If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Retailers using facial recognition to target sales. "If you are an angry man of 30, and it is Friday evening, it may offer you a bottle of whiskey," says woman who is unclear on what could possibly go wrong   (nytimes.com) divider line 113
    More: Scary, Family Dollar, emerging technologies, Benetton  
•       •       •

4277 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2013 at 4:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



113 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 01:10:00 AM

iron de havilland: Bandito King: iron de havilland: DubtodaIll: I think it's really sick to delve in to human behavior in order to figure out how to extract more money from the human behaving.

Why do you hate capitalism?

/Free markets!
//Hurr durr, etc.

Because it's a predatory and adversarial ideology, predicated on frequently artificial scarcity?

Why do you not hate capitalism? You like shiat rolling downhill?

I don't like capitalism, but, realistically, I get money paid into my bank account by the running dogs who employ me.

And the only option for socialist voting in my country is swirling the drain at the moment. The Labour party, founded by the working class to protect the rights of the common man continues its rightward lurch in its appeal to readers of The Sun.

WTF.


England? A friend of mine just permanently left your country in favor of backpacking in SE Asia forever with breaks at a sheep ranch in New Zealand for money. Maybe you should consider it.
 
2013-07-16 03:35:51 AM
Quantum Apostrophe:

Hey, I read that.  But I was thinking more along the lines of what  Bung_Howdy was thinking.
 
2013-07-16 05:37:22 AM

Bandito King: iron de havilland: DubtodaIll: I think it's really sick to delve in to human behavior in order to figure out how to extract more money from the human behaving.

Why do you hate capitalism?

/Free markets!
//Hurr durr, etc.

Because it's a predatory and adversarial ideology, predicated on frequently artificial scarcity?

Why do you not hate capitalism? You like shiat rolling downhill?


I wrote what turned into a long treatise on capitalism and socialism, but this is Fark, so I'll distil it down to the salient facts.

Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad.
 
2013-07-16 06:54:14 AM
But I'm angry now!
 
2013-07-16 07:52:22 AM
So, how long before we have Mass Effect Citadel-style personal ads in stores?
 
2013-07-16 02:15:31 PM
Fecal recognition software. Heh.
 
2013-07-16 06:45:16 PM

Slaxl: Bandito King: iron de havilland: DubtodaIll: I think it's really sick to delve in to human behavior in order to figure out how to extract more money from the human behaving.

Why do you hate capitalism?

/Free markets!
//Hurr durr, etc.

Because it's a predatory and adversarial ideology, predicated on frequently artificial scarcity?

Why do you not hate capitalism? You like shiat rolling downhill?

I wrote what turned into a long treatise on capitalism and socialism, but this is Fark, so I'll distil it down to the salient facts.

Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad.


If you get one, I get one.

Anarchy is good. Government is bad.
 
2013-07-16 10:11:26 PM

Bandito King: Slaxl: Bandito King: iron de havilland: DubtodaIll: I think it's really sick to delve in to human behavior in order to figure out how to extract more money from the human behaving.

Why do you hate capitalism?

/Free markets!
//Hurr durr, etc.

Because it's a predatory and adversarial ideology, predicated on frequently artificial scarcity?

Why do you not hate capitalism? You like shiat rolling downhill?

I wrote what turned into a long treatise on capitalism and socialism, but this is Fark, so I'll distil it down to the salient facts.

Capitalism is good. Socialism is bad.

If you get one, I get one.

Anarchy is good. Government is bad.


No I actually love capitalism by its merits.  However, in a pure market, businesses should not be allowed to gain anything from me without paying me for it.  That includes what I think and how I behave and what my feelings are towards a particular good.  These kinds of technologies allow corporations to essentially "steal" your opinions without compensating you for them.  Actually it ends up that they are able to extort more money from the average consumer by using techniques they have developed that take work for an average consumer to avoid.  That work by the consumer to avoid these techniques is also uncompensated.   Wringing every last dollar from a consumer is NOT a hallmark of a healthy market.  A healthy market is populated by traders who engage in commerce that is equally beneficial to both parties of a deal.  I do not see behavioral research as equally beneficial to both provider and consumer.
 
2013-07-16 10:36:03 PM

DubtodaIll: No I actually love capitalism by its merits. However, in a pure market, businesses should not be allowed to gain anything from me without paying me for it. That includes what I think and how I behave and what my feelings are towards a particular good. These kinds of technologies allow corporations to essentially "steal" your opinions without compensating you for them. Actually it ends up that they are able to extort more money from the average consumer by using techniques they have developed that take work for an average consumer to avoid. That work by the consumer to avoid these techniques is also uncompensated. Wringing every last dollar from a consumer is NOT a hallmark of a healthy market. A healthy market is populated by traders who engage in commerce that is equally beneficial to both parties of a deal. I do not see behavioral research as equally beneficial to both provider and consumer.


Sound reasoning except for this part. Assuming a pure market and all that, the ONLY way that market research is extracting more money from the average customer is by giving them what they demand. If the data was not counter-representative of customer demand, they'd be losing money by acting on it. Now, I agree that it's not equally beneficial to provider and consumer, but even if it was unavoidable by virtue of "all producers do it," investing in all the systems to do this would still be a loss if it wasn't actually fulfilling something for the customer.

The other problem with this is simply keeping a record of inventory on hand with respect to time lets you see which products are popular. That's essentially "stealing" customer opinions in the same way, but isn't a practice anyone's ever had a problem with.
 
2013-07-16 10:49:43 PM

ProfessorOhki: DubtodaIll: No I actually love capitalism by its merits. However, in a pure market, businesses should not be allowed to gain anything from me without paying me for it. That includes what I think and how I behave and what my feelings are towards a particular good. These kinds of technologies allow corporations to essentially "steal" your opinions without compensating you for them. Actually it ends up that they are able to extort more money from the average consumer by using techniques they have developed that take work for an average consumer to avoid. That work by the consumer to avoid these techniques is also uncompensated. Wringing every last dollar from a consumer is NOT a hallmark of a healthy market. A healthy market is populated by traders who engage in commerce that is equally beneficial to both parties of a deal. I do not see behavioral research as equally beneficial to both provider and consumer.

Sound reasoning except for this part. Assuming a pure market and all that, the ONLY way that market research is extracting more money from the average customer is by giving them what they demand. If the data was not counter-representative of customer demand, they'd be losing money by acting on it. Now, I agree that it's not equally beneficial to provider and consumer, but even if it was unavoidable by virtue of "all producers do it," investing in all the systems to do this would still be a loss if it wasn't actually fulfilling something for the customer.

The other problem with this is simply keeping a record of inventory on hand with respect to time lets you see which products are popular. That's essentially "stealing" customer opinions in the same way, but isn't a practice anyone's ever had a problem with.


Modern marketing is far more advanced than people give it credit.  If done correctly, it is nearly impossible to lose money on a product.  I'm reminded of a study from back in the mid-20th century about the advent of "advanced" slot machines.  They actually tested them on pigeons, who became addicted to using the machines.  So much so that they no longer received pleasure from the reward they got from winning, but from the actual event of playing the machine.  Furthermore, the study suggests that audiences of these kinds of techniques are at  an extreme disadvantage in attempting to decide to NOT engage the advertisement. In other words, saying "oh just ignore it" is just a load a bullshiat.  It's this kind of psychology that justifies advertisement for brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc.  These kind of things are incredibly subtle and invasive and in general not a good thing.  Corporations should not be allowed to take advantage of people who are already funding their entire operation by purchasing goods on their own volition.
Essentially there is no moral justification for stalking your customers.  Yes I know expecting a corporation to have morals is absurd, but dammit, it can't continue down this path forever, the endgame is slavery.
 
2013-07-16 11:08:17 PM

DubtodaIll: Modern marketing is far more advanced than people give it credit. If done correctly, it is nearly impossible to lose money on a product. I'm reminded of a study from back in the mid-20th century about the advent of "advanced" slot machines. They actually tested them on pigeons, who became addicted to using the machines. So much so that they no longer received pleasure from the reward they got from winning, but from the actual event of playing the machine. Furthermore, the study suggests that audiences of these kinds of techniques are at an extreme disadvantage in attempting to decide to NOT engage the advertisement. In other words, saying "oh just ignore it" is just a load a bullshiat. It's this kind of psychology that justifies advertisement for brands like Coke, McDonalds, etc. These kind of things are incredibly subtle and invasive and in general not a good thing. Corporations should not be allowed to take advantage of people who are already funding their entire operation by purchasing goods on their own volition.
Essentially there is no moral justification for stalking your customers. Yes I know expecting a corporation to have morals is absurd, but dammit, it can't continue down this path forever, the endgame is slavery.


I don't disagree with you in spirit, but where would one even start trying to define where "taking advantage of" begins? Seems like the alternative is having a never-ending legal battle in which lawyers constantly push back and forth over exactly how impressionable and absent minded the average consumer is. Besides, allowed by who? It's not called 'marketing' when a government does it, but if they not entirely on the whole analytic / behavioral modification bandwagon yet, they will be shortly.

Rather than ignore it or engage it passively as a consumer, isn't there also the option to engage it actively as a critic? If you look at something with the intentions of trying to analyze it, it's sort of hard to be snared by it. I wonder how many of the people conducting the pigeon study went on to become addicted to slot machines? Not that a populous of people who actively question what's impacting their environment is an easy goal... but, you know, it might actually be more achievable than moral corporations.
 
2013-07-16 11:20:34 PM

ProfessorOhki: DubtodaIll: 

I don't disagree with you in spirit, but where would one even start trying to define where "taking advantage of" begins? Seems like the alternative is having a never-ending legal battle in which lawyers constantly push back and forth over exactly how impressionable and absent minded the average consumer is. Besides, allowed by who? It's not called 'marketing' when a government does it, but if they not entirely on the whole analytic / behavioral modification bandwagon yet, they will be shortly.

Rather than ignore it or engage it passively as a consumer, isn't there also the option to engage it actively as a critic? If you look at something with the intentions of trying to analyze it, it's sort of hard to be snared by i ...


Of course the counter to all advertising is an intelligent and educated populace.  You can't sell a shaded truth to someone who knows the actual truth. I certainly would rather we head in the direction where the vast majority of people are self-reliant and fully able and willing to consume things based on their actual necessities.  This of course is not that case and probably impossible with any large population.  And I'm for lawyers going back and forth over it.  That's the best way we've figured out how to draw lines in the sand over what's ok and what isn't.
I guess I'd boil it down to the fact that risk and uncertainty are essential to a healthy market.  Corporations should somehow be discouraged from knowing, or even wanting to know, everything about its consumer. There's a middle ground somewhere, but I'll let the lawyers figure it out.
 
2013-07-16 11:56:58 PM
Why did this take so long?

static.comicvine.com
 
Displayed 13 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report