View Single Post
Old 31-07-2008, 17:59   #13015
JohnHorb
Guest
 
Location: Sale, Cheshire
Services: 10MB Broadband, DTV, Telephone
Posts: n/a
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

Quote:
Originally Posted by feesch View Post
Waking up to find I have ruffled a few more feathers this morning...

Good, that was my intention. hello peoples. This is Dean Donaldson. Note I deliberately did not state my personal aspect on all this, I was merely posing a viewpoint to the counter-measure .

Advertsing works. Cookies are a part of the web - and you leave footprints. Whether we like it, agree with it or not - it is now here. 10% of ALL company revenue is spent on advertisng, and has been for last 90 years - whether on posters, TV ads, or sales men - because it works. Anyone think thet are immune to advertising must live on another planet, (and a quick check through your cupboards and wardrobes and garage will prove it!) but if you don't realise that you are being 'persuaded' then all credit to the 'persuaders', because that is their job.

How did you find my blog? Some "automated" system that enabled you to find content - that did not exist a few years ago. So you obviously appreciate technology advances to have your voice. So are we to herald all technology as inherently evil? Is it the medium or the message? Questions that have long been posed around - or you going to say 'rock music is evil, TV is evil' and go live in a Hamish community?

So my point is that advertsing and technology ARE part of the debate - and how both are combined and used is a given. You are not going to win this one by saying advertsing doesn't work and we don't want progress - there has to be a smarter and more navigatable solution.
Just to re-emphasise what others have said, this campaign is not about advertising per se. Most of us 'techies' are perfectly capable of blocking adverts if we want to. It is about the unauthorised interception of ALL our (unencrypted) web traffic, including interception of web pages where the web site has explicitly denied permission to intercept for commercial purposes. This is no different to the post office reading our mail and sending us targetted junk mail based on the content. Some people have indicated that intercepting web traffic is more like reading postcards than opening and reading sealed letters, but I'd be pretty upset if the Post Office were routinely reading post cards for commercial purposes, and would look at some way of sealing letters so they could only be opened by the recipient (equivalent to encrypting web communications).