Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Books Media Book Reviews

Making It Personal 130

Posted by timothy from the keeping-it-private dept.
Steve MacLaughlin writes with proof that not everyone with a database wants to send you spam or sell your information to the highest bidder, even if only for the good reason that you'd be loathe to do business with them afterward. "Companies have access to more information about their customers than ever before, and customers aren't exactly jumping for joy. Purchasing habits, medical information, financial reports, favorite music groups, and millions of other bits of personal information are being captured by companies. In Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy, Bruce Kasanoff teaches businesses how to get closer to customers without violating their trust." Read on for the rest of his review.
Making It Personal: How to Profit from Personalization without Invading Privacy
author Bruce Kasanoff
pages 240
publisher Perseus Books
rating 8
reviewer Steve MacLaughlin
ISBN 0738205362
summary Profiting from a database world without destroying everyone's privacy in the process.

But do not be confused. Personalization is not just another way to push more product out the door. Kasanoff clearly explains why personalization is not just a marketing tool, but instead an effective approach for all business relationships. Partners, shareholders, employees, and customers can all benefit from increased personalization. The purpose of implementing one-to-one personalization strategies is to benefit these stakeholders, not just the company. This is a fundamental concept that too many businesses just don't understand.

When customers give out their personal information they are taking a risk. If customers consistently feel as though their privacy is being violated, then it won't be long before they stop using the services. Companies will not be able to regain their trust easily, and worse yet the information they do receive is more likely to be false. This is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. Making It Personal shows businesses how to make personalization a win-win situation for everyone involved.

The reality is that not all personalization "is the result of a massive computer sifting through dozens of databases to automatically deliver a certain type of treatment to a person. Most initiatives start with employees who have a good idea." Personalization starts with remembering someone's address so they don't have to retype it 50 times. Personalization starts when you remember whether someone prefers a window or an aisle seat. Personalization starts when you remember whether someone prefers charts and graphs or cold hard numbers.

Kasanoff explains how just remembering basic information about stakeholders is just the beginning of personalization. The key is to then use that information to "deliver unique benefits" to those stakeholders. That's when personalization has the power to influence behaviors and retain loyalty. But just in case this isn't crystal clear then think of it this way: Using personal information for purposes other than delivering unique benefits is exactly what scares the hell out of both stakeholders and legislators. So knock it off.

Your customers are ready and willing to use personalization, but is your company? The good news is that you already have a lot of information about stakeholders that can be used for personalization. In additional, personalization features are now appearing in software applications from companies like Oracle and Microsoft. What is missing is the "need to make personalization a central part of [your] corporate strategy, as opposed to something that simply requires awareness and sensitivity." That's because personalization says "let us learn better what a customer needs and then do something about it."

Making It Personal explains how to implement meaningful personalization strategies, but the book also covers some potential unintended consequences. While you may be dealing with mountains of information don't forget that it's comprised of individuals. We have all seen the newspaper headlines that resulted from just a few individuals having their privacy violated by companies. Now is the time to put policies and practices in place to avoid tarnishing your reputation with stakeholders.

Bruce Kasanoff does a great job of breaking down personalization into easy to understand terminology and realistic approaches. He shows that it really is possible to balance privacy concerns with profit motives. Making It Personal is worth more than a casual glance because personalization isn't just about getting the local weather forecast when you visit your favorite web site. Personalization is about delivering unique benefits to stakeholders and a means to preserve their loyalty. Violate their privacy and you risk losing them to your competitors forever.

Making It Personal will help you to understand that "personalization is about people, and the things that matter to them most." Kasanoff knows what he's talking about, and so do the numerous business and technology leaders he cites throughout the book. They confront the real issues and the real challenges facing personalization even in its infancy. Making It Personal will prepare you and your company for a world where your customers demand that you get personal. Don't disappoint them.

You can purchase Making it Personal at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the review guidelines first, then use Slashdot's webform.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making It Personal More

Making It Personal

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds interesting, some related info (Score:4, Insightful)

    by f00zbll ( 526151 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:40AM (#2804230)
    There's actually an organization called Personalization.org. They used to have a lot of papers and research available, but lately it's not on their site. Here is a link to a survey [personalization.org] by the organization. In 2000 there were attempts to create a privacy protocol for b2b world, to make sure company A only sees information company b wants them to see.

    I don't know whether that protocol died or not, maybe some one else who reads /. will know.

  • Long-term versus Short-term incentives (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Logic Bomb ( 122875 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:40AM (#2804233)
    I think this boils down to the issue of whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term. If the former, the company will logically be led to the strategy from the book, because the idea will be to create a loyal customer relationship. A short-term get-rich-quick strategy will often lead to the misuse of personal information because it's a way to make a one-time buck. I think we already see this in much of the corporate world. Big serious companies who know we can take our business elsewhere (which doesn't include nice monopolists like Qwest) are far less fragrant violators of our privacy than fly-by-night immature 'net businesses, whose basic revenue model is often dependent upon that misuse.
    • The problem is often that there is no real incentive to companies to protect their consumers, most consumers don't know what is done with that data, and have little way of knowing.

      Furthermore, some companies exist in order to exploit such data, they don't have any credibility to destroy to start with.

    • Re:Long-term versus Short-term incentives (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Big serious companies ... are far less fragrant violators

      Good. I have allergies to most man-made esters and fragrances...

      s/fragrant/flagrant

    • To get personalized service, I don't have to give my information to anyone. They just have to give my computer all of the different options, and let it choose locally which of those options to display to me.

      There's no reason why (at least for internet based services) I can't get all the personalization I want without giving away any information at all. Even better, I don't even have to enter my preferences multiple times. If the companies could get together on a standard for how their client app looks for the personalized info, I can enter (for example) my address once and then I only have to click a button to let a company's client (locally) look at it.

      So, I should go to your website, a client app should automatically download, then I can give it permission to ask info from my local preferences. When a pref doesn't exist, I get prompted (but just once) to enter it. Then prefs are available for all client apps that I give permission.

      The only issue is that they could surreptitiously send info upstream even though they don't need to do so to personalize, but any app you download could do that, and people find out about such things and those companies get slapped down. Also, if the preferences are copyrighted to you, then it would be illegal for the bad companies to take it from you, thus it doesn't propogate on forever.
    • In a perfect world (from the company's perspective), the company convinces you that it's one of the good guys among a pack of bloodthirsty wolves and it makes as much money off your personal information as possible without your knowledge.

      If the company can find that fine line it can retain you as a customer for years to come while making extra money off your information. Why should the company choose between "creating a loyal customer" and "making a one-time buck" when it can have both?

      Welcome to the world of "privacy policies." A marketing team researches its customers' worst fears and creates a document that states it is the company's policy not to do any of those things. Web sites wear these like police badges, and customers feel reassured because they believe the company is bound to adhere to the policy by some government regulations. However, neither you nor the government (nor Trust-E [truste.org] or BBB Online [bbbonline.com] for that matter) have any way of knowing whether the company is following that policy.

    • I don't think that there are any companies with a long-term view. At least not the way I would define it (4-5 years).

      Every company I've worked with defines "long-term" as "next quarter's financial reports" and "short-term" as "tomorrow's opening stock price".

      As an individual I can make decisions based on long-term incentives...go to college for four (or five or seven) years, get a degree...do a crappy entry level job for three years, get real experience...consult for six years, make many dollars, become a sheep farmer...I can make adjustments in my current behavior for a future payoff because I'm still going to be me in 5 or 10 or 20 years, and I'll see the benefit. A company does not see benefits (long-term or short-term) -- the individuals that it consists of do.

      When compensation is tied to stock price^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcompany performance, there is no connection between "long-term good for the company" and "long-term good for me". The days of lifetime employment and solid pensions are over.

      The percentage of people who, today, can say that they realistically expect to work at the same company for 10 years is damn close to zero. Hell, in the IT sector, five years at the same company is uncommon. So I (and you) are going to maximize my (our) immediate gains(s) at the expense of the company's long-term gain.

      If I can get an extra $100K or $1M or $15M this year from bonuses and stock options , I'm going to do it. Screw the long-term corporate impact. I'm not going to be there long-term. Corporations have killed off any sense of traditional corporate loyalty (probably because of executives making bad long-term corporate decisions in order to maximize their short-term individual gains).
    • whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term.

      Since many companies are under the obligation to maximize profits, often in fear of legal suites, etc. Then you can bet that the short term outlook will be selected first.

      This is in fact one of the major reasons for USian corporate greed, that you will be sued by trigger happy lawyers if you do anything else BUT work for maximum profits regardless of the motivation.

    • I have to disagree with the idea of "information for a one time buck". To truly grasp the amount of information collected, and for those companies that do that sort of thing...One need only take a trip over to LexisNexis. Already other groups are using covert and semicovert tactics to compile list of information based on everything from when you order pizza to your political & lobbying preferences. A good deal of this information finds it's way into the LexisNexis data base. Not All, mind you. Some of this information is sold directly to companies who would gleam a benefet out of it. (Such as one company that provides those "Write your legislator from out site" systems). They grep datamine the information passing through it, and can give companies who pay the fee a list of all their enemies/friends who have used the system, along with their full email address, real name, real address, phone number... In at least one case I know about, the company is selling the actually email contents themselfs *(that pass through their system) to any corporation willing to pay the entry fee.

      Your best bet is still to NEVER give out your real name, real contact information on the net unless you absolutely have to (ordering something online). Be extremely wary of any service(s) on the net where their business model is not completely out in the open, and always remember, what they might not be willing to do today, they might tomorrow. Also remember, the companies doing the sleaziest bits will be very guarded with what information they do reveal. You wont find out their business practices without covert action on your part.

  • Personalization? Creepy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:40AM (#2804234) Homepage
    Am I the only one who thinks it's creepy that salescritters would use this sort of personalization tactic (for lack of a better term) in order to increase sales? My personality type (INTP) does not allow me to form personal bonds easily, and this holds true in business and personal situations.

    If I have to deal with someone on the phone, whether it's to follow up on a sales call or to correct an error at the bank, I want it to be as impersonal and as efficient as possible. The more I feel like the salesdroid or CSR is trying to "get to know me", the more irritated and introverted I get, and the more likely I am not to continue using the services.

    I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind; these are the types of people who most value and favour personal interaction with someone while performing some sort of transaction. I, on the other hand, being younger and more tech-savvy than many older folks, want things to be automated and efficient. (I go nuts when people in front of me at the store write checks, especially for smaller purchases. Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people? ;-) )

    Anyway, what I guess I'm trying to say is that I know quite a few people who would not find this technique effective on them at all, and I suppose I'm kinda shocked to see that it might be applied more universally if one were to follow the advice of this book.
    • If I have to deal with someone on the phone, whether it's to follow up on a sales call or to correct an error at the bank, I want it to be as impersonal and as efficient as possible. The more I feel like the salesdroid or CSR is trying to "get to know me", the more irritated and introverted I get, and the more likely I am not to continue using the services.

      So, the data acquisition fase (or learning mode) may be irritating, but once the droid knows you will not buy item x or category y, it will not even present those options to you, and that would be an increase in communications-efficiency. Actually I suspect you are confusing people getting personal with chit-chat and personalization of systems/businesses. However I agree with you on the Creepiness. The possibilities of abuse seem endless.

    • Re:Personalization? Creepy... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Eimi Metamorphoumai ( 18738 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @12:12PM (#2804357) Homepage
      Ideally, one of the pieces of info the salesdrone would get is "This guy doesn't make friends easy; just the facts". If that pops up on the computer screen the second you call, the person on the other end of the line can be fast and efficient in a way that, perhaps, others would consider rude and cold. Then you get what you want, they get what they want (long, slow, talkative, etc), and everyone is happy (except you while you wait on hold for them to finish).
    • For interpersonal interaction (ie between to physical people), I agree with you. When it comes to automated services, I like it.

      I login into Slashdot so I can have specific newsbars on the side and browse through interesting articles. Being able to personalize Slashdot is nice. When I order from a company a second time, I like not having to type in my address again. I do become a bit uneasy if they still have my cc info though.

      Even worse than writing checks though, are those that are so busy having a conversation, they fail to finish ringing up whatever is coming through the register. Gaahh, if I wanted to be your friend, I's ask you out.
      • The better sites I have visited and do business with:

        a) Use SSL the instant any personal information comes into play, such as my name, account number and address.

        b) Ask me if I want to store sensitive financial information such as my credit card number, and honor my request.

        Some personalization I like... Some I don't. I found it very creepy when I was visiting a page I had never been to before, and an Amazon advertisement banner had my name on it. That crossed my personal lines, because it felt as if Amazon had shared my info with others before I even got there. I investigated and found out that wasn't the case, but in business, impressions can be a lot more important than one realizes.
    • I absolutely agree, and I'm an "older people" (over 50). I'm offended by sales 'droids calling me by name, and very much more so when they can't pronounce it. (Are telephone solicitors trained to never pronounce names reasonably? It's always a clue that I don't want the call.)

      I suppose it is a difference in personality. Businesses should tag customer records with "likes to think we know him" vs. "prefers anonymity". But I always wind up in the supermarket checkout line *behind* the customer who wants to chat.
    • I think you are confusing personalization and hard salesmanship.

      When I talk to a CSR with a company I do business with, whether it's my local bank or a supplier for my company, I actually prefer if the person at the other end of the line knows who I am and knows what I have done in the past. It helps to streamline the communications between us, and by knowing why I have called in the past, they can better serve me.

      Of course, no one wants to call a company, only for them to use the opportunity to sell you more stuff, but personalization isn't just about trying to sell you something new everytime you call. It's about building a relationship with you so that they can serve you better and keep your business in the long run.

      Some businesses really want to treat their customers as best they can and look out for the customers' best interests, and personalization helps make that possible. It's good business strategy. I think that's what the MBA-types would call a win-win situation.

    • I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind;
      ...
      I, [...] want things to be automated and efficient. (I go nuts when people in front of me at the store write checks, especially for smaller purchases. Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people? ;-) )
      Perhaps you need to mature somewhat and correspondingly wisen up a bit; you certaintly won't be a young punk all your life, won't you?
      • First of all, InterruptDescriptorT did include the emoticon for "wink, J/K" so you really can't get on him or her about that.

        Second, the complaint is quite valid, but maybe not clear. I assume InterruptDescriptorT was referring to those who write checks and decide that the time to start getting out the checkbook is about ten seconds after the cashier announces the total - as if the person just realized that he or she had to actually pay for the groceries. These are the same people who don't know what day it is and instead of thinking, "Well it's around January 8 or so. I'll just write down January 8 or January 9," instead decide to dig through her (yes, I am referring to women only) purse and try to find a calendar. That's what takes all the time. Well, that and the fact that these people are in the "12 items or less" lane.

        Sorry for the rant. This just happened to me last time I was at the market. And I am not a young punk.

        Back on topic, I absolutely do not like CSR people calling me by my first name. I'll make an exception if I am always talking to the same person about the same problem. At least that way, I get the idea that they remember me and I don't have to explain everything all over again.

    • Your post does not sound efficient though.
    • > I have this weird feeling that a lot of sales/CSR tactics are designed with "older" people in mind; these are the types of people who most value and favour personal interaction with someone while performing some sort of transaction.

      "Have a nice day!"
      "Yeah yeah.... Will ya gimme my fuckin change, please?"
      - George Carlin

      (Seriously, I've noticed this too. Whenever I get a phone call - if I haven't already detected the brief gap caused by the predictive dialer - I respond to any cheery, perky voice that uses my full name with "Place this number on your do-not-call list". I've never had a false positive yet, though I have had a few surprised telemarketers who asked me how I knew.)

    • Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people?

      Yeah, my wife had all the money stolen from her account like that. I suggest a credit card or a check. If you say something rude to my wife while she writes a check, she'll kick you in the balls. There you go, two caveats for the price of one.

      Back to topic, you are right. I hate it when some clerk thinks they know me because they've wasted my time reading what their database thinks about me. Moreover, the whole point of the book seems to be how to be a creep without getting caught. It's not going to work, especially with people filling up the databases with inccorect information. Fight the droids, lie to them when they waste your time.

    • Have you heard of the ATM and debit cards yet, people? ;-) )

      Most debit cards incur a per transaction service fee (I have no interest in making the bank richer).
      And of course the transaction data is recorded.
    • 'Am I the only one who thinks it's creepy that salescritters would use this sort of personalization tactic (for lack of a better term) in order to increase sales? '

      I agree, the entire thing is creepy. To me, this so-called "personalization" trend seems to be only skin-deep and completely self-serving.

      Just the other day, I was at an hour long sales presentation where the sales woman simply refused to jot down any of our suggestions for the product. "That wasn't her job." She said. "That's Marketing." Her idea of personalization was probably, "Sir, may I call you by your first name." Of course, this would have been fine if anyone else could have bought her product, but that wasn't the case, we were probably the only one who could buy it from her.

      Anyway, how many of us are typing less as a result of personalization? I'm certainly not, if anything, I am actually typing more because of it. When I call my credit card company, I now have to give my credit card number twice now. I wonder why? And when I am browsing the Internet, it seems many sites actually want to "personalize" my experience before I am even allowed to see the content. Again, why are they doing this?

      Skin-deep personalization is so easy, it may be the answer to every Marketer's wet dream, but it is certainly not the answer to mine.

      On a side-note: Has anyone ever thought of using a Wiki-like application to respond to their costumers wants and desires? (A Wiki is a collaborative web site that lets any visitor add content, edit content, or simply change its design) I am asking this because this is currently one of the projects I am working on [seedwiki.com], and I would welcome any feedback, whether good or bad.

      Stephan

  • This is true (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gmack ( 197796 ) <gmack@innerfiCHEETAHre.net minus cat> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:43AM (#2804245) Homepage Journal
    I really do prefer working with buisness that treat me as something other than a number. Whre I used to work there was a mass of food chains in the food area it's all boring with the exception of this older Lebonese guy who knows exactly what I want to eat and how I like it prepared. Not bad for a place I only eat at twice a week.

    OTH I *hate* buisnesses who demand all sorts of information they don't even need. How does knowing my birthday and income level let them give me better service?

    More people need to take this guy's advice.

    • OTH I *hate* buisnesses who demand all sorts of information they don't even need. How does knowing my birthday and income level let them give me better service?

      AOL. When I signed up for cell phone subscription years ago with the Norwegian telecom Netcom [netcom.no], one of the nice features of the provider I chose was that they provided an e-mail address for each number, and also the ability to send SMS to e-mail. Obviously, this may serve as an SMSInternet gateway, and I soon hacked up a few scripts that allowed me to check e-mail from my ordinary phone, even surf the web, but that didn't work too well.

      No day, the provider decided that this was too dangerous for me, because people could spam me, and people could harass me by sending me anonymous e-mail that was hard to trace, so they decided to close the service. I flamingly told them that thanks, I can look after myself, but I didn't quit simply because I don't have time to check for a new provider. I will soon.

      Anyway, they kept it open for some time, but then they shut it down. Now, they just reopened it, but you had to register specifically for this to use it. However, they required you to write up a very detailed form with lots of personal information. Also, they required that you allowed them to do a credit check.

      I don't know what that's like elsewhere, or what information you can obtain, but a credit check in Norway is something you do against a central database, and they can only perform a credit check with your written consent, and the registry has to send exactly the same information back to you as they send to the people requesting the check.

      Normally, this is only done by banks if you apply for a big loan, or something. I have never seen anything like this before: They actually wanted me to allow them to do a credit check on me to use a service that costs about nothing to run.

      I told them to get lost, but it doesn't seem to have made any impression. Too bad, because I really liked the service they provided. I guess it has to be some marketdroid with a really tight strangulation device around his neck.

  • Just like old times (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tri0de ( 182282 ) <dpreynld@pacbell.net> on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:44AM (#2804252) Journal
    If one accepts the proposition that the best use of a computer is as a 'tool for the mind' or an extension of the brain, then it seems that optimal use of this technology is really just an updating of having the owner of the corner bookstore remember that you are, say, a Terry Pratchett fan and letting you know that a new book of his is out, or the local butcher letting you know they got a fresh slab of Mortadella ...

    IMHO it does come down to trust. Once I trust your integrity, the rest is just details, if I don't trust your integrity then ANY information you have about me is too much.
    • No- this is not just like old times.

      IMHO it does come down to trust. Once I trust your integrity, the rest is just details

      Agreed. So what is different about the corner bookstore and local butcher that BigMegacorp doesn't have? Is is {gasp} the fact that BigMegacorp only sees you as a walking wallet, whereas the hole-in-the-wall stores rely on customer loyalty to garner sales?

      'Faking' that intimite relationship that comes after you've gained my trust will just scare me away faster. After all, if I go to a mega-chain PC dealer and ask "I'm thinking of getting a new computer and putting Linux on it, what do you know about compatability with hardware?" they'll give you a blank stare. I did that at the hole-in-the-wall store not two blocks from my apartment and the guy said "Well there's a new sound card driver out you'll have to download but other than that I've not heard any complaints".

      This sort of data mining won't ever replace real customer srevice.

  • Personalization won't work until Spam is dead... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:46AM (#2804260)
    I very firmly beleive this.

    I *want* sites to remember who I am and tailor their content to suit my needs and want, but for every company who goes under and sells a database to a data-mining company or a spamco, I grow a little more uncomfortable. I just don't feel comfortable giving information that personally identifies me and allows them to track me when I know that the only thing that stands between that information and the wolves is that given dot-com's bottom line.

    Let's be honest here... Who expected any of the dot-coms to fail? Even VA-Linux is in chapter 11, aren't they? If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction? I hope this never happens, but it's a possibility.

    Until spamming is a thing of the past and data-mining is illegal or so uncommon that nobody does it any more, then personalization just won't work in a big way.

    • Data protection acts protect many Europeans (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SomethingOrOther ( 521702 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:54AM (#2804286) Homepage

      If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction?

      But any company purchasing this information will be unable to use it to trade in most European countries.

      eg. The UK data protection act says that personal data must be "lawfuly and fairly obtained"

      To use personal details bought at an asset aution (therefore without the individuals consent) would be very illegal. They would not be allowed to use that information to trade in the UK
      If memory serves, there have been articles on /. previously about this

      Why don't US'ians get together and fight for a law like this?

      • I absolutely am not defending spammers, but what is "unlawful" or "unfair" about buying personal information in a database as an asset from a liquidated company?

        • what is "unlawful" or "unfair" about buying personal information in a database as an asset from a liquidated company

          The UK Data Protection act 1984 (1998) states that personal data MUST be "fairly" obtained.

          Aquiring (eg) your personal data,
          a) via a third party (liqudator), without your express permision,
          b) for use other than its origional, stated intetion (eg, It's no longer used for aiding /. but for mailing you p0rn)
          would almost cerainly be illegal (And rightly so).

          If you gave permission on the other hand....

          • You do not appear to be claiming that a & b above are part of the statute. If they are not, I don't see how you can claim they qualify under the statute.

            I agree that those things are wrong, but no one yet has cited the where the statute defines "fairly". Quite honestly I would expect such a statute to define "fairly" in a way that was friendly to business, aka allows a and to some extent b (assuming that the original owner of the data reserved the right to send you email of "offers", then the secondary owner would get that as well, whether the offers were the same type or not).

      • But any company purchasing this information will be unable to use it to trade in most European countries.

        eg. The UK data protection act says that personal data must be "lawfuly and fairly obtained"

        I don't know if there are any court rulings on this, but I don't see that data bought at auction necessarily falls afoul of this. If the company has bought a section of the business at auction (not _just_ a list of addresses), then it has most probably bought an interest in the customers, in the eyes of the law. The existence of the data and the purposes for which it was to be used would have to be filed with the data protection registrar.

        Having said that, the data protection acts of most European states probably do deterthe worst kinds of abuse that may be carried out. I suspect that an outside-Europe business could sell profiling services to European businesses, however. There's nearly always a loophole where boundaries are concerned.

    • Not true (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kryzx ( 178628 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @12:06PM (#2804337) Homepage Journal
      Until spamming is a thing of the past and data-mining is illegal or so uncommon that nobody does it any more, then personalization just won't work in a big way.

      You are taking a limited view of personalization, really just as it applies to websites, but it's much bigger than that. You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.

      All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust. This extends to websites, too, but in that case there is much less incentive for people to establish trust relationships. Of course there are many different levels of trust. I'm not too worried about secrets like "prefers /. with no icons" leaking out.

      • All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information


        I have reasonable and fairly easy legal alternativie when dealing with companies who divulge my personal information. If a company start distributing my personal information, such as a phone number or mailing address, then any companies who try to make use of that address are required by law to delete my entries if I contact them. If a telephone solicitor calls me and I demand they take me off their call list... they *have* to delete me, or risk civil or criminal consequences.

        The same is simply not true for non-brick and mortar businesses, and there is nothing stopping them from trading and/or selling databases for 'data-mining' purposes: Ie: Company 'A' has a database saying that you bought subscriptions to porn websites, and billed it to a credit card. Then Company 'B' has a record of your name, credit card, and the billing address, which is a P.O. box. Company 'C' has a Database with your name, phone number, and real address. A simple SQL join on those two databases allows Company 'D' to start telemarketing explicit telephone chat service to your phone number and sending pornographic junk-mail ads to your home mail box, causing your parents/wife/gay boyfriend to start wondering what the hell is going on. Heaven forbid that your job depended on being 'morally upstanding', (such as a school teacher, etc...) and the knowledge that you get porn ads at your home started to get around.

        This is an extreme example, but it shows how insidious this stuff really can be. Now this same example can be applied to brick and mortar businesses, but I don't like giving information to them, either, just for this reason.
        • Agreed. Physical brick and mortar businesses usually have to PHYSICALLY extract your personal info. You have to fill out a form, or get some stupid plastic buyers card. And you usually have the choice of NOT participating. Unfortunately the bar is significantly lower for online businesses. It's no longer an interaction directly between YOU and THEM...it's an interaction between your software and their software, and there is one big fat grey line as far as the trustworthiness of software, especially non-open-source software, which allows plenty of room for easy exploitation.
      • > You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.
        >
        > All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust.

        Hmm. There must be some strange organization named "IRS" of which I've been previously unaware.

      • You already have trust relationships with many companies and organizations: your employer, your bank, your credit card company, your lawyer, cpa, realtor, insurance agent, the IRS, etc. The list is long.

        All of these people/companies/whatever have some of your sensitive personal information. You trust them with it. It's in their best interest to use it to serve you better, in ways that do not annoy you, or betray your trust.

        I don't trust my credit card company, the IRS and a long list of others who have forced me to give them information. When they use that information to annoy me, there is nothing I can do about it. When they give it to others to anoy me, I get really pissed about it. How do I know? They all make little mistakes, like my middle initial as J instead of H. J is for junk.

    • For most sites, I put in false information and put "privacy@site.com" as the email address. The only site that I have real info on is slashdot. Why? Because I trust slashdot to not use my information for nefarious means.

      If a site forces me to give them information just so I can download a demo, I put in false info and will probably pirate a serial. The first rule of business is to keep your customers happy, forcing them to give up personal info just to try out your product is NOT the way to do that...

      I *want* sites to remember "me" also, but "me" should be a simple cookie with a username and encrypted password, not my full bio.
    • No, VA is not in Chapter 11, in fact VA has hardly any debt and still has cash in the bank. As for Slashdot, it's best revenue stream has been advertising and large ad clients such as IBM will not buy ad space here unless we post a network privacy policy [osdn.com]

    • An article on C|Net [cnet.com] just reported DoubleClick doesn't find personalized ad profiles to be profitable:

      • The New York-based company jettisoned its "intelligent" targeting service effective Dec. 31, a company representative confirmed Tuesday. Launched in 2000, the product allowed marketers to target ads based on a database of some 100 million profiles. The technology tracked people online anonymously and then served ads based on personal tastes.
      The overhead of storing the data appears to outweigh the advertisers' demand for such data.
    • Let's be honest here... Who expected any of the dot-coms to fail?

      Are you kidding? How could anyone have expected them not to fail? American economic dogma notwithstanding, the world is finite, the amount of resources that could be pumped into ill-conceived, mismanaged, overhyped ventures is finite; it was only a matter of time before the bubble burst and most everyone went under.

    • If they do go under, won't Slashdot's entire database full of opinions, email addresses, etc, be up for grab at the asset auction?

      Weeeellll, go down and rea the bottom where it says: "Comments are owned by the Poster." If VA wants to sell this database, then they will have to negotiate royalty payments directly with me, and I charge a $4.3 million dollar royalty fee per comment per view.
    • Who expected any of the dot-coms to fail?

      Plenty of us who weren't idiots.

      What was not expected was that the dot-com failures would so thoroughly poison the technology marketplace that even producers of real, physical product would have difficulty making sales and getting venture capital funding.

  • Personalization Invades Privacy (Score:5, Informative)

    by BuckMulligan ( 255942 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @11:55AM (#2804288)
    This feel-good commentary on personalization adds nothing to the debate. The fact of the matter is that companies are collecting information for one purpose and using it for other, unrelated purposes.

    The databases are immense, and go far beyond what music groups you like. Companies such as Experian trade information on your illnesses! They even have an incontinence database! This information is sold for as little as $65 per million names.

    This information is available to government as well. In some cases, businesses just hand over the data. In others, businesses sell the information (Check out EPIC's web page on public records profilers: http://www.epic.org/privacy/publicrecords/ [epic.org]). Government can also just subpoena the records.

    Companies that care about privacy will not engage in personalization. They will provide services where possible without collecting information unnecessarily. They will also allow "Customization," the practice of letting the customer decide what features will be provided. Personalization does the opposite--it's the practice of saying "I know what the customer wants." Let the customer decide!

  • Are we losing something here? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mrroot ( 543673 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @12:00PM (#2804315)
    All this personalization is pretty cool, it's nifty how Amazon.com knows what kind of books I like to read ahead of time and display them on a page customized to have the greatest potential of selling me something.

    Unfortunately, while being convenient and helpful, it also is limiting and boring because I no longer need to navigate through their site or just browse for something new. How will I ever stumble upon that book on gardening when my personalized page is chock full of software development books and video games.

    In my opinion, targeted selling, personalization, whatever you want to call it, causes people to become less aware of other things that are out there.

    My point is some things are useful to be personalized and targeted toward the individual's habits, but others are not.
    • Another problem with Amazon is let's say you buy one CD of rap or Michael Bolton or whatever as a Christmas gift. Now all their musical suggestions will be full of annoying music.
      • Well, go to Amazon.com's page. It'll say, "Welcome, Homer. We have recommendations for you." Click on recommendations.

        On your recommendations page, you'll see a link at the top of the right hand column, says: "Improve your Recommendations". Click it.

        Sign in. Click continue. Uncheck the stuff that you bought with the field: "Use to Make Recommendations."

        Save.

        There you go. You don't have to deal with Mr. Boltan, and I don't have more WWII books recommended just because I bought my step-dad "Band Of Brothers."

    • Another response to this kind of thing;
      What if the personalization reaches a level of sophistication where the advertiser can identify an individual who is very discriminating in what he or she chooses to buy. Not only might they be able to tell that you're very discriminating, but they can learn exactly HOW you discriminate between "good" products and "bad" ones. And thus, they can learn how to mislead you or deny you the information you require to make such discriminating choices.

      Actually, this is already in effect, but it's not targeted to individuals yet. Some people have better skills at sniffing out bad deals than others. Once the ad industry learns better "stealth" techniques, it will be easier for them to increase sales by screwing people.
      • I don't see how personalization could be used to screw the dealhunters.

        When looking for a good deal, you need only a few basic pieces of information, some of which simply can't be "personalized" out the equation without losing a sale completely:

        1. Price: This is vital information. Granted, sometimes companies will try to hide the price, but then this works against them in my view. (e.g. "Call for pricing!" is an instant deal-breaker in my book--I'll go elsewhere.) Oh, and you can be sure that the first company to try dynamic pricing will get bitch slapped.
        2. Specs: Again, this is vital. If I'm looking to get a deal on a new harddrive, an EvilCompany(tm) simply can't hide or misrepresent vital info (size,rpm,interface,etc) from a discriminating buyer without losing the sale completely.
        3. Reviews: Real human feedback about some product/service is worth a million sales pitches. No company can filter outside sources like friends, magazines, Google, epinions, etc. And most people can spot a "personalized" shill a mile away.
        4. Vendor slimyness: I buy books at fatbrain.com or bn.com because Amazon is slimier. No amount of personalization can change Amazon's policy (thought they could make the fineprint fontsize smaller :)

        I don't know what I would do without price comparison search engines... and if an advertiser somehow knew I used such tools, they'd be better off showing me the real deals rather than trying to show me the overpriced crap that Mr. Ignorant eats up.

        --

      • Slimey Salesman: "May I help you?"
        Me: "I'm just looking."
        Slimey looks up my personal info, find out I read /. "May I interest you in Product XYZ? 4 out of 5 geeks recomend it"
        Me: Eyes light up. "Really! Err, I mean I might be interested, but I'll have to research your product first"
        Slimey: "Windoze users hate it"
        Me: "Really! I don't need to research! I trust you! I'll buy whatever you say!"
    • I recently bought a numebr of children's books at amazon. For aaaaaaages afterwards, all of amazon's targeted ads for me were of childrens books.

      Nowadays I delete amazon's cookies and go anonymous until I want to buy something.

      I think personalization should provide a "tabula rasa" option. Failing that, a "slap-upside-the-head" option that occasionally presents something way outside your normal range of interest.
  • One of the things that's always irked me is the concept that these types know so much about me. If they know me so well, why can't they seem to figure out that I immediately throw away all fliers, advertisements, free product offers, and trial subscriptions. I instantly delete any spam that makes it throught the gaunlet of my filters. And most important of all, I firmly and completely believe that it should be legal to kill telemarketers.

  • Personalization should be optional (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Graff ( 532189 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @12:10PM (#2804348)
    I have no problem with sites offering personalization options, but they are not for me. I think that most sites would be best served in offering the registration and benefits to those who want it, but also remaining fully open to those who do not.

    Slashdot is a perfect example of this. If you don't want to register you can work the site perfectly fine and even post as anonymous (though you post as a lower caste). This is great for me, since I always toss my cookies I would have to re-register every single time I visited the site if I couldn't browse anonymously. Now the only time I log-in is when I want to post, since the benefits of posting when logged-in are worth it in my mind.

    Honestly, I only know of one good reason for requiring a registration in order to use a site and that is when a site contains sensitive data which is only for certain people's use. Of course you have to lock it down and verify users then. Other than that I think sites are just trying to collect mailing lists on people. Personally I always give them totally false information, maybe if their mailing lists turn out to be full of crap they will get the point and stop the unsociable behavior.
  • THere is nothing more satisfying than to tell a client that at any given time 30% of the names and addresses in a database are invalid. The internet has exposed itself to be "mostly useless" and the data that companies collect is also mostly useless. Millions and millions of rows of data so detailed that it is meaningless. Companies are also collecting data that they know they can't use because it is illegal (at least for now) and for some unknow reason people want three years of history of the numbers of a chrome nut in a bin at hourly intervals on a manufacturing line. Golgafrinchins! I was told once that in a set of millions the improbable becomes probable and that any thing can happen. We have to temper ourselves in personalization and think in terms of patterns and sets with data. This becomes more accurate as databases become larger and larger. I once found Barney Rubble with an address of 123 Mockingbird Lane, Bedrock with valid bank accounts in a set of 3 million bank customers. I'm sure they mailed statements and offers to him.
    • It might not all be useless data. Amazon seems to have a fair system in place that makes good recommendations. Granted it's not perfect, but their personalization has about a 30% hit rate for things I really want, though the last year most of the things it recommends I already own (bought some place else). Another 30% get me to look at the product and consider buying in the future if I have cash to blow. The last 40% ranges from annoying to "oh I never thought of that".

      As annoying as personalization can be, it is also useful when used judiciously.

  • These are the types of ideas that should be codified into laws (or regulations). Or at least a rather precise codification of the simple tenents contained theirin. I think it would go a long way to help tame the "Wild Internet". Something that is mostly being left up to the business community so far.
  • I have an idea (that is probably out there somewhere).

    How would I setup a spam blackhole machine that could be used as a community service?
    It would filter all email to /dev/null.
    Then anyone could use that domain in their email address to eliminate spam from their personal account.

    I use a debunked domain when asked for an email address.

    What would I need to do?
    Is this a good idea?
  • I'm sure there are people who may enjoy having marketing "customized" for them. I, however, am not one of them.

    Shouldn't there be something in the system that allows for an "opt out" of any and all information gathering? (Ideally, I'd rather see an "opt in"). As loath I am to additional legislation, I wouldn't mind seing something along these lines.

    -jhon
  • Personalization can be very, very useful, or it can be very, very annoying. I think it depends on whether it saves or costs time, whether it adds utility or just noise, and whether it seems creepy or helpful.

    Time: It saves time for the airline agent to have your frequent flier number up and know about upcoming itineraries and available upgrades. It wastes time for the Safeway guy to read your receipt before giving it to you and say "Thank you Mr. So-and-so."

    Utility: Amazon recommendations can be quite relevant, and are available when you want. Slashdot friend/foe system lets you see comments from people you know to be funny or informative. Personalized solicitation letters from a zillion charities who all buy the Unicef list are not of any value.

    Creepy or not: Somehow automatic recognition of my name and credit card number from Caller ID gives me the creeps. What if someone else were using the phone and wanted to make changes to the account? Doesn't make me feel safe, even though it's a time saver. OTOH it's helpful for a travel agent to already know my credit card and FF numbers.

    A lot of this is subjective. Paying attention to what gives customers a better experience is what marketers are ultimately responsible for; maybe this book will help, though talk of "stakeholders" suggests not (too mushy).

    • We think alike. Thank you for saving me the time of writing out the exact same thing. I would add that Safeway and RadioShack and others that think personalization are a good thing are always going to say, "Of course our personalization is important. We're Safeway, by God!" The amount of negative customer feedback will not change the minds of the brainless HR department.

      Oh, and does Blockbuster have to announce the name of every movie I rent in such a loud voice while I am checking out? It's bad enough that they scream "Hello!!!" every time I enter the store.

    • Slashdot friend/foe system lets you see comments from people you know to be funny or informative

      OK, I admit it. I'm clueless. Is there a way to manage friends/foes without clicking on the little gray pearl?

  • A small but good example of personalisation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @01:17PM (#2804736)
    I fly with British Airways. When I go alone, I like to take a window seat. When I go with the girlfriend, she prefers the window seat and because I'm nice like that, I let her have it.

    BA's computer system understands this and whenever I book with them they always try and get me a window seat. And when I book for two people then they get two next to each other with one being a window seat.

    Yes its a small example. But its a good one. Personalisation and its bigger brother CRM (Customer Relationship Management) means that people feel that they have a personal relationship with a company and are not just some number in a database.

    • But its a good one. Personalisation and its bigger brother CRM(Customer Relationship Management) means that people feel that they have a personal relationship with a company and are not just some number in a database.

      At least until you read how they think about it. Until you understand that those companies are the same that calculate the customer lifetime value -- your customer lifetime value. Do you understand that they might consider you worthless some day? They aren't interested in you. They are interested in your money.

      • "They aren't interested in you. They are interested in your money."

        I'm not the original poster, but this does not shock me one bit. Of course they are interested in my money. British Airways isn't a social club, it's a business.

        But to keep getting their money they have to keep their customers happy. Keeping customers as happy as possible is the duty of every successful business (though lots of them seem to forget that.) Enlightened self-interest is a very strong incentive to behave in ways that don't offend your source of income.
        • "Enlightened self-interest is a very strong incentive to behave in ways that don't offend your source of income."

          I used to think that, until I realized that 99% of businesses were NOT enlightened! Either they're too stupid to realize that they're alienating customers, or they don't care cause the decision makers have already got their $$$,$$$!
        • But to keep getting their money they have to keep their customers happy.

          Well, I prefer to choose myself who's going to make me happy, and there aren't many whom I allow to do so. People I have a business relationship with might well be among them -- as long as they are people. My local bakery could make me happy by remembering my preferences. British Airways can't, and if they try, it will be used against them.

    • Companies having a database of all your preferences may make life a little easier sometimes, but I personally prefer customization to personalization. As long as I can pick the seat I want, I don't particularly mind the additional hassle of doing it each time I make a reservation. One airline (I can't remember which) had a diagram of the plane on their online reservations page. All open seats were the same color, and I was able to click the exact seat I wanted. This is not an ability any degree of personalization can provide. Personization pickes up tendancies, but not specific preferences. Sure, let me save my preferences if I want to, but I always want the right to decide who can keeping a database on me. If I don't give permission to save preferences, I don't want you to have them. And that includes seating preferences on the airplane.
    • Back when I used to do lots of business travel, I found this extremely helpful. If I got an aisle seat and a vegetarian meal, I knew they had my frequent flyer number in the registration, whereas if I got a window seat and no veg. meal, I knew there was a high chance that corporate travel had screwed up again, and I should give the airline my frequent flyer number and start haggling with Travel and Amex to make sure they weren't charging my flight to some *other* w.stewart in the company, who would probably soon be wondering who'd flown to Australia on his credit card :-)
  • SPAM is actually about anti-personalization. It's about bombing millions of e-mail addresses because 1/2 of 1 percent *might* be interested. Take a look at what's become the overwhelming percentage of SPAM over the past few months--advertisements for p0rn, spamming services and spamming databases. Guess what perks up the most interest--gets the most response from the LCD.

    Personalization takes work--personalization of SPAM *might* result in a bigger payoff for the spammer but that would *definitely* require time and money. If spammers even utilized the most basic aspects of personalization, we wouldn't all be getting spammed to death with useless and [big-5] e-mails. Our autoresponder (for a faq) wouldn't be getting ads for boob jobs and viagra every day ... poor server, what could it do with either? ;)
    • The most effective way to make money fast by spamming, other than credit card fraud (:-), is to take the lists of suckers who have responded to spam and sell them to other spammers.


      But of course most of the business is non-personalized, such as the lists for 9 billion validated email addresses. It would be nice if they at least ran some basic coordination, so I wouldn't be getting ads for both penis enlargement AND breast enlargement though :-)

  • P3P protocol [thestandard.com] article from last June, but I haven't seen any more publicity about companies launching products with it. It's good the industry is starting to recognize privacy as an important issue, but even third party companies like Truste can't do much when a company goes bankrupt and sells their database.

    People need to stay vigilant about privacy and balance it with convienance. Right now few people would cry over the loss of personalization, but that might change in 80 years. There's still a lot of work needed to build a solid privacy framework using a standard protocol. This way we it will be easier for third party trust companies and consumer groups to perform audits.

    Of course companies that don't use it will still abuse their position and take advantage of user data.

  • Here's what I want in personalization (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday January 08, 2002 @01:44PM (#2804922) Homepage
    (Washington, April 2003)
    U.S. Postal Service announces Recycle Direct.

    The USPS today introduced their new Recycle Direct service, which allows mail recipients to redirect unwanted mail directly to a recycling center. While all first-class mail will still be delivered, customers can now choose whether to receive third-class bulk mail in each of the following categories:

    • Newspaper-format flyers not mailed in envelopes.
    • All material addressed to "occupant"
    • Personally addressed material mailed at commercial third-class rates.
    • Personally addresed material mailed at non-profit third class rates.

    The postal customer's preferences will be checked during automated mail sorting, and the rejected mail will be shipped in bulk to paper recycling plants for pulping. Revenue from the recycled paper will pay for the program.

    All residential mail recipients will receive a postcard announcing the program, with checkboxes to indicate which categories of mail they wish to accept. Sending back this card will inform the USPS of the recipient's mail preferences. Mail recipients' preferences will be stored by the USPS in the National Change of Address database [usps.com]. Sorting equipment has been using this database for years to automatically redirect mail after changes of address. The new preference system thus fits into existing mail processing.

    Bulk mailers will be able to cleanse their mailing lists using the existing USPS service for deleting undeliverable addresses from mailing lists. [usps.gov] Use of this service by bulk mailers is optional, but failure to use it will result in bulk discards at the originating postal facility.

    Representatives of the postal union lauded the program. "We're tired of delivering stuff people don't want. The FedEx and UPS people don't have to do that, and so they don't get the hostility we do.", one said.

    • Great! I wonder if I could convince them to do the same to all
      those envelopes with "BILL" on them, at least I'd have a decent excuse for not paying on time.
    • I can't wait to have the mailman loose my important papers in my neighbor's junk mail for me. It's one thing when my papers arrive at my neighbor's house. It will be another when they get recycled.

      Why won't they just NOT TAKE MONEY FOR TRASH TO BEGIN WITH? Junk mail has helped make the US post unusable and in the long run is a huge waste of public resources. It has tarnished their image, wrecked their efficiency, and made their service into a burden. This is just a measure to squeeze more money from their bulk mailers. If we are lucky it will backfire and eliminate bulk mail.

      • The Post Office is a business just like any other. (The fact that it is owned by the government doesn't change this: It still aims to make money, and sometimes succeeds.) It wants everyone to send as much mail as possible, so that it gets more revenue.

        This is why it accepts junk mail, and would never institute a program such as the one described: Everyone would register, the junk mailers would stop sending them mail, and post office would lose money.

  • Personal Smersonal. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What part of 'No' don't they understand.

    I do NOT want people I do business with to have any personal information that isn't necessary for me to complete the transaction.

    I actually had a Radio Shack cashier tell me he couldn't sell me a cable because I refused to give him my phone numnber. I haven't darkened their doors since.

    I find Amazon's recommendations useless since they base it on books I have bought as gifts for other people.

    There is no benefit to me for the use for my personal information. I can find my own books, I can make my own decisions. I resent and boycott any business that doesn't respect my privacy. That includes asking for my zip code at the check out.
    • I actually had a Radio Shack cashier tell me he couldn't sell me a cable because I refused to give him my phone numnber. I haven't darkened their doors since.

      You should have given him a 976 pr0n number!
  • I try and do my part to make their data as worthless as possible (at least the data they get from me). Both of the big grocery stores in the area started using those god-damn "club" cards. {Pssst...these onlt entitle you to the sale price that they used to give you all the time before thier damned "club was around!} I have a whole wallet full of these things, all with made up names and addresses and other personal info. I'll use each one about 10 times then pitch it in the trash when I clean out my car interior. In fact, on one card I just celebrated my 99th birthday! If you ask the nosey puds at radio shack, they think my home phone number is actually the phone number for the local pizza shop.

  • Nonsense. This book is nothing more than shelf decoration for marketdroids, a spammer's version of Harvey Mackay's meaningless claptrap. Allow me to translate:

    "...getting closer to customers without violating their trust." Impossible. Getting closer to me is finding out more about me. It's creepy, it violates my privacy and therefore violates trust, QED. People who follow this advice will still be mailing Grandma coupons for coffins.

    "How To Profit From Personalization." This translates directly into, "How to still use your expensive databases to target customers and maybe with any luck get less grief from it." Profit is mentioned up-front: No conscience is implied.

    "Making It Personal shows businesses how to make personalization a win-win situation for everyone involved." The funniest part of the review, hands down. "Win-Win" is a meaningless catchphrase used by the kinds of people who say "touch base" when they mean "talk with". Also the funniest part of the review - they're using a spam catchphrase to sell a spam book to spammers. Poetic.

    "In additional, personalization features are now appearing in software applications from companies like Oracle and Microsoft." This needs no discussion, but it's worth repeating.

    "Making It Personal will prepare you and your company for a world where your customers demand that you get personal." Utter nonsense, the proof of which lies in the fact that there's a market for this book. If people were OK with Big Business knowing personal detail, you could make it Really Personal. But they're not - so you need this book to learn how to sugar-coat privacy invasion. Hardly something the public is demanding, right?

    Weaselmancer

  • You can give me@privacy.net to those companies who insist you supply one.

    If email is sent to that address, it sends them an automatic message that says:

    "This is an autoresponse from me@privacy.net.
    The user who provided this address did not want you to have his/her e-mail address in an effort to try to prevent receiving unwanted e-mail and/or keep their identity private.
    Businesses: The person who provided you with this e-mail address did not perceive value in receiving your e-mail and/or did not want to provide you with their identity. The person did not "opt-in" to your e-mail and/or did not subscribe to your mailing list. If this address is "subscribed" to a mailing list then you have not taken steps to verify subscribers to the list. Please remove me@privacy.net from your list. You may wish to consider concentrating on improving the value of your offers so consumers will request to receive them rather than taking steps to avoid receiving your e-mail.
    http://privacy.net"

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close