Soooooo BT conducted trials in 2006 with real ad targeting taking place for Egg (to name just one). Now the sociologist in me asks did these trials actually result in any sales for Egg (either credit cards or loans) and if so could the targeted advertising which happened as a result of these illegal trials be seen as "behavioural modification"?
Let me clarify. Normally, under the current way web advertising works, one would expect based upon the law of probability that web browsers would receive an even spread of adverts for all credit card/loan companies and as a result if they chose to purchase based on an ad the spread of those purchases across the customer base would also be reasonably normal with customers picking many different credit cards and loans.
However, with the illegal BT targeted ads trialled over that period, it is likely that those 18000 people would have received increased exposure to Egg products instead of a normal spread. Given the power of advertising with regards to initiating a specific response out of consumers (which is why advertising works and simply cannot be disputed) it is therefore analogous with behavioural modification and where the customers have not agreed to the system they are essentially victims of brain washing.
By limiting exposure of other "brands" and focusing exposure on the Egg brand during this trial; they have in effect prevented their customers from making an informed decision about whether or not they actually wanted any Egg products as opposed to other brand products. Given that the trials were criminally illegal under RIPA if any customers actually purchased anything as a direct result of this targeted advertising we could be looking at the potential of other sinister crimes being committed as a knock on effect.
I need to check the legislation but I am pretty certain that behavioural modification is covered under law (see things like subliminal messaging for example) which just makes the entire affair even more sinister.
And yes we are -all- effected by advertising whether we want to admit it or not and there really is nothing we can do to avoid that, but the difference here is the advertising here is the direct result of a criminal act.
Just a little food for thought that I was mulling over as I was falling asleep earlier. Perhaps more scary is that I think of stuff like that before I fall asleep
Alexander Hanff
---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------
It should be noted too that if any company involved in the trials did make sales to trial victims then that money should be seen as "proceeds of a crime" which would make all the companies involved in the trials complicit.