it buzzes as you learn to eat more slowly. After a meal, it send the information to your mobile phone.

“People have never questioned how a fork works before,” said a rather trim Andrew Carton, the president of HAPIlab, who says that he once was obese. “They’ve been eating all their lives and think, who are you to tell me I’m not using a fork correctly? But we think the fork can and is evolving.”
Good luck to Mr Carton.

Enough with the "guru"
It's not just the products and services that are changing. Now if you want to sell anything you must use social media. But you don't know anything about social media, do you. It's new. You need an expert.

And luckily, there are more and more of them available. Ms BL Ochman has been keeping count. In 2009, only 60,000 Twitter uses included the phrase "social media" in their bio/profile. As 2013 opens, that's up to a whacking 181,000, including 174 "social media whores", as Ms Ochman tells us, and 10 "social media veterans", one of whom has 17 months experience.

And there are 18,363 "social media gurus". That's a lot of gurus. As Ms Ochman says, realistically:
... let's save "guru" (Sanskrit for "teacher") for religious figures or at least people with real unique knowledge.
Multimedia? See also, profane video from Ms Ochman's website.

Camels in at the deep end
Some of these self-appointed gurus sound as though they're in a bit of a state. Psychologically. Here's Peter Vander Auwera, 8 January 2013, Who am I, Really?
We probably have to invent a new word for this “one environment of me”: maybe the word “Dysical” – as a contraction of Digital and Physical – could do the job? But it is more than one word we need. We need a new language, a new vocabulary, a new grammar; new ways to create the sentences and the narrative that can capture this new form of being. And when we have developed basic literacy in this new language, we’ll perfect it like art, like literature, like poetry, for deep and rich self-expressions ...

We swim in a sea of data and the sea level is rising rapidly. Tens of millions of connected people, billions of sensors, trillions of transactions now work to create unimaginable amounts of information. This is a new environment requiring lots of adaptability. We are a species from the land that have to learn to live in the ocean. Like camels that used to live in the desert, that now have to survive in the ocean ...
"Poetry" – that's the giveaway. Mr Vander Auwera is Belgian, a bit like being French, and they've always gone in for this sort of flowery narcissistic melodramatic stuff, it's nothing new, and he's not nearly as confused (or young) as he sounds.

Marketing funnels
You don't have to be Belgian to use this new grammar. Here's Jamie Beckland. He wants to tell you about post-revolutionary psychographics. Apparently it's The End of Demographics: How Marketers Are Going Deeper With Personal Data:
Marketers have built a temple that needs to be torn down. Demographics have defined the target consumer for more than half a century – poorly. Now, with emerging interest graphs from social networks, behavioral data from search outlets and lifecycle forecasting, we have much better ways of targeting potential customers ... that entire system has broken down ... Fragmentation is now the norm because the pace of change is accelerating. Generations have been getting smaller ...

They were targeting 14 million consumers to sell 50,000 units – that means they were hoping for 3.5 sales for every 1,000 people with whom they connected through their marketing ... What if, instead, you could get 500 sales from every 1,000 people you marketed to? ... It’s possible through psychographic profiling. Psychographics look at the mental model of the consumer in the context of a customer lifecycle ...

Social profile data is the critical cornerstone of psychographic insights. The level of nuance and insight provided by social data, when compared to standard demographics, is the difference between performing surgery with a scalpel or a butter knife. Previously unimaginable questions are now routine: Are customers who kayak more likely to buy water shoes than those who canoe? ... companies such as GraphEffect are measuring purchase intent by doing semantic analysis on Facebook status updates. This type of qualitative analysis can move users into specific marketing funnels from their very first online experience with your brand ...

The next generation of ad targeting will focus more on telling the customer a story over time, based on specific behavior triggers. That means ad networks and clickstream data aggregators will work together to trigger when a customer moves forward in a mental model toward a purchase event ...

Social profile data can also be used to predict customer lifecycle ...These patterns are predictable, so you know the future behavior of ... This vision is starting to gain traction among serious marketers. At the 2009 Internet Strategy Forum, Xerox’s VP of Interactive Marketing, Duane Schulz, said that a 1% clickthrough rate was a huge failure – even though it is 10 times the industry average. In his mind, a successful campaign would never waste 99% of its impressions. Using psychographic data, you don’t have to waste any impressions.
"You don't have to waste any impressions"
In amongst the verbiage, the truth is beginning to be discernible, isn't it. For all the talk of torn-down temples and shorter generations, the sales pitch is the oldest lure in the book – we can foretell the future. Or even, we can create the future – we can make people want to buy intelligent forks.

It's baloney. It's false. They can't.

They can't predict the future but we all fall for it sometimes. Stockbroker X has the best record in the City, he'll make you a small fortune (as long as you give him a big one in the first place). Astrologers in India are still called upon to calculate the most propitious date and time of day for the chairman of a multi-national to sign his next big agreement. Kings and queens have always been susceptible, just as much as the common man or woman or mooncalf ...

midata
... or Whitehall mandarin:
  • Buy these biometrics, Sir Humphrey, and you can eradicate crime.
  • Maintenance costs out of control? Stick your IT in the cloud.
  • Public services to become digital by default? I can provide identity assurance using social profile data.
  • Give me access to everyone's transaction data, and I'll have the economy growing in no time.
What the gurus find when faced with a Whitehall mandarin is that "measuring purchase intent by doing semantic analysis on Facebook status updates, this type of qualitative analysis can move mandarins into specific marketing funnels from their very first online experience with our brand" and by "telling the mandarin a story over time, based on specific behavior triggers, ad networks and clickstream data aggregators will work together to trigger when a mandarin moves forward in a mental model toward a purchase event" funded with large quantities of public money – your money and mine.

Is there any way to stop them falling for it? Maybe. A revolution?

----------

Updated 24.3.14

It's a long time now – November 2012 – since Ctrl-Shift introduced us all to the "quantified self space". And over a year since the post above was published with its cast of delightful eccentrics all animatedly creating the future to order.

Where are they now? Have they all disappeared?

Not a bit of it.

All our favourite self-certified social media whores, veterans and gurus – see Ms BL Ochman above – were gathered together in London last week, 20 March 2014, for PIE2014, the Bretton Woods of the Personal Information Economy.

Peter Vander Auwera remains European champion phrase-turner at this essentially ludic event, with:
and
Hugo Pinto is his only challenger:
Between them, we learn that the consumer value serum of robot creepiness algorithms uncannily interacts with ad based trust models driven deep into the human data valley, and that's the dynamics of the personal information economy laid bare in a nutshell.

Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt was in the PIE as was William Heath, of course, and Christopher Graham, the UK's strangely supportive Information Commissioner. Do they really think this sort of encounter group session furthers the cause of midata and open data?

They do these things differently in the US. While our chaps are busy chatting about uncanny valleys, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg just gets on the phone to President Obama and tells him what he wants, Mark Zuckerberg tells Barack Obama he is 'frustrated' over US government surveillance.

Updated 27.10.14

Here's a new departure in pronouncements on web marketing – a warning that it will be 25 years before anyone including investors can rely on the guru's predictions – "alas, it'll take about 25 more years (on top of the past ten) to collect enough data to prove significance":



Mooncalves, marketing, midata, my money and yours

We live in a new world, so we're told. Revolution all around us. Is that true?

Is it dishwasher-proof?
Here's Murad Ahmed in the Times newspaper, 9 January 2013, reporting from the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas:
For just £60, the world’s first “smart fork” can be yours, boosting your cutlery drawer’s IQ while changing your eating habits and making you thin ...

The HAPIfork gets smarter over time, tracking a person’s rate of eating across several meals and slowly increasing the seconds before it buzzes as you learn to eat more slowly. After a meal, it send the information to your mobile phone.

“People have never questioned how a fork works before,” said a rather trim Andrew Carton, the president of HAPIlab, who says that he once was obese. “They’ve been eating all their lives and think, who are you to tell me I’m not using a fork correctly? But we think the fork can and is evolving.”
Good luck to Mr Carton.

English Defence – another success story for the UK Border Force 2

At 00:27 on 8 January 2013 DMossEsq published English Defence – another success story for the UK Border Force, an article about border control failures in the UK and the US.

The story concerns the leader of the English Defence League – a man known variously as Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Tommy Robinson and Paul Harris – and his trip from the UK to the US and back. There are many border control failures possible and many of them were exhibited in Lennon/Robinson/Harris's trip*. With all of those actual failures to choose from, DMossEsq managed nevertheless to focus on one failure of the UK Border Force that wasn't exhibited.

This mistake has been usefully pointed out by an anonymous commenter.

The newspaper reports of Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris's trip state that: "He used a self check-in kiosk to board the Virgin Atlantic flight at Heathrow, and was allowed through when the document was checked in the bag drop area". DMossEsq confused "self check-in kiosks" with "smart gates" and concluded that this was an example of the unreliability of the face recognition biometrics used by smart gates. Face recognition biometrics are laughably unreliable but as Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris hadn't used a smart gate that's irrelevant in this case and DMossEsq wishes to apologise for misleading readers.

How did DMossEsq confuse "self check-in kiosks" with "smart gates"? Frustration. Undischarged anger. Leading to occasional blind spots.

What's frustrating? The Home Office spend a fortune on security systems that depend for their success on biometrics being reliable. Then when you take them to court to make them publish the evidence, they refuse to do so and add that the trials they carried out were so specific that the results wouldn't tell the public anything anyway. In other words, the Home Office have no justification for spending our money on biometrics.

This misfeasance has been going on under every Home Secretary since David Blunkett and under two Permanent Secretaries – Sir David Normington and Dame Helen Ghosh. Now we have a new Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Mark Sedwill. Let's see if he's any better. Any less frustrating.

----------

* Border control failures:-

1. Leaving the UK. Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris managed to leave the UK travelling on someone else's passport, Mr Andrew McMaster's. A UK Border Force officer must have checked at passport control and decided that the photograph in the passport looked enough like Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris. An understandable mistake. But a mistake nevertheless.

2. Entering the US. Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris's flat print fingerprints didn't match Mr McMaster's which must presumably have been already on file. He failed his primary inspection and was referred for secondary inspection. He didn't turn up. Instead, he managed to get out of the airport. Flat print fingerprinting registers false non-matches about 20 percent of the time, so it's perfectly normal for people to fail primary inspection, it's not a sign of the technology working properly, rather the opposite. The non-match won't have rung any alarm bells but, nevertheless, he shouldn't have been able to avoid secondary inspection and leave the premises.

3. Leaving the US. Mr Lennon/Robinson/Harris, having entered the US as Andrew McMaster, left using his own passport as Paul Harris. (a) Border control for non-US citizens is meant to match entry and exit details. There would have been no entry details for Paul Harris. As far as the system was concerned, Paul Harris was leaving the US without ever having come in. It looks like a mistake to miss that. (b) His ticket was presumably in the name of Andrew McMaster. Why was the man whose passport was in the name of Paul Harris allowed to leave the US on a ticket in the name of Andrew McMaster?

4. Entering the UK. Why was the man whose passport was in the name of Paul Harris allowed to enter the UK on a ticket in the name of Andrew McMaster?

How could the mismatch between the names on the airline ticket and the passport have been discovered? The expensive answer is "eBorders".

As a taxpayer, you have spent a fortune on ePassports and smart gates. They don't work. In the name of border security, you have also spent a fortune on a system called eBorders, which logs all the details of your flights and is meant to provide the raw intelligence to keep the border safe. Clearly eBorders doesn't work either. Otherwise the mismatch between passport and ticket would have been spotted. You have also spent a fortune making hundreds of Border Force staff redundant, to be replaced by computer systems, and then re-hiring them when the Home Office found the computer systems don't work.

You've spent the money. The systems don't work. The staff don't do anything with the data that's collected. But don't worry. The border is secure.

English Defence – another success story for the UK Border Force 2

At 00:27 on 8 January 2013 DMossEsq published English Defence – another success story for the UK Border Force, an article about border control failures in the UK and the US.

The story concerns the leader of the English Defence League – a man known variously as Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Tommy Robinson and Paul Harris – and his trip from the UK to the US and back. There are many border control failures possible and many of them were exhibited in Lennon/Robinson/Harris's trip*. With all of those actual failures to choose from, DMossEsq managed nevertheless to focus on one failure of the UK Border Force that wasn't exhibited.