Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google to Track TV Viewers More Closely

Posted by timothy on Sat Nov 22, 2008 06:13 PM
from the from-each-according-to-his-quintile dept.
GalacticNoob writes "According to this post, Google is about to launch a TV advertising program that will let advertisers target audiences based on demographics including their household income. A satellite TV company called Echostar is working with credit-reporting company Equifax to cross-reference shows watched with income and buying habits (based on using Equifax's data)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by deft (253558) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:17PM (#25860661) Homepage

    "Why yes Tina, that was a commercial for Ferrari, followed by a Tiffanys spot. What was that.., oh, your panties just semeed to have fallen to your shoes."

  • Dish (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nethead (1563) <joe@nethead.com> on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:17PM (#25860665) Homepage Journal

    Echostar is Dish Network.

    • DISH Network was a spinoff from EchoStar Communications Corporation. There is still an independent entity called EchoStar Corporation. Read the first line. [wikipedia.org]
      • Re:Dish (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nethead (1563) <joe@nethead.com> on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:48PM (#25860871) Homepage Journal

        Dish Network is the consumer branding. All the Dish techs up here have echostar.com email addresses. I don't need to read the wiki, I've worked for both Disk and DirecTV.

      • Re:Dish (Score:5, Informative)

        by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday November 22 2008, @07:29PM (#25861083) Homepage

        Dish Network and EchoStar Corp. may be two legal entities, but they're one system. EchoStar builds the settop boxes, DVRs, and satellites. Dish Network rents the rights to use those satellites, puts programming on them, then sells EchoStar's hardware to consumers.

        Nobody else but Dish uses EchoStar's products, and Dish uses only EchoStar products. They may have divorced but they're still close friends.

        EchoStar was rumored to be deveoloping a non-Dish broadcast DVR product, but their recent losses in court to TiVo over patent violations threaten that product.

  • Do no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:18PM (#25860673)

    Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income?

    I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".

    • Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:27PM (#25860737)

      Targeted advertising based on our credit history and income? I'm pretty sure this counts as "evil".

      Considering that Equifax is no stranger to being fined for breaking the law, I'd say it actually counts as "Evil" with a capital "E".

      Google needs competition. Their honeymoon period is over.

      • by neomunk (913773) on Saturday November 22 2008, @07:12PM (#25860997)

        That's almost exactly what I was thinking.

        Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.

        I mean, taking a look at Equifax's codebase, you'd expect to see calls to functions but CalltoCthulhu("fhtagn",DATABASEID) and PetitionMammon(CustID,MiracleType) are just plain uncalledfor.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Do no evil should probably include not getting all snug with a company that designs network topologies as inverted pentagrams for the summoning bonusus, I mean, 'customer data referencing enhancements'.

          People are often so taken by Google-rapture that they forget Google's income stream comes from advertising, and much of what it offers is designed to increase that revenue. This sort of "evil" should be expected and was entirely predictable.

          • Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Informative)

            by cayenne8 (626475) on Saturday November 22 2008, @11:07PM (#25862383) Homepage Journal
            "So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?! ... what next, I buy a book on politics and then that data gets bought by the government to workout my political point of views?"

            Yep...it already does. Mostly by a company called Acxiom [acxiom.com] . They actually work very closely with Equifax and Transmeta...they have data on pretty much 99% of the people in the US, and are working hard to do the same around the world. Back when I worked there...a long time ago, we were working to come up with a unique identifier for every person in the US to track them for life. This helps to clean up other companies' databases, etc.

            In recent years, since the Feds are still somewhat prohibited from gathering lots of data on people, they contacted and used Acxiom to do it for them.

            They gather data from all sources...warranty cards, drivers license...USPO change of address data...etc. I'll bet no one ever would have guessed Big Brother was going to be located in Conway and Little Rock, AR, eh?

    • Re:Do no evil? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by D-Cypell (446534) on Saturday November 22 2008, @07:10PM (#25860989)

      Yes, but TFA states this will happen indirectly. They are not talking about looking up your credit history and deciding which ads to push to you, but rather one partnership is going to use the credit history to decide which shows people in different income brackets tend to watch, and it is this information is going to be used by google to decide upon which adverts go with which shows.

      I am 100% certain that this 'income bracket to likely TV shows' correlation has been going on for years.

      So, factor the rubbish out of the story, and basically they are saying, google has invented a new technology that makes it easier for lower turn over business to access TV advertising and they are going to use all existing available data to target this advertising in a way that makes it a relevant ad to the viewer, thus increasing advertising investment efficiency for the advertiser. In other words, exactly what they do on the web.

      Google's justification for this will be exactly the same as their justification for their censored search results in China. The 'evil' will happen with or without them, but they believe that everyone is better off by having the service they provide. As somebody who accepts advertising as a necessary, an acceptable 'evil' to gain the benefit of media that is free at the point of delivery *and* somebody who uses google adsense I agree with them. Google has succeeded in making advertising less of a nuisance and I am happy for that.

      Basically, the worst you can say about this is that google are complicit in the 'evils' of somebody else. That alone might be enough for some to condemn them, I mention it purely in the interests of clarity.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Anybody who is concerned about whether Google is evil or not better not have a credit card or watch television anyway.

      • Re:Do no evil? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Saturday November 22 2008, @11:43PM (#25862561)
        Yes, but TFA states this will happen indirectly. They are not talking about looking up your credit history and deciding which ads to push to you, but rather one partnership is going to use the credit history to decide which shows people in different income brackets tend to watch, and it is this information is going to be used by google to decide upon which adverts go with which shows.

        Oh, I get it. They're synergistically leveraging their core competencies to alleviate market deficits of cross-sectionalized yield-based advertisorial programming. Why didn't someone just say so?
    • Well I will be very amused when I see what ads they come with after leaving my IRD in the 490's ALL the time.

      I know it is based off other info too..... just a joke.
    • Re:Do no evil? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lux (49200) on Saturday November 22 2008, @08:29PM (#25861485)

      Advertizing-based company undermines user privacy to make money. Film at 11.

      Seriously... this is why I'm staying away from Chrome. If Google gets big enough in the browser to start dictating de-facto standards, my privacy will suffer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It would be nice to have a matrix of search engines matched with the types of information they collect. That would help me make a more informed decision of what engine to use.

  • For now... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cjfs (1253208) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:21PM (#25860691) Homepage Journal

    Desai stresses that all this data is made anonymous, so it certainly won't be possible to target specific households with ads...

    ... yet

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      won't be possible to target specific households with ads...

      Wait, I thought that was the whole idea of this system...

  • by GMonkeyLouie (1372035) <{gmonkeylouie} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:23PM (#25860703)
    Humanity has precious little time left before marketers become so astute at selling directly to each and every consumer that we become powerless to resist their offerings. The only defense we will have will be to hide from all advertising, which will require curling up into a tiny little ball in a dark corner.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I'm pretty sure that I'd be happy to punch anybody who smiled at me and tried to sell me a ring-tone directly in the face.

      The thing to remember about Scott Adams is that he loves to troll his own blog.

    • The only defense we will have will be to hide from all advertising,

      It is easier than it sounds.

  • ...or debt management, or car finance, or "cheaper insurance", I'm gonna fucking throttle someone.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:30PM (#25860753)

    LEELA: Didn't you have ads in the twentieth century?
    FRY: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio... and in magazines... and movies, and at ballgames, and on buses, and milk cartons, and T-shirts, and bananas, and written in the sky. But not in dreams, no sirree.

  • by artson (728234) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:39PM (#25860811) Homepage Journal
    I've noticed lately that a lot more TV ads are venturing into extremely obnoxious territory. Many of the ads are so annoying that I never want to see them again, so I mute that ad as soon as I clue in that it's coming. For the most part, I'm talking about ads that scream to get your attention. I dislike people screaming at me anyway, and if they are screaming to get my attention so they can siphon money from my wallet, they get on my mute first list.

    I know I'm not alone in this - lots of people are pretty quick with the mute button and it causes me to wonder.... Suppose you are an advertiser who pays for a really endearing ad that people love to watch. Maybe something like the slightly bewildered A&W proprietor they've been airing lately. So you go to the expense of creating ads that follow a story line and that are successful, if the audience sees and hears them.

    Now imagine what happens if your ad follows one of those obnoxious ads people immediately mute. I suppose the only solution is to make sure your ad is always in the first slot - but that could get expensive.

    • by zappepcs (820751) on Saturday November 22 2008, @07:22PM (#25861051) Journal

      I don't think this was thought through so well. Imagine if your household is made from more than one surname, meaning that credit and buying history will be different, perhaps vastly different. Woe be unto the poor sod that lives with his wife and 3 18+ daughters. The only thing he's going to see is tampax and menopause commercials and of course, every other pill advertisement with QVC and Oprah ads smashed in between them.

      God help the person whose dogs were just killed in a freak pesticide accident who now gets pet grooming/product commercials 24/7 to remind them of their now dead pets. Or maybe the guy who borrows from his 401k to pay for the burial of his wife and then starts getting ads for retirement planning.

      If Google wants to do no evil, they better work pretty fucking hard to make sure all those poorly placed ads on websites don't start showing up on television and phone messages. I'm certain that there are serial killers who had less reason to do their killing than what these people are capable of stirring in the souls of the unwashed masses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        God help the person whose dogs were just killed in a freak pesticide accident who now gets pet grooming/product commercials 24/7 to remind them of their now dead pets. Or maybe the guy who borrows from his 401k to pay for the burial of his wife and then starts getting ads for retirement planning.

        Statistical outliers are not relevant to advertisers.

        I'm certain that there are serial killers who had less reason to do their killing than what these people are capable of stirring in the souls of the unwashed mas

    • Who has been collecting every remote keystroke (and what action that key reprents) since the beginning of the product, and will gladly sell samples of that data to advertisers and TV networks. They just launched an settop-box-to-Domino's-Pizza interface.

  • No thanks (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:55PM (#25860915) Homepage Journal

    Commercials is one reason i tend to avoid TV. ( that and most content is dismal ).

    None of their business who i am really.

  • for their definition of "evil".

  • by st0rmshad0w (412661) on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:56PM (#25860923)

    You know, maybe if companies would spend less time trying to figure out how to target me with ads for stuff I find lacking and actually, oh I dunno, make products I actually want to buy, then maybe I would. And they wouldn't need to waste their ad dollars.

  • TV? Whats that? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ender77 (551980) on Saturday November 22 2008, @07:35PM (#25861129)
    This is why I gave up TV and local radio a couple of years ago. It stopped being entertainment and just became an ad machine. Now, I just watch tv through the internet, ad free. MUHAHAHAHAHA.
  • Do no evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Krakadoom (1407635) on Saturday November 22 2008, @08:30PM (#25861491)
    So "do no evil" is pretty much over, right? Seems every new move Google makes these days is the same sort of thing we'd be criticizing other scumbag companies for.
    • by Nethead (1563) <joe@nethead.com> on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:39PM (#25860805) Homepage Journal

      there's nothing I can do about Echostar tracking that data

      Yes there is. Don't plug your DVR into the phone line (or internet.) The dish is receive only. Dish and DirecTV will both say that you NEED a land line, and the installers take a hit if there is not one connected when the box is activated, but it is not needed to have the DVR work.

      I installed DirecTV for 16 months. They just want your viewing data and impulse Pay-per-view hits.

      • Direct tv uses the internet for on demand and home network video play back on your pc's.

      • Dish makes you pay $5 more per box that is not hooked to a phone line or the internet.

          • by Jumperalex (185007) on Saturday November 22 2008, @09:31PM (#25861883)

            Here is your citation ... me. They charged me the first month I had it in 2006, I complained, they waived it for 3 months; I even got the woman to admit that yes, I was being charged $5 for the right NOT to be tracked and as a PENALTY for not being able to spend money on PPV. At the end of 3 months I complained, they did nothing, I was lazy, and even with the $5 it was the best deal I had given that cable was not available and DirectTV cost more. Then I moved and used their dish mover deal because cable cost WAY more and I wasn't in the mood to switch to DirectTV which was no cheaper anyway (I also don't like their DVD UI). Funny thing though, the nice man on the other end of the line when I set up the install at my new place removed the $5 completely and that was that.

            So I wonder if they have stopped that fee? In the end I would never have hooked it up anyway but I also don't have a landline so it wasn't even an option ... never will either in all likelyhood.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Or, *build your own* DVR. MythTV, SageTV - solutions for everyone, tracking free. What I'm more scared of is Equifax releasing credit information.
    • by Nethead (1563) <joe@nethead.com> on Saturday November 22 2008, @06:44PM (#25860839) Homepage Journal

      I think I'm going to call Dish support and have a conversation about this.

      Have fun.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Echostar is Dish Network but maybe the journalist didn't want people to associate the brand "Dish Network"
      with what people could potentially perceive as evil. Most are not as sophisticated as you - and I'm not being
      sarcastic towards you here -, they might just read the article, lean back and turn on their TV (powered by
      Dish of course) and never make the connection nor would it occur to them to follow up and find out about
      Echostar.

      • If your ideas are correct, this "journalist" is not worth their salt. Intentionally misleading readers by using Echostar rather than Dish, so that it less recognizable is not very ethical.

        /yes i know what echostar is
        //and i work at a newspaper

      • by cayenne8 (626475) on Saturday November 22 2008, @10:58PM (#25862351) Homepage Journal
        "I don't see why people view these things so harshly. Think about it, now it means ads will actually hit their target audience Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?"

        Well, for one thing...what the hell is a credit reporting service doing SELLING my fucking info??

        I mean....I really don't like the idea that the big three track that stuff, but, I can reluctantly live with it as a means to give a reasonable (usually) score of a credit risk when you need a loan, etc.

        However, I think this information should be restricted to only that use, and it should be treated as pretty much privacy act level information, and nothing of it should ever be given out without the expressed consent of the individual in question.

        I'm not one to usually ask for new restrictive laws, but, in this case, I wish we could mandate that a person's information is THEIRS....and cannot be bought, sold, traded or used in a fashion such as this. I mean, c'mon, why not just also combine it with info that the IRS and SS has on us too in the US? Aside from the difference in it being a commercial vs governmental affair...the privacy intrusion is analogous.

          • As far as I can tell, the Dish receivers DO come with such a mechanism.

            It would seem all one would have to do in order to "switch off" as you suggest in order to ensure that no information goes back to Dish...

            is unplug the RJ-11 cable from the receiver so it cannot "phone home".

            The receivers work just fine without the so called "required" phone connection. Dish even has ways for you to purchase movies without the phone connection.

      • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday November 22 2008, @11:17PM (#25862427)

        Would you rather see ads about things you have no care for, nor afford?

        Yes. They're very easy to ignore that way.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Ads which are right for someone economically may not be right for them in other ways. Take a couple who can easily afford to have several children and drive a big SUV - but imagine they are supporters of sustainable energy, zero population growth, and so on. They've already committed to having only one child, they want a fuel efficient vehicle, preferably a hybrid or better. They are not in the market for most of the things which are going to be targeted at them based solely on income.
        How can