Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses

Advertising of the Future, Already Here 234

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
prostoalex writes "Did Stephen Spielberg predict the future of advertising, when in Minority Report the relevant ads were delivered by retina scanner, which could then personalize any message? August issue of Inc. magazine takes a look at future of advertising and who's offering advanced technologies today. Internet search engines and helpful utilities from companies like Claria already know a lot about your shopping and browsing habits. Combine that with advanced tech from TV viewership tracker Nielsen and large nationwide databases like Experian, and the advertising messages of the future could get extremely personal."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Advertising of the Future, Already Here

Comments Filter:
  • Just what some people would want are "extremely personal ads" where they walk by a kiosk in the mall, and it asks if they want to switch from Viagra to Levitra...
  • LOL (Score:4, Funny)

    by user no. 590291 (590291) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:25PM (#13311882)
    At Taco posting an article about intrusive ads. The future is here, it's the Slashvertisement (TM). Oh, the humanity.
  • you can't do that (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:25PM (#13311883) Journal
    You can't directly put something on MY eye unless I get an implant of some kind. As long as I refuse to get any implants then they can't advertise to me..
    • Re:you can't do that (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Poromenos1 (830658) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:28PM (#13311896) Homepage
      Yes, but what if by getting that implant you can have a screen/pc with you at all times, even connected to the net? It's the same as the internet or any other medium, you're using it because it's very useful but the ads are still annoying.
    • They could do one of two things:
      1. Very fast robot to put a sign in front of your face whenever they want.
      2. Control where you're looking and happen to put advertising there.
      The entire goal of most advertising seems to be (2: convince you to look at something), with the exception of spam, popups and amway.
    • They won't need to if they can get RFID tags in everything you own; then they can just scan you with RF from a distance, match it up against purchase records, and figure out who you are.

      Of course that's absurd. Nope... they'd just scan to figure out what you have on you then use that demographic information to "anonymously" match you against a marketing profile.

      It won't be, "Hi, John... want to buy some more Guess t-shirts?"

      But, it will be, "Hi... I see you like Calvin Klein a bunch... want a coupon?"
    • They didn't need to implant anything. (Biometrics gone bad.)

      You could try staring into a high powered laser with both eyes, one after another, but that's an extreme solution. (And even at that, they could read you regardless. You'd have to be deaf to ignore the ads.)
    • You can't directly put something on MY eye unless I get an implant of some kind. As long as I refuse to get any implants then they can't advertise to me..

      But if you do, they can stop you from accidentally viewing child porn, bomb building instructions or copyrighted material you don't have a license to view by blocking your vision whenever you're about to see either. So obviously only a pedophilic terrorist intellectual property thief would not want such a device in their eyes.

      As for the advertisement

      • Considering that the implant will likely run on Windows CE, according to the government purchasing policy, there'll be enough holes in it to make it run Linux instead. With an open-source terrorist tool known as AdBlock.
  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Patient (571083) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:25PM (#13311884)
    Well, as a non-female entity, if I don't have to see any more Stayfree ads, I'll take that as a positive.
    • ad blocking 101 (Score:5, Informative)

      by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @02:13PM (#13312120)
      Just block ads outright. I keep an updated hosts file of ad servers here. [everythingisnt.com] The whole situation with flash ads, firefox proof pop-ups, etc is getting ridiculous. Funny, I've been blocking ads for years yet I still buy stuff.
      • Why do they use localhost and not 0.0.0.0?
      • cool to see you on slashdot, I didn't know you were a member! I've recommended your hosts file to several people, and I've used it on my Linux desktop too (though that required some conversion to unix friendly formatting)

        Thanks for providing your hosts file to all of us

        -Jay
      • 1. Get the Adblock Firefox extension at:
        http://adblock.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
        Install it and restart Firefox.

        2. Use Firefox to visit www.slashdot.org, go to Tools > Adblock > List All Blockable Elements >
        a) http://.falkag.net/* [falkag.net]
        b) http://.tacoda.net/* [tacoda.net] =I'm not sure if this is ad site, but the first one is for sure

        3. Right-click and block individual image-type ads, if any.
      • Also, you can use this script with Mike's hosts file to make the empty spaces in your browser go away:

        #!/bin/sh

        # Downloads the hosts file from http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html and
        # converts it into a style sheet for use in browsers. Also adds some extra
        # blocking stuff at the top.

        rm -f hosts
        if wget -q http://everythingisnt.com/hosts ; then
        cat >ad_blocking_hosts.css <<EOF
        /*
        * From the everythingisnt.com hosts file
        * http://www.everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

  • by IcarusMoth (631872) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:27PM (#13311890)
    Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 21st century?" Fry: Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
  • by EEBaum (520514) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:28PM (#13311899) Homepage
    ... advertising of the present?
    • Yes.

      One thing that annoys me about some ads, is they say "in the future...", make some claims about good things, then say "...the future is now".

      I also find medical ads annoying. They all seem to push a perception that things will be great if you'd take this pill or have that operation. Stuff like Viagra, Levitra and Claria are only supposed to be help people with certain medical conditions, NOT to make a healthy person have "better sex". I think mass marketing is completely wrong for that kind of produc
      • AFAIK the US is the only country in the world that allows prescription medications to be advertised on television.

        I live in Canada but I'm close enough to the border that I get lots of American channels. No Canadian channel ever advertises for prescription medications .. yet when I watch a US channel it seems that every other commercial nowadays is telling me to ask my doctor about this or that .. without even telling me what this or that is FOR!

        I've asked some of my friends in Europe how medications are de
        • Not all drugs that have the same active ingredients use the same dyes or fillers and whatnot. That difference can be important. Sometimes the brand name (or lack thereof) actually does matter.

          And I think there is some US law prohibiting the advertising of the name and manufacturer of a drug in the same commercial as a discussion of its abilities. So you get viagra adds that don't refer to a particular manufacturer, and you get other adds from manufacturers that show happy scenes and suggest you visit their
          • The reason you don't see much info in ads is something to do with the Truth In Advertising laws. For everything good they say, apparently they have to balance that out with listing some side effects. Which is why you get rhyming Krestor ads that don't say what the fuck the med does....

            I agree that Pharm. companies should *NOT* be able to advertise on TV. Their commercials are intentionally mis-leading.

            You know, I was told growing up that there were these evil people who would tell you very little about what
      • These ads are not meant to make a "healthy" person buy their products. They're meant to let people know they exist (for those who need it), try to "educate" the masses as an effort to get rid of the stigmas associated with those kind of things (make it seem normal/common).

        There's people out there with erectile dysfunction, incontinence and such problems that think they're the only ones with it and too ashamed to seek help from their docs. With these ads (and the increasing public awareness) people tend to b
  • I hope it does (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spy Hunter (317220) * on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:29PM (#13311904) Journal
    Seriously, I would appreciate some ads that are relevant to me. Instead of punch the monkey and Free* iPods, I could be getting discounts on stuff I'm interested in and might actually buy. If I could get a guaranteed higher quality of ad, I would definitely give up some of my personal information, especially to sites that I care about.
    • That would be ideal, absolutely. Targeted ads that would show something I might buy. Trouble is, they mine the data and get an incomplete picture of who you really are. It would take much more intrusive questioning (since you're already giving up most of your personal information for free anyway) to get at what makes you tick. I won't sign up for it, because they don't need to know. It's never ever any of their business, and if they happen to figure it out by accident, well neat. But if they require mor
    • What I prefer, is no ads at all.
      I personally consider ads to be exactly in the same bucket as e-mail spam, and act accordingly. Thanks to three layers of defense (DNS, squid+adzapper, Adblock), I probably don't exist for Claria, GoogleSyndication, DoubleClick and any other sleazy advertisers.

      If I want to find a product, I can search for it. Until then, you are better off staying away from my life.
      • Yep.. I prefer to remain off their radar. Even if they knew everything about me from other means, I'd never see the ads.

        I know it sounds cheap, but let the suckers pay for my entertainment. Just wait until TV is digital and you can filter commercials like you do banners. That will be great!
      • by crovira (10242)
        And, because WE go and look, Googling for products when we need them, the sites we find are garanteed a sale.

        This gets into media studies but I believe that the future of broad casting is NO future.

        What I suspect will happen is that we will have specialized content aggregators that we look at, like we used to look at car magazines for cars and audio magazines for audio components.

        But instead of magazines which were mostly waste, we will be able to focus in on what we want, a couple of sites, possibly a podc
    • I'd be careful what I wish for.

      It wasnt too long ago that people filled out long questionaires for "Win a free minivan" at the mall, and all that information was just sold en masse to a bunch of marketers. From there, they can do whatever they like with the info. Do you trust them to build a complex and well-running filtering system? ]

      I dont think its even possible to have "targeted ads." Amazon's suggestion system is terrible. My tivo suggestions are even worse.

      Don't give up any of your personal informat
    • One things that ads to is get consumers to want something that no one has really wanted. Like instant desicated coffee, paper plates with bonus dioxins, or ready made penut butter and jelly sandwich with god knows what else.

      Merely getting you to switch brands because one happens to be cheaper right now does not neccesarily build long term growth. However, convincing everyone they need a 3,000 lb personell carrier that gets 10 miles to the gallon, and is subsidized 40% by the American tax payer is golden

  • Helpful utilities (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NixieBunny (859050) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:30PM (#13311910) Homepage
    ...helpful utilities from companies like Claria already know a lot about your shopping and browsing habits

    Helpful is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Helping your PC crash is one thing Gator's stuff is known for.

  • PKD? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stevobi (600234) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:34PM (#13311932)
    Just to give credit where it's due, it's probably more accurate to say that Philip K. Dick foresaw this advertising, as it or something similar appears not only in his short story Minority Report, but throughout his fiction.
    • by putko (753330)
      You are so right. It is disgusting to associate the slimeball Spielberg with the genius and penetrating insight of PKD.

      PKD was a philosopher. Spielberg makes ones schmalzburger movie after another, pandering to the morons and his Hollywood paymasters, while lining his pockets.

      PKD has principles and really suffered. Spielberg just tells the lies that are good for himself and his crowd.
  • Enough (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer (648696) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:35PM (#13311934) Homepage
    Ok...I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but here goes:

    I happen to be a young ad exec (not to mention a privacy nut, avid slashdot reader, gamer, geek, etc) and I'm really getting tired of people not understanding our industry.

    Are there sleezy advertising people? HELL YES! Is it the vast majority of them? HELL NO! You see, there is this interesting phenomenon where people tend to only remember negative experiences over positive ones, and then make generalizations that most are bad.

    And guess what, this is true of ANY industry. Software development? Yup, you got your sleezeballs there too, but you wouldn't say the vast majority are that way. (Or would you?)

    What really pisses me off is that everybody assumes that our goal is to just annoy you and grab your attention in any way possible. Attention Slashdotters: We Are Not Idiots! (All of us at least. We know damn well that if we are advtertising a product to privacy advocate geeks, we will not win them over with a popup that says "based on your previous purchases of viagra from www.biggerpenis.com....". But the truth is that often times the advertising us geeks find offense with is not targeted at us at all, and in fact the target audience has no problem whatsoever with it.

    New technologies will continue to be developed to target more accurately because that generates better results. I repeat: IT GENERATES BETTER RESULTS! This means that due to it being targeted better, people are buying more! We are not holding a gun to their heads saying they have to buy, we inform them of the product (and yes, some do it less truthfully than others, I will not lie about that)and they make the decision to buy.

    I also want to comment about a new form of advertising many of you most likely participate in. Viral advertising. All those cool video clips that companies put out, all those funny websites like CoqRock.com, or Subservient Chicken, all of these get passed on by people like you because you find them interesting, clever, and entertaining. THAT is the goal of most advertising agencies. Believe it or not, we LIKE making good ads that people like. New technology lets us do this in different ways.

    So in summary, I'm not saying there isn't a dark side to our industry (like every single other friggin industry in existence), I'm just saying that everybody seems to focus on the bad and ignore the good. If people want some proof that good advertising exists, check out the Cannes Lion Awards. They have videos of all the winners, and I'm sure most Slashdotters would approve.

    • Re:Enough (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Thats fine. If you want to make a living doing that, and you feel good about it, go ahead and keep doing it.

      But remember, the goal of advertising is to change the behavior of a person. So you are exploiting pyschological traits to pressure the consumer into buying the product using color, suggestive imagry, playing on their insecurities and desires.

      You may in fact be changing people's habits who have no use for your product or could not truely afford it. You defend yourself by saying that they have a cho
    • Re:Enough (Score:5, Insightful)

      by daeley (126313) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @02:05PM (#13312088) Homepage
      New technologies will continue to be developed to target more accurately because that generates better results. I repeat: IT GENERATES BETTER RESULTS! This means that due to it being targeted better, people are buying more! We are not holding a gun to their heads saying they have to buy, we inform them of the product (and yes, some do it less truthfully than others, I will not lie about that)and they make the decision to buy.

      See, here's the thing: this *is* the dark side of your industry. You're yelling "generating better results" as if that were some laudable goal. Even "generating better results" sounds like a commercial. Better results for who? Better results for me would be fewer ads, in every medium.

      When your industry plasters every available surface with advertising, whether that's walls or screens or clothing, it's bad enough. You may not be holding a gun to people's heads, but frankly that reminds me of a child irritating another child by saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!" You aren't holding a gun, but you are "targeting" people.

      I don't care if your industry likes making good ads that people like. Hell, I might even laugh at some of them, or see the cleverness. But for every "clever" advertisement, there is a tidal wave of ad-noise drowning out the sounds of life. Your goal might not be to annoy people, but that is what you are doing.

      The worse the advertising gets, the more ubiquitous, the more targeted -- the less I will watch, the less I will pay attention.

      The less I will buy.
      • The worse the advertising gets, the more ubiquitous, the more targeted -- the less I will watch, the less I will pay attention.

        The point is that the more targeted it is, the less annoying it will get. The company that made the clever advertisement is more likely to be bought from. Once the industry understands what you think is clever, every advert you see will be a clever one. Every one will be one you like.

        • The point is that the more targeted it is, the less annoying it will get.

          I dunno. Having seen the movie "Minority Report," I would think it quite the opposite. The last thing I want are advertisement mentioning me by name.

          The company that made the clever advertisement is more likely to be bought from.

          Yeah? So what? What does "clever" have to do with my desire to be exposed to it? Spammers, for example, are very clever at getting around filters. Does that mean I want to recieve spam? No.

          Once the

      • Better Results (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jesterzog (189797) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @05:24PM (#13312853) Homepage Journal

        Even "generating better results" sounds like a commercial. Better results for who? Better results for me would be fewer ads, in every medium.

        As much as I agree with the general sentiment of this thread about marketing (which I frequently get sick of), there are times where I actually appreciate it. I don't like marketing and advertising that's in my face, and I don't like marketing that lies to me. But some marketing material is just out there to be informative for people who want it and ask for it, without being in anyone's face.

        Better results for me means being fully informed about all the relevant options I have, at a time and level of detail of my choosing. This is also a type of marketing, and it's one that I respect. I do know some marketing people who focus on this goal, and I appreciate it.

        I actually like the way that the shoe salesman walks up to sell me a shoe when I walk in. I really have no idea what I want and it's not a decision I want to make. What I care about is trusting the guy to sell me something that works, and that's what will get me to come back again and again. That's also marketing. The guy's job relies on him selling lots of shoes, but he knows that his best approach is just to be honest with people. (and to chat, and joke, and so on.)

        I also quite like the way that Amazon suggests books for me to read. It's only there when I ask for it, it often offers good suggestions, and every so often they might get a sale out of it. That's the type of marketing that I like.

      • See, here's the thing: this *is* the dark side of your industry. You're yelling "generating better results" as if that were some laudable goal.

        It is a laudable goal. For any industry.

        Better results for me would be fewer ads, in every medium.

        And with targeted advertising, that's exactly what you'll get. Instead of a scattergun approach of spamming everyone with everything, advertisers will only be sending you an advert that they think you'll be interested in.

        • Better results for me would be fewer ads, in every medium.

          And with targeted advertising, that's exactly what you'll get. Instead of a scattergun approach of spamming everyone with everything, advertisers will only be sending you an advert that they think you'll be interested in.

          Gee, don't you think it would just be the same amount of advertising, just targetted? Don't you think that instead of getting, say, 100 adverts for stuff I am not likely to be interested in, I would just get 100 adverts for stuff

    • by Tx (96709)
      The sleazy advertizers may be a small minority, but they're a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM, so don't try to make out like peoples perceptions are skewed on this subject.

      I had to sign up to TPS (UK "do not call" database) to stop irratating numbers of cold callers (unfortunately offshore marketing firms don't feel the need to respect that database). I have to expend effort keeping my spam filters, pop-up blockers etc optimal. I have to do these things because of pervasive, in-your-face, annoying marketing tactics.

      Ar
    • When it comes to the Internet at least, ad execs seem to act like idiots. Maybe it's just the dumb ones that get assigned to it, maybe they are pretending, I don't know, but I find very little intelligence or ethics areound in 'net advertising.

      I used to work for a newspaper and we did online and print ads. The people that bought print ads seemed to understand the concept. They would work with our design guys to get an ad custom made for the paper and the target market (university students). They understood
    • Re:Enough (Score:5, Informative)

      by Moofie (22272) <lee@@@ringofsaturn...com> on Saturday August 13, 2005 @02:43PM (#13312250) Homepage
      I don't want your better results.

      I don't want to BE your better result.

      I don't like any ads at all. I think your entire business is founded on manipulation, deception, and brain washing. You have no leg to stand on. You can't put a bright face on it, and you can't convince me that you're just an innocent, idealistic advertising executive who's speaking out for the people with integrity.

      If it is your job to trick me into buying something, you don't have any integrity.
    • I understand a big marketing push when you create a new brand/product. But afterwards, is it really necessary to advertise so much for established products? I.e. Coke and Pepsi. I drink Coke because I like it's taste, but I like Diet Pepsi when I drink diet since it tastes better than Diet Coke. Advertising these makes no difference to me for these products. The new Pepsi One stuff, sure, I understand the need to market it.

      I've never understood this, please enlighten me.

      • But you need to keep the name out there. If they stop mentioning Diet coke, then a subset of people will no longer consider it.
        I forone forget things rather often, and while I hate ads there have been times that I've checked out a product or service that I heard about as an ad.
      • "I drink Coke because I like it's taste"

        Do you really? Try stopping drinking it for a month and try it again. You'll be surprised how bad it is - sort of metallic, sour and over sweet. I think what people actually like is the image associated with coke, which is why they must keep advertising.

        Another way of looking at it is, if advertising weren't required then all those nicer drinks out there would do a lot better than coke.
        • Actually you're right - I switched almost entirely to Diet Pepsi a while back to drop a few pounds, and drinking Coke is pretty rough now.

    • by TCM (130219)
      I happen to be a young ad exec

      OK, to make this quick and painless: could you tell me what domains and network blocks you use? Thanks.
    • So in summary, I'm not saying there isn't a dark side to our industry (like every single other friggin industry in existence), I'm just saying that everybody seems to focus on the bad and ignore the good.

      Most of the industry is "dark": it manipulates emotions and drives in order to increase consumption and profits. Often, you manipulate people into harming themselves. Whether you use viral advertising, pornography, music, comedy, or high art, it all amounts to the same thing.

      It will take decades more unti
    • What a load of crap. Advertisers care about one thing: as many results as possible, and they don't care how many people they piss off. All that matters is sales, advertisers are completely amoral.

      The world would be a better place if all 'young ad execs' were all put on a ship and sent to the Arctic, then the boat sunk. Adverts are nothing but irritating, infuriating and patronising. They are NEVER useful, except to the companies involved. Only idiots base their purchase decisions on adverts.
    • I happen to be a young ad exec (not to mention a privacy nut, avid slashdot reader, gamer, geek, etc) and I'm really getting tired of people not understanding our industry.

      Perhaps you are not understanding some us who are complaining. I, personally, find just about all advertising offensive to one degree or another. Whether it is is just wasting screen real estate, interupting my TV viewing, or ruining a perfectly nice view from the freeway. Granted, much of it is benign enough to not actively protest ag

    • In the majority of cases that I've witnessed, your industry preys psychologically on human psychology and our insecurities. When I think of software, I think of a majority of products that are possibly overpriced but in many cases, useful and worth the expense. When I think of advertising, I think of intrusive tactics on television, though e-mails, at the beginning of movies, and on billboards on highways that get in my face and distract me against my desires.

      Why do you think we have such hostility against
    • Tell me, in layman's terms, something positive that successful marketers and advertisers bring to the table apart from the ability to make (also possibly useless) already overwealthy stakeholders rich, and I may dispel my notions that your profession is the blemish on the backside of humanity.
    • So in summary, I'm not saying there isn't a dark side to our industry (like every single other friggin industry in existence), I'm just saying that everybody seems to focus on the bad and ignore the good.

      If people want some proof that good advertising exists, check out the Cannes Lion Awards. They have videos of all the winners, and I'm sure most Slashdotters would approve.

      You're confusing "good" with "entertaining". Advertising is, nearly without exception, an uninvited attempt to insinuate into people

  • I can only hope that advertisers start to realize what they're doing by making their ads increasingly intrusive. I've done a fair amount of work studying advertising, and it's shown that by creating louder, personalized, in-your-face ads is more effective to about 90% of the market, and it turns off about an additional 10% (these numbers incredibly generalized for your reading enjoyment). However, as great as that sounds to marketers, advertising has increased so dramatically on such a huge scale, that the
  • Not a problem... (Score:3, Informative)

    by gwernol (167574) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:40PM (#13311964)
    Personalized ads will be just as invisible, thanks to AdBlock [mozdev.org].

    My behavior with AdBlock: if the ad contains movement of any sort - animated GIFs, Flash etc. - I will always AdBlock it. Small, stationary ads I generally leave in place, especially if they are around the border of the article I am reading. As Firefox/Mozilla usage increases and tools like AdBlock become (hopefully) widespread, it will be interesting to see if advertising changes in response. The "conventional wisdom" in advertising is you need to make your ad stand out, hence pop-ups and wildly animated adverts. These are the most noxious and instrusive. If users start to react to this sort of ad, maybe it will die out over time? I could live with a world of small, static ads like Google's text ads - they can even be useful sometimes.
  • by Japong (793982) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:41PM (#13311969)

    I can only hope that advertisers start to realize what they're doing by making their ads increasingly intrusive. I've done a fair amount of work studying advertising, and it's shown that by creating louder, personalized, in-your-face ads is more effective to about 90% of the market, and it turns off about an additional 10% (these numbers incredibly generalized for your reading enjoyment).

    However, as great as that sounds to marketers, advertising has increased so dramatically on such a huge scale, that these stunts are yielding diminishing marginal returns, because they now do it continuously. It's nearly impossible for today's generation to escape advertisement and endorsements. Increasing the volume has reached the point of turning off just about as many people as it gains - and this will become a huge factor as the baby boomer population reaches Senior Citizen status.

    The elderly respond far better to conservative advertising than to brash advertising - they also become less likely to switch brands, having built up brand associations over several decades. As they're going to be a dominant economic force, not earning wages but spending money nonetheless, advertisers need to back off of the intrusive advertising if they want to continue making sales.

  • ... the advertising messages of the future could get extremely personal.

    This is actually good... or at worst neutral... Worry not about technology divining your consumer tastes, but rather about it creating them...

  • by catdevnull (531283) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:47PM (#13312001)
    I'm already getting those personalized ads via e-mail! I mean, how did they know I'm up to my eyes in debt with a small, flacid penis and looking for hot horny teen girls?
  • by knipknap (769880) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @01:48PM (#13312004) Homepage
    Hello, I am your digital shopping assistant! I saw that you were looking at some of our trousers - may I help you with that? I think you would like these, kind of like in that porn that you watched yesterday. Or these, maybe? The extra air might help you get rid of that fungus thing that I found in your medical record.
  • For me, i ignore 99% of all ads, even if they might interest me.

    And for that 1% that make it thru my 'ingore filter', i vow to never purchase a product from that company again.

    Does that mean i have mastery control over markets? No, but I'm sure I'm not that different then other consumers who are sick and tired of the ad-overload that is EVERYWHERE and have learned to tune it all out.
    • by xiando (770382)
      You seem to be ignorant of undercover marketing. It is product placement just like product placement in movies, except that we do it to you in real life. We will take your most popular friends and make them do something on behalf of our advertisers. They can show you their new shirt and tell you how happy they are with it or they can simply invite you to a great party and tell you all about how cool it will be and make you come along without you ever getting even a hint that they are, in fact, part of assem
      • No, in my case what you refer to as 'undercover' marketing wouldnt be effective either.

        What my friends have or like doesnt really factor into my buying habits.

  • Could get personla? For 10's of years now I've been recieving advertising mail that says things like "[myname] you may have won [prize]" and "[myname] has been pre-approved. Personalized advertising hardly seems new.
  • Just remember, they can't force you to buy any of the products.
  • M$ Advertising (Score:2, Informative)

    by mporcheron (897755)
    Well, M$ advertising don't appear personal, im on a gaming website with MSN Search advertising Ski Resorts, i watch discovery and M$ are advertising child at school with outlines of their bodies in white. Only a few ads I see are relevant to what I do, most are complete rubbish about IPods and screensavers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13, 2005 @02:17PM (#13312140)
    It's not Spielberg who invented it, but Philip K. Dick. You can read something about it in its novel
    "Sales Pitch", written in 1953.
  • yahoo (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 13, 2005 @02:18PM (#13312149)
    yahoo is probably further ahead on data collection than anyone. they track every link on the site, the federate all data you associate with your ID, they have a demographic profile on you if you provided it, and they have an massive infrastructure doing analysis and mining on everything they find.
    • The cool thing is that Yahoo charges their advertisers based on that data, and the advertisers waste their bux on adblock users like me.
  • 1. Old pc
    2. Smoothwall GPL
    3. Ad Zapper (in the smoothwall, google martybugs)
    4. Privoxy
    5. TOR
    6. Linux all around.

    Track me bitch...

    I see no ads unless I WANT to see them. On TV, I make frequent use of the mute button.
    I'm about to build a Mythtv box and take FULL control of what I watch as I hear Mythtv busts ads automagically.

  • Well the article seems to be /.ed for the moment, but judging by the blurb it doesn't appear to be anything radically new.

    I'm pretty sure /. reported on something a little more impressive awhile back, and although I can't find the /. link (due to our great search system) I did manage to find the link to the Human Locator website [freeset.ca]. The technology uses cameras to track your position walking down a street or through a mall and then can show ads specifically at you. I think there was also an effort to somehow
  • Bumvertising [bumvertising.com].

    It's good for your company, and it's good for the bums!
  • ok, there have to be some ads or too many useful sites may have to go subscription only, that ThinkGeek ad up there doesn't look that bad.
    I wouldn't mind non flashy ads, includes flash and animated GIFs. The semi-tergeted text only and out of the way Google ads are not that much of an eye sore.
    Ads for something I'm looking for might have the chance of being useful once in a long while. What if browers have a user definable file telling the advertising site the products you're interested in and are looking f
  • How long??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Duncan3 (10537) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @03:31PM (#13312444) Homepage
    How long until the entire American economy is based on people convincing other poeple to buy cheap stuff made elsewhere at a huge markup for the brand that they believe will bring them happiness/money/love/sex?

    Almost everything I buy is the generic, the exact same product made by the same people in the same plant, but at 1/4 the price because a brand isn't printed on it. This way, almost all my money is going to the slaveowners in Asia that made the stuff for 2 cents an hour, instead of an ad agency.
  • From the article:

    Imagine a day when you can text-message a discount coupon to a cell phone user just as she walks past your shop. That day is here.

    Wow, a COUPON!!!!! Goodness me, what glorious technology! Heaven forbid you spend 75 cents on paper and a marker to make a "10% off today!" sign for the window!

    On another note, I'm sure looking forward to walking through the mall and being spammed by 35,000 text messages from Baby Gap, Cinnabon, and Old Navy. Perhaps they'll even have a price war, with
  • by ankhank (756164) * on Saturday August 13, 2005 @03:45PM (#13312489) Journal
    {focused sound beam} "Pssst! You've been glancing at that young woman across the room. She's over 18, so it's OK to ask about her. We know what she likes. Would you like to know what she likes? Nod if it's ok to charge your card. We can get you her phone number. Would you like to have that? Nod if we can charge your card. Would you like to now if she's dating anyone? Nod if it's OK to charge your card. Would you like to see her naked? We have her last airport security scan images. Nod if it's OK to charge your credit card. Our eye tracking security camera system is watching out for what interests you, all the time ....."

  • If the ad companies can get to the point where they ONLY offer me ads for:
    1) Movies I REALLY want to see.
    2) Books I REALLY want to read.
    3) Comics I REALLY want.
    4) Computer hardware I not only WANT, but I can AFFORD.
    5) Food I REALLY want to eat.

    etc., etc.

    THEN that will be really nice.

    In other words, NO MORE FUCKING SPAM FOR CRAP I DO *NOT* WANT!

    What the ad industry needs to do is realize that there is NO SUCH THING AS SELLING! You cannot convince me to buy something you have just because you've let me know y
  • by panurge (573432) on Saturday August 13, 2005 @05:19PM (#13312839)
    The real predictors were surely Pohl and Kornbluth, in their novel The space merchants from the 50s (and yes, the title is a clever pun). I still have a copy. It's wrong about the future - oil and population run out of control much too soon - but (IMFHO) dead right about the unholy alliance of corporations, governments and the advertising industry. It's one of the two books about dysfunctional societies that should be compulsory in the school curriculum, the other one being 1984.

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...