Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

The "free wi-fi" that Feesch refers to is actually paid for by customers who allow other people access to part of their bandwidth and is marketted as BT Fon.

Hardly BT providing something at their own cost but then we all know better than to take anything that comes from the advertising industry as being bsed on facts or genuine research.

I hope that Feesch's Masters Degree paper was better researched than his postings here.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Look out KE with a belt and wellies..........Run

[phormwatch]

feesch-

In the interests of transparency, could please state whether you are here *solely* on your interest, or are here as part of a campaign, in your professional capacity as an employee of Eyeblaster, on behalf of Phorm or Kent Erturgrul?

http://eyeblaster.com/company/

[feesch]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

feesch-

Welcome back feesch. Any chance you could answer my questions regarding Phorm's conduct in my post #12996?

Hi Phormwatch. Think the number maybe wrong there, but assuming you mean the questions around:

was 'PeopleonPage' ethical and did I agree that videoed discussion should have been censored/unreleased?

POP - I think this is a difficult one, and I cite Facebook Aps to this avail. They are doing the same thing - but becuase users have chosen to install the aps, does that mean they should be tracked? Yet it seems to defy all boundaries of saying you can have this but at a price that is unrealistic - in this case human privacy. Surely we should see virtual commodities relating to privacy as a value equal to application. By this I mean if you want to know I have downloaded software to what I am saying, there should be somekind on grading as to what is being traded between the user and developer, and not a dictatorial decision by some over-eager marketing exec who wants data for the sake of it to justify his job. We are dealing with people at the end of the day.

I would need to read more about POP to make a complete value judgement on this. Feel free to clarify.

Ok, the second issue something I often discuss in my presentations. What web 2.0 has done (starting with ratings/reviews by Amazon) is given the consumer a voice-back to the advertiser. No longer is advertsing a single-way. If advertisers expect two-way interaction, then they alos have to be preapred for negative fall-out. This is new and most do not know how to handle effectively I agree. The only ensible option, to remain credible, is to show the problems and then offer solutions and to embrace any comments as constructive criticsm and feed into product development. Obvious statements like "don't buy this car" in reference to Chevy Tahoe fiasco, are taken at merit, and would expect "ban Phorm" to same degree. Chevy are not going to stop making cars, but will have to find ways to make better cars.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Peter N

You keep claiming to know what people want but you provide no evidence. This is exactly what BT have done and it flies in the face of the facts.

Peter, would you not see the number of PVRs and people searching YouTube content, video iPods and Archos and slingbox flying off shelves, and browsing capabilities of webTV/IPTV as evidence that todays consumer wants choice and control over their content in a way that is different form braodcast schedules. They want to watch it when they want, on a device that may be other than their TV set, and in a location that suits them.

So therefore people want more relevant content. But to this I would also add "control".

But this is anecodotal from observation as opposed to me having any study to hand right now.

[number6]

Originally Posted by feesch

Hi Phormwatch. Think the number maybe wrong there, but assuming you mean the questions around:

was 'PeopleonPage' ethical and did I agree that videoed discussion should have been censored/unreleased?

POP - I think this is a difficult one, and I cite Facebook Aps to this avail. They are doing the same thing - but becuase users have chosen to install the aps, does that mean they should be tracked? Yet it seems to defy all boundaries of saying you can have this but at a price that is unrealistic - in this case human privacy. Surely we should see virtual commodities relating to privacy as a value equal to application. By this I mean if you want to know I have downloaded software to what I am saying, there should be somekind on grading as to what is being traded between the user and developer, and not a dictatorial decision by some over-eager marketing exec who wants data for the sake of it to justify his job. We are dealing with people at the end of the day.

I would need to read more about POP to make a complete value judgement on this. Feel free to clarify.

Ok, the second issue something I often discuss in my presentations. What web 2.0 has done (starting with ratings/reviews by Amazon) is given the consumer a voice-back to the advertiser. No longer is advertsing a single-way. If advertisers expect two-way interaction, then they alos have to be preapred for negative fall-out. This is new and most do not know how to handle effectively I agree. The only ensible option, to remain credible, is to show the problems and then offer solutions and to embrace any comments as constructive criticsm and feed into product development. Obvious statements like "don't buy this car" in reference to Chevy Tahoe fiasco, are taken at merit, and would expect "ban Phorm" to same degree. Chevy are not going to stop making cars, but will have to find ways to make better cars.

This is still looking at it from the advertisers view. It's not about advertising. It's about the interception of private communications for commercial purposes without the informed consent of both parties. That is totally unacceptable whether it is post, telephone, TV or internet.

[phormwatch]

That's great, feesch, but I see you studiously avoided answering the questions.

Here is a 'reminder' of what PeopleOnPage is, and its behavour:

"121media, the former name of Phorm, has had its products described as spyware.[9] As 121Media it distributed a program called PeopleOnPage[10], which was classified as spyware by F-Secure.[11] PeopleOnPage was an application built around their advertising engine called ContextPlus. ContextPlus was also distributed as a root kit called Apropos[10][12], which used tricks to prevent the user from removing the application and sent information back to central servers regarding a user's browsing habits.[13]

In November 2005 the Center for Democracy and Technology in the US filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over distribution of what it considered spyware, including ContextPlus. They stated that they had investigated and uncovered deceptive and unfair behaviour. This complaint was filed in concert with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Internet Center, a group that was filing a similar complaint against Integrated Search Technologies with Canadian authorities.[14]

In May 2006 ContextPlus shut down its operations and stated "[Contextplus are] no longer able to ensure the highest standards of quality and customer care". The shutdown came after several major lawsuits against adware vendors had been launched.[15] Phorm has countered this with an admission of a company history in adware and the closing down of a multi-million dollar revenue stream as people confused adware with spyware.[13]"

Is it really 'difficult' for you to see that 'deceptive and unfair behaviour' of software classified by anti-virus vendors as 'Spyware' is unethical?

>Ok, the second issue something I often discuss in my presentations. What web 2.0 has done (starting with ratings/reviews by Amazon) is given the consumer a voice-back to the advertiser. No longer is advertsing a single-way. If advertisers expect two-way interaction, then they alos have to be preapred for negative fall-out. This is new and most do not know how to handle effectively I agree. The only ensible option, to remain credible, is to show the problems and then offer solutions and to embrace any comments as constructive criticsm and feed into product development. Obvious statements like "don't buy this car" in reference to Chevy Tahoe fiasco, are taken at merit, and would expect "ban Phorm" to same degree. Chevy are not going to stop making cars, but will have to find ways to make better cars.

How about answering the question instead of spinning and marketing? I wasn't asking what you thought about how companies in general need to approach marketing and PR in the age of two-way mass communication. I was asking specifically whether you thought Phorm's behaviour, with respect to withholding the town video after declaring publicly that it would be released, was inappropriate and unethical.

How about a straightforward answer?

[feesch]

Originally Posted by Dephormation

We are talking here about the right to privacy, security, and integrity in data communication services.

ISPs have no business what so ever inspecting the content of those communications, particularly when those communications relate to services which they aren't even supplying (third party web sites).

Agreed! DO I agree with Police having access to little black boxes at ISP level, What about your boss monitoring what goes on via your exchange server? So you look at something online, against company rules, and you get sacked. How would that stand in court? That is generally the thrust of that argument.

I guess the anology would be better would be what right does WH Smith have to have a say in how to advertise in magazines on their shelves, and by that I mean they are far removed from the media publisher. Reality is WHS are keen to justify effects of circulation versus advertising having an impact on the audience alongside the publisher. To that level media IS about reaching the right audience, and if they could work out that one store sells one type of magazine based on their demographics aginst another store, then their is a connection between the seller and the media publisher, and what magazines to stock.

Now appreciate the web is a different gambit, but to some degree they are operating as a conduit. I think that is how the ISPs see themelsves in relation to the website owners. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am answering your question to show their side, as opposed to endorsing methods, here.

[isf]

Originally Posted by feesch

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute.

It's just data, it's exactly what the internet was designed for.

the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising.

False dilemma.

No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

You should be in comedy I don't accept 3rd party cookies, I don't have a facebook account and I'm not going to be Phormed. You can't claim to be tech savvy and not be aware of the disdain for "web 2.0", it was called DHTML when we were doing stuff like that a decade ago. Executives buy the emperors new clothes, we in the trenches see right through what we're being paid to tailor.

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

I don't care about winning, I care about not having my communications illegally intercepted by network level malware. Nothing else is relevant to this discussion.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by feesch

Hi Phormwatch. Think the number maybe wrong there, but assuming you mean the questions around:

was 'PeopleonPage' ethical and did I agree that videoed discussion should have been censored/unreleased?

POP - I think this is a difficult one, and I cite Facebook Aps to this avail. They are doing the same thing - but becuase users have chosen to install the aps, does that mean they should be tracked? Yet it seems to defy all boundaries of saying you can have this but at a price that is unrealistic - in this case human privacy. Surely we should see virtual commodities relating to privacy as a value equal to application. By this I mean if you want to know I have downloaded software to what I am saying, there should be somekind on grading as to what is being traded between the user and developer, and not a dictatorial decision by some over-eager marketing exec who wants data for the sake of it to justify his job. We are dealing with people at the end of the day.

I would need to read more about POP to make a complete value judgement on this. Feel free to clarify.

Ok, the second issue something I often discuss in my presentations. What web 2.0 has done (starting with ratings/reviews by Amazon) is given the consumer a voice-back to the advertiser. No longer is advertsing a single-way. If advertisers expect two-way interaction, then they alos have to be preapred for negative fall-out. This is new and most do not know how to handle effectively I agree. The only ensible option, to remain credible, is to show the problems and then offer solutions and to embrace any comments as constructive criticsm and feed into product development. Obvious statements like "don't buy this car" in reference to Chevy Tahoe fiasco, are taken at merit, and would expect "ban Phorm" to same degree. Chevy are not going to stop making cars, but will have to find ways to make better cars.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



Peter, would you not see the number of PVRs and people searching YouTube content, video iPods and Archos and slingbox flying off shelves, and browsing capabilities of webTV/IPTV as evidence that todays consumer wants choice and control over their content in a way that is different form braodcast schedules. They want to watch it when they want, on a device that may be other than their TV set, and in a location that suits them.

So therefore people want more relevant content. But to this I would also add "control".

But this is anecodotal from observation as opposed to me having any study to hand right now.

So full of Double standards & trying to use such statements as:-

"They want to watch it when they want, on a device that may be other than their TV set, and in a location that suits them"

As a a possible excuse to SPY on everthing they Surf about!

My Thoughts, actions & intellect are shared with the people & instutions I decide are worthy.(That includes both parties interlectual property)

"No other entity has the right to intercept, record, modify or adjust such actions or data without specific consent, with the exception of lawful processes in order to protect society!"

[isf]

Originally Posted by feesch

Agreed! DO I agree with Police having access to little black boxes at ISP level, What about your boss monitoring what goes on via your exchange server? So you look at something online, against company rules, and you get sacked. How would that stand in court? That is generally the thrust of that argument.

I admin a few mail servers, if I were to read users private emails how would that stand in court? That's the thrust of the argument, you appear to have gotten it backwards.

[feesch]

Originally Posted by phormwatch

I successfully block 99.9% of all ads on the web. I've been surfing ad-free for a few years now. Of course I am constantly bombarded with ads when I go into public spaces. This is not something I'm happy with, and, in fact, I think it's a problem which needs to be addressed... unless the public eventually wants to end up with every square inch of public space covered in ads.

Its not quatity, its quality. All posters, TV sets will get a digital connection - you are seeing "online" as pure browser-based PC activity. The same technology putting ads in browsers will put them on mobiles and digital TV and outdoor.

> Google doesn't track your every move across the web. Furthermore, you can delete Google cookies, or choose not to use Google, or use Google

Again, digital is not limited to the web... and besides have you not seen
http://www.google.com/adwords/tvads/


>Isn't it the case that advertising is shifting away from TV, simply because people are spending less and less time watching TV and more time on the web - especially 'target' groups who are young, wealthy, and have disposable income?

To some degree yes, they are also media-meshing - which is a phrase that is used to show relation of multiple methods of getting content - like watching TV whilst having laptop on knee and mobile in hand. Not just losing TV audience to web, but how you spend your time. So yes some are wayching with iPlayer for example, but what also is seen is how search goes practically vertical on a graph at time a TV ad goes on air - showing a correlation between ad effectiveness of TV and the user wanting to find out more. I myself find I think of something in a cab, and then Google it on iPhone, so we see external stimulii linking back to web activity. That is what people are trying to figure out how to enhance that experience based on user behaviour.

People who have disposable income are out doing stuff, disposing of their income, not sitting in on the web all the time... ;-)

>You know, you're not doing a very good job at selling Phorm, here...

I neither work for them, nor agree with everything they do, but I can see some technological merit - which is bizarre as I myself do not want to be tracked.

>121Media died precisely because users wouldn't tolerate it. There is no logical reason why the same will not happen to Phorm. It is, after all, an intrusive spyware technology, just like its predecessor.

I have a feeling they will survive, but need to adapt as opposed to ram ideas down everyones throat.

>>Here is a suggestion:
A user must go to a certain ISPs page, and OPT-IN to an agreement. This agreement means that the customer must fill in 20 questions related to his or her demographic information and interests. They customer promises that the information is truthful and promises to update the information. The customer is then given information to sign up to a proxy server to get his internet connection (this can alternatively be done very easily with a plugin) and given a cookie.

SPOT ON!!!! This is something I too have been toying around with. It equally is flawed, but is definately a move in the right direction. There is a business case in there that will make someone a LOT of money.

But you are right, dictatorial approaches are archaic and manipulating the public is not the way to move on this, its a matter of embracing them and giving them choice.

[mkassner]

Hello, I have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest. I also would appreciate it if Madslug would explain in more detail what the error I made was.

I'm not sure if the reference is to the fact that webwise cookie is stripped away as the query is sent to the actual website or if the reference was to a different part of the article. I always want to be absolutely correct in my articles, so I'd appreciate any clarification.

Thanks,

Michael P. Kassner

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

I can and do walk through W H Smith and do not make any purchases and they don't ask me for my PI or lift my wallet read the contents then replace it without my consent or noticing what they did, so that the next time I visit there is a scantily clad youn thing trying to sell me something that they found out about by lifting my wallet. Is that what you mean.

[Bobcat]

@feesch.
You haven't replied to my statement regarding Sky TV and the fact that you do NOT need to be connected by telephone. Do you concede that you are wrong on that point?

[isf]

Originally Posted by feesch

SPOT ON!!!! This is something I too have been toying around with. It equally is flawed, but is definately a move in the right direction. There is a business case in there that will make someone a LOT of money.

So long as the proxy identifies itself in HTTP requests, I'd have no issues with this.