<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title> Stories about &quot;target&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Creepy Ads From Big Data</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0432268434/dailydirt-creepy-ads-big-data.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0432268434/dailydirt-creepy-ads-big-data.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Lots of advertisers are turning to data mining techniques to try to squeeze more value out of their budgets. Given all the data that gets collected by our phones/browsers/credit cards/etc, it's not too surprising that ads can get pretty creepy, pretty fast. Here are just a few stories about ads that aren't technically doing anything wrong -- but that haven't quite gotten their privacy behavior right either.

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all" href="http://nyti.ms/w6dds8">Target has been highlighted for its uncanny ability to predict when women shoppers are pregnant.</a> Public birth records just aren't updated anywhere near fast enough for retailers who want to know when to start sending targeted ads to new parents ASAP. [<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pda/2011/mar/12/google-maps-marisa-mayer" href="http://bit.ly/x950PY">Marissa Mayer said credit card companies can predict a divorce with 98% accuracy two years before it happens.</a> Considering 50% of marriages end in divorce anyway, that might not be considered impressive..? [<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/pda/2011/mar/12/google-maps-marisa-mayer">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://gizmodo.com/5888669/facebook-ads-turn-unsuspecting-man-into-a-pitchman-for-giant-tub-of-lube" href="http://gizmo.do/wfjsSr">Facebook uses photos from some of its users to help promote various products, and sometimes the results are far from flattering.</a> Becoming the new spokesperson for 55 gallon tubs of lubricant probably isn't what Nick Bergus wanted to be. [<a href="http://gizmodo.com/5888669/facebook-ads-turn-unsuspecting-man-into-a-pitchman-for-giant-tub-of-lube">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more interesting advertising-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:448" href="http://bit.ly/osqk34">check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:448">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 


By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0432268434/dailydirt-creepy-ads-big-data.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0432268434/dailydirt-creepy-ads-big-data.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100305/0432268434/dailydirt-creepy-ads-big-data.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100305/0432268434</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:39:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Getting Past The Uncanny Valley In Targeted Advertising</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120217/03044617792/getting-past-uncanny-valley-targeted-advertising.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120217/03044617792/getting-past-uncanny-valley-targeted-advertising.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years back we talked about how the concept of the "uncanny valley" could be applied to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080311/121305499.shtml">targeted advertising</a>.  Of course, the general concept of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley" target="_blank">uncanny valley</a> is usually discussed in the field of robotics.  It's the notion that people are comfortable with robots that clearly look like robots, but at a point where they become too similar to humans, but not actually human-like, people feel rather uncomfortable. However, if a robot appears fully human, then people go back to being comfortable with them -- even to the point of identifying with them and feeling empathy for them.  The problem is the area where they're "too human" but just different enough to just... feel "off" that somehow makes it "creepy."  As we noted the same thing really was kind of true for targeted advertising.  As advertising gets more "targeted" it seems to creep people out, because they feel like they're being spied on.
<br /><br />
A perfect example of that is seen in this recent NYTimes Magazine piece, talking about the details of how <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?_r=2&#038;hp=&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Target mines its purchasing data</a> to figure out who's pregnant and when they're due.  And it's not because they're buying diapers or something like that:
<blockquote><i>
The only problem is that identifying pregnant customers is harder than it sounds. Target has a baby-shower registry, and Pole started there, observing how shopping habits changed as a woman approached her due date, which women on the registry had willingly disclosed. He ran test after test, analyzing the data, and before long some useful patterns emerged. Lotions, for example. Lots of people buy lotion, but one of Pole's colleagues noticed that women on the baby registry were buying larger quantities of unscented lotion around the beginning of their second trimester. Another analyst noted that sometime in the first 20 weeks, pregnant women loaded up on supplements like calcium, magnesium and zinc. Many shoppers purchase soap and cotton balls, but when someone suddenly starts buying lots of scent-free soap and extra-big bags of cotton balls, in addition to hand sanitizers and washcloths, it signals they could be getting close to their delivery date.
<br /><br />
As Pole's computers crawled through the data, he was able to identify about 25 products that, when analyzed together, allowed him to assign each shopper a "pregnancy prediction" score. More important, he could also estimate her due date to within a small window, so Target could send coupons timed to very specific stages of her pregnancy. 
</i></blockquote>
But, of course, Target then appears to have run into the "uncanny valley" problem of having just enough info to target ads... but doing so in a way that feels <i>creepy</i>:
<blockquote><i>
"If we send someone a catalog and say, 'Congratulations on your first child!' and they've never told us they're pregnant, that's going to make some people uncomfortable," Pole told me. "We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you're following the law, you can do things where people get queasy."
<br /><br />
About a year after Pole created his pregnancy-prediction model, a man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see the manager. He was clutching coupons that had been sent to his daughter, and he was angry, according to an employee who participated in the conversation.
<br /><br />
"My daughter got this in the mail!" he said. "She's still in high school, and you're sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?"
<br /><br />
The manager didn't have any idea what the man was talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man's daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then called a few days later to apologize again.
<br /><br />
On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. "I had a talk with my daughter," he said. "It turns out there's been some activities in my house I haven't been completely aware of. She's due in August. I owe you an apology."
</i></blockquote>
Target appears to have recognized just how creepy this appeared -- and once they discovered that the reporter was working on this story they cut off his access to the researcher and wouldn't talk to him at all, other than to make bland PR statements about "delivering outstanding value," and, later, to try to convince him not to publish his story.
<br /><br />
However, there are indications that Target tried to cross the uncanny valley.... by making the extremely targeted advertising appear more "life like" by not being "too perfect."  That is they still sent targeted ads, but mixed them in with unrelated ads, so people wouldn't realize how targeted they were:
<blockquote><i>
"We have the capacity to send every customer an ad booklet, specifically designed for them, that says, 'Here's everything you bought last week and a coupon for it,' " one Target executive told me. "We do that for grocery products all the time." But for pregnant women, Target's goal was selling them baby items they didn't even know they needed yet.
<br /><br />
"With the pregnancy products, though, we learned that some women react badly," the executive said. "Then we started mixing in all these ads for things we knew pregnant women would never buy, so the baby ads looked random. We'd put an ad for a lawn mower next to diapers. We'd put a coupon for wineglasses next to infant clothes. That way, it looked like all the products were chosen by chance.
<br /><br />
"And we found out that as long as a pregnant woman thinks she hasn't been spied on, she'll use the coupons. She just assumes that everyone else on her block got the same mailer for diapers and cribs. As long as we don't spook her, it works."
</i></blockquote>
I'm sure that this disturbs some people, who may sense that there's "trickery" going on here, but I'm not sure that's the case.  It seems like this actually creates something rather useful.  After all, perfectly targeted ads actually provide <i>useful information</i> in that it's ads/deals/coupons targeted for exactly what we need, such that we'll actually save money on the key things we want.  That's a benefit to consumers.  But if it's done in a way that doesn't feel as creepy, then there aren't those lingering concerns of being tracked -- and that seems a more reasonable fear.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120217/03044617792/getting-past-uncanny-valley-targeted-advertising.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120217/03044617792/getting-past-uncanny-valley-targeted-advertising.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120217/03044617792/getting-past-uncanny-valley-targeted-advertising.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>from-creepy-to-useful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120217/03044617792</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:40:33 PST</pubDate>
<title>Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've described how some film studios are in a huge <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091019/0403026583.shtml">legal fight</a> with Redbox over DVD rentals.  While some studios have come to their senses and are happy to work with Redbox, others have been trying to pressure the company into giving it a cut of rental revenue and/or delaying when it rents newly-released movies.  Those studios convinced the big distribution wholesalers to stop selling to Redbox (which seems like a pretty clear restraint of trade or antitrust issue), and in at least one case had convinced <i>retailers</i> not to sell to Redbox.  Of course, there are ways around that as well, and we even suggested that Redbox could <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1843016685.shtml">crowdsource</a> its movie purchasing.
<br /><br />
In fact, to get around the studio blocks, Redbox was apparently already purchasing 40% of its DVDs at retail locations like Target and Wal-Mart.  But both retailers are now making that more difficult.  They've <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2010/tc2010022_125668.htm" target="_blank">put in place limits directly targeted at Redbox</a>, saying they won't sell more than five DVDs at any one time to any buyer.  Yes, here we have a customer willing to buy an awful lot of product -- at full retail price -- and these retailers won't let them?  While they claim it's to make sure movies are available for other customers, given the earlier reports of studios specifically asking retailers to block Redbox from buying, it makes you wonder.  What sort of company would tell willing customers they can't buy a product that is available and in stock?
<br /><br />
Still, in the end I doubt those limits will be very effective.  Redbox still could go with that crowdsourced concept, and get its subscribers to purchase five DVDs at a time in exchange for free rentals.  Eventually, the industry is going to have to realize that fighting Redbox is a mistake.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1222178053.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-nice-of-them</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100204/1222178053</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:01:27 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Retailers Blame eBay For Driving Good People To Shoplift</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/0232522340.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/0232522340.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Wow.  Earlier this year we wrote about a bill, basically pushed for by big offline retailers, that would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080728/0150451804.shtml">regulate</a> online retailers.  The big retailers made some bogus claims about an online "crimewave" that necessitated such legislation.  Since that first bill was introduced in the house two other related bills have also been introduced, one in the House and one in the Senate.  Earlier this week, hearings were held on the three bills, and the big retailers made the astounding claim that online auction sites need to be regulated because <a href="http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=News&op=viewlive&sp_id=572" target="_new">their "addictive qualities" lure perfectly innocent people into becoming shoplifters</a> to feed their habit of selling online:
<blockquote><i>
"Thieves often tell the same disturbing story: they begin legitimately selling product on eBay and then become hooked by its addictive qualities, the anonymity it provides and the ease with which they gain exposure to millions of customers. When they run out of legitimate merchandise, they begin to steal intermittently, many times for the first time in their life, so they can continue selling online. The thefts then begin to spiral out of control and before they know it they quit their jobs, are recruiting accomplices and are crossing states lines to steal, all so they can support and perpetuate their online selling habit."
</i></blockquote>
Nevermind that the <a href="http://techliberation.com/2008/06/18/online-sellers-shouldnt-be-liable-for-the-stolen-goods-sold-on-their-sites/">actual stats</a> show that retail theft has been on the decline, while the majority of retail theft is actually due to <i>insiders</i>.  Yes, the problem isn't with online retailers magically luring perfectly innocent individuals into lives of crime, but the big retailers own employees swiping stuff.  Yet, when stores were questioned why they don't do more to prevent in-store theft themselves, a representative from Safeway claimed: "our associates are there to sell groceries, not to be police officers."  However, even though the problem is with their own employees, who they don't want to turn into police officers, the retailers are asking Congress to, instead, turn all online retailers into police officers for them.
<br><br>
The combination of bills under consideration would give offline retailers the power to demand that online retailers interrogate sellers to find out if the goods they're offering for sale were stolen.  They would also include a DMCA-like notice and takedown provision, allowing retailers to force auctions offline with a single letter and little proof.  Yet, the notice-and-takedown is even worse than the DMCA's already dreadful system in that there's no provision to deal with any abuse -- meaning retailers could abuse the system sending false takedown notices and burdening online retailers over and over again, and there would be no punishment.  On top of that, the bills would put <i>liability</i> on the retailers, directly contradicting the very point of section 230 of the CDA, which was designed to make sure liability went to the actually guilty party.
<br><br>
Basically, these three bills in combination are nothing more than a <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org/2008/09/debunking-big-r.html" target="_new">bogus effort</a> by big traditional retailers to put a ridiculous liability and burden on online retailers to fix a problem that isn't as big as they make it out to be, and which they, themselves, have the most control over -- though they purposely choose not to do much to exercise that control.  And, finally, these big retailers make up a totally bogus and unsubstantiated claim that online selling "addiction" is drawing a large group of folks into an unanticipated life of crime.  Hopefully Congress sees through this blatant attempt by big traditional retailers to put a bunch of hurdles in front of online sellers.
<center>
<table>
<tr><td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://washingtonwatch.com/info/widget.php?id=200511815"></script></td>
<td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://washingtonwatch.com/info/widget.php?id=200512160"></script></td>
<td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://washingtonwatch.com/info/widget.php?id=200512352"></script></td>
</tr>
</table>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/0232522340.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/0232522340.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080923/0232522340.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-feed-the-habit</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080923/0232522340</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:16:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Another 'Free' Business Model Experiment</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/183748624.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/183748624.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When we discuss the basic <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">economics</a> having to do with infinite goods, sometimes the debates in the comments accuse me of promoting one "business model" over all others.  The truth is quite different.  The economics at work are fundamental.  Price gets driven to marginal cost.  The <i>business models</i> that then result, however, are numerous and varied.  The key is simply recognizing that the infinite good works as a resource, increasing the value of all sorts of scarce goods.  Thus, you release the infinite goods widely, and sell scarce goods that are made more valuable.  How you do that can take all different concepts into account.  Just in the music space alone we see so many varied models, from Radiohead's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070930/214524.shtml">name your own price</a> to Trent Reznor's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080302/234646401.shtml">tiered premium model</a> to Jill Sobule's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080115/095022.shtml">tiered support model</a> to Maria Schneider's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050214/1311237_F.shtml">fan-supported production model</a> all the way to things like The String Cheese Incident <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041230/1415204.shtml">setting up their own travel agency</a> to help fans follow them around for gigs.  The key isn't a single business model.  In fact, each of these individual business models might not work for any other artist.  But all recognize the promotional power of the music in making something else much more valuable.
<br /><br />
And we're seeing that show up in totally unexpected places as well.  Take, for example, this recent post on Boing Boing about what's happened with <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/21/experimental-games-b.html" target="_new">a bunch of experimental video games</a>, developed originally as part of a Carnegie Mellon project.  Each game was developed in 7 days and many are given away for free.  However, now a company has taken those games and made t-shirts (yes, t-shirts) using images from some of the games.  Even better, though, is that with each t-shirt, you get a copy of the video game itself, and the shirts are now for sale at Target.  In other words, these games are helping to make the t-shirts more valuable, even though the games themselves are free.  It's yet another example of understanding the difference between infinite and scarce goods and how to use one to make money from the other.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/183748624.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/183748624.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/183748624.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they're-all-over</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080321/183748624</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:12:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Gibson Sues More Than Just Activision Over Virtual Music Concert Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember how Activision had preemptively <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080312/012013508.shtml">sued Gibson</a> for a declaratory judgment that it didn't infringe on a really questionable patent concerning a computerized guitar for a "virtual" concert?  Well, Gibson has now struck back, and it's not just suing Activision, but <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2008/03/17/daily37.html" target="_new">almost all the retailers who sell it as well</a>, including Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, Amazon.com, Toys 'R' Us and GameStop.  The idea, clearly, is to have those retailers put pressure on Activision. <b>Update</b>: Wired reports that the lawsuit also <a href="http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/gibson-sues-via.html">covers a bunch of other companies</a>.  Basically, Gibson is suing anyone even remotely connected to video games that involve fake guitars.
<br /><br />
Of course, there are <i>all sorts</i> of questionable things about this lawsuit.  As we pointed out when Activision first sued, Gibson's patent doesn't seem similar to "Guitar Hero" at all.  It talks about playing a real concert, with a real guitar (with strings) attached to a head mounted display.  Also, as Activision <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3167036">points out</a>, Gibson didn't care about the patent as long as Activision and Gibson had a marketing agreement.  They only started calling for patent infringement after the marketing agreement ended.  Finally, suing <i>retailers</i> for selling the game is quite sketchy.  In fact, the Supreme Court just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070925/173443.shtml">heard</a> a case looking at whether or not that was legit, and the Justices sounded <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080117/022921.shtml">quite skeptical</a>.  Gibson is clearly posturing to try to push for a settlement -- and in the process, showing yet another way to abuse the patent system.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080321/165732619.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-else-can-we-sue</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080321/165732619</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>