Advertising

When I first joined Instagram in 2013 or 2014, the first thing that fascinated me about the platform was the quality of advertisements. At that point in time, all advertisements there looked really good, like the pictures that the platform was famous for helping sharing.

It wasn’t like the clunky ads I would see elsewhere on the internet, or even on Facebook – which mostly stuck out like a sore thumb in the middle of whatever content I was consuming at that point in time. Instagram advertisements looked so good that I actually paid them considerable attention (though I hardly clicked on them back then).

Over the years, as Facebook has gotten to know me better (I hardly use Facebook itself nowadays. But I use a lot of Instagram. For now I’ll believe Facebook’s claim that my WhatsApp information is all encrypted and Facebook doesn’t learn much about me through that), and the advertisements have gotten better and more relevant.

Over the last one year or so (mostly after I returned to India) I’ve even started clicking on some of the ads (yes they’ve become that relevant), giving Facebook even more information about myself, and setting off a positive feedback loop that makes the advertisements more relevant to me.

Over the years I’ve attended talks by privacy experts about the privacy challenges of this or that platform. “They’ll get all this information about you”, they say, “and then they can use that to send you targeted advertisements. How bad is that?”. If I think about all the problems with telling too much about myself to anonymous platforms or companies, receiving better targeted advertisements is the least of my worries.

As a consumer, better targeted ads means better information to me. Go back to the fundamentals of advertising – which is to communicate to the customer about the merits of a particular product. We think advertising can be annoying, but advertising is annoying only when the advertisements are not relevant to the target customer. 

When advertisements are well targeted, the customer gets valuable information about products that enables them to make better decisions, and spend their money in a better fashion. The more the information that the advertiser has about the end customer, the better the quality (defined in terms of relevance) the advertisements that can be shown.

This is the “flywheel” (can’t imagine I would actually use this word in a non-ironic sense) that Facebook and affiliated companies operate on – every interaction with Facebook or Instagram gives the company more information about you, and this information can be used to show you better targeted advertisements, which have a higher probability of clicking. Because you are more likely to click on the advertisements, the advertiser can be charged more for showing you the advertisement.

Some advertisers have told me that they elect to not use “too much information” about the customer while targeting their advertisements on Facebook, because this results in a much higher cost per click. However, if they look at it in terms of “cost per relevant click” or “cost per relevant impression”, I’m not sure they would think about it the same way.

Any advertisement shown to someone who is not part of the intended target audience represents wastage. This is true of all forms of advertising – TV, outdoor, print, digital, everything. It is no surprise that Facebook, by helping an advertiser advertise with better (along several axes) information about the customer, and Google, by showing advertisements after a customer’s intent has been established, have pretty much monopolised the online advertising industry in the last few years.

Finally, I was thinking about advertising in the time of adblockers. Thanks to extensive use of ad-blockers (Safari is my primary browser across devices, so ad blocking is effective), most of the digital advertisements I actually see is what I see on Instagram.

Today, some publication tried to block me from reading their article because I had my ad-blocker on. They made a sort of moral pitch that advertising is what supports them, and it’s not fair if I use an ad-blocker.

I think they should turn to banner ads. Yes. You read that right.

To the best of my knowledge, ad blockers work by filtering out links that come from the most popular ad exchanges. Banner ads, which are static and don’t go through any exchange, are impossible to block by ad-blockers. The problem, however, is that they are less targeted and so can have higher wastage.

But that is precisely how advertising in the offline versions of these newspapers works!

Something is better than nothing.

LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Freaky Contact Lists

So one of the things I do when I’m bored is to open the “new conversation” (plus sign) thing on my WhatsApp and check which of my contacts are there in my WhatsApp social network. I do this periodically, without any particular reason. On the upside, I see people who I haven’t spoken to for a long time, and this results in a conversation. On the downside, this is freaky.

The problem with WhatsApp is that it automatically assumes that everyone in your phone book is someone you want to keep in touch with. And more likely than not, people make their WhatsApp profile pictures visible to all. And sometimes these profile pictures have to do with something personal, rather than a simple mugshot. Some people have pictures of their homes, of their kids, and of better halves. And suddenly, everyone who has their number on their phone book gets a peek into the part of their lives they’ve chosen to make public by way of their WhatsApp profile pictures!

Some examples of people on my phone book into whose lives I’ve thus got a peek includes a guy who repairs suitcases, a guy who once repaired my refrigerator, a real estate broker whose services I’d engaged five years back to rent out my house, and so forth. And then there are business clients – purely professional contacts, but who have chosen to expose through their WhatsApp profile pictures aspects of their personal lives! Thus, through the picture function (of course you can choose to not make your picture public), you end up knowing much more about random contacts in your phone book than you need to!

The next level of freakiness comes from people who have moved on from the numbers that they shared with you. So you see in the photo associated with an old friend someone who looks very very different and who is definitely not that friend! And thanks to their having put pictures on WhatsApp, you now get an insight into their personal lives (again I tell you that people put intensely personal pictures as their WhatsApp profile pictures). I haven’t tried messaging one of these assuming they are still the person who is my friend and used to once own their number!

Then there are friends who live abroad who gave you the numbers of close relatives when they were in town so that you could get in touch with them. These numbers have now duly passed back on to the said relatives (usually a parent or a sibling) of your overseas friends, and thanks to the pictures that they put on WhatsApp, you now get an insight into their lives! Then you start wondering why you still have these contacts in your phonebook, but then it’s so unintuitive to delete contacts that you just let it be.

The thing with Android is that it collects your contacts from all social media and puts them into your phone book – especially Facebook and LinkedIn. On Facebook people are unlikely to give out their phone numbers, and everyone on my facebook friends list is my friend anyway (today I began a purge to weed out unknown people from my friends list) it’s not freaky to see them on your whatsapp. But then thanks to the Android integration, you have your LinkedIn contacts popping up in your address books, and consequently whatsapp!

Again, LInkedIn has a lot of people who are known to you, though you have no reason to get to know their personal lives via the photos they put on WhatsApp. But on LinkedIn you also tend to accept connection requests from people you don’t really know but think might benefit from associating with them at a later date. And thanks to integration with WhatsApp, and profile pics, you now get an insight into the lives of your headhunters! It’s all bizarre.

So yes, you can conclude that I might be jobless enough to go through my full WhatsApp contacts list periodically. Guilty as charged. The problem, though, is that people don’t realise that their WhatsApp profile pictures are seen by just about anyone who has their number, irrespective of the kind of relationship. And thus people continue to put deeply personal pictures as their WhatsApp profile pictures, and thus bit by bit give themselves away to the world!

The solution is simple – put a mugshot or a “neutral” photo as your WhatsApp profile picture. You don’t know how many people can see that!

Privacy and network effects

It is intuitive that some people are more concerned about their privacy than others. These people usually connect to the internet via a VPN (to prevent snooping), do not use popular applications because they rank marginally lower on privacy (not using Facebook, for example), and are strict about using only those apps on their phones that don’t ask for too much privacy-revealing information.

The vast  majority, however, is not particularly concerned about privacy – as long as a reasonable amount of privacy exists, and their basic transactions are safe, they are happy to use any service that is of value to them.

Now, with the purchase of WhatsApp by Facebook, the former (more concerned about privacy) brand of people are concerned that WhatsApp, which famously refused to collect user data, did not store messages and did not show advertisements, is now going to move to the “dark side”. Facebook, in the opinion of some of these people, is notorious for its constant changing of privacy terms (making it harder for you to truly secure your data there), and they suspect that WhatsApp will go the same way sooner rather than later. And they have begun their search to move away from WhatsApp to an alternate messenger service.

The problem, however, is that WhatsApp is a network effect based service. A messenger service is of no use to you if your friends don’t use it. Blackberry messenger, for example, was limited in its growth because only users with blackberries used it (before they belatedly released an android app). With people moving away from Blackberries (in favour of iOS and Android), BBM essentially died.

I see posts on my facebook and twitter timelines asking people to move to this messenger service called Telegraph, which is supposedly superior to Facebook in its privacy settings. i also see posts that show that Telegraph is not all that better, and you are better off sticking to WhatsApp. Based on these posts, it seems likely that some people might want to move away from WhatsApp.  The question is if network effects will allow them to do so.

Email is not a network effect based service. I can use my GMail to email anyone with a valid email address, irrespective of who their provider is. This allows for people with more esoteric preferences to choose an email provider of their choice without compromising on connectivity. The problem is the same doesn’t apply to messenger service – which are app-locked. You can use WhatsApp to only message friends who also have WhatsApp. Thus, the success (or lack of it) of messenger services will be primarily driven by network effects.

For whatever reasons, WhatsApp has got a significant market share in messenger applications, and going by network effects, their fast pace of growth is expected to continue. The problem for people concerned about privacy is that it is useless for them to move to a different service, because their less privacy conscious friends are unlikely to make the move along with them. Unless they want to stop using messenger services altogether, they are going to be locked in to WhatsApp thanks to network effects!

There is one upside to this for those of us who are normally not so worried about privacy. That these privacy conscious people are locked in to WhatsApp (thanks to network effects) implies that there will always be this section of WhatsApp users who are conscious about privacy, and vocal about it. Their activism is going to put pressure on the company to not dilute its privacy standards. And this is going to benefit all users of the service!

Government data requests for Yahoo!

Yahoo! Inc. has put up online the data of the number of data requests it received from various sovereign governments. As expected, the maximum requests came from the United States. Interestingly, Germany is in second place, followed by Italy, Taiwan and France. India also has a prominent presence, with about 1500 data requests. Full report here.

yahoorequests

So how did Yahoo! deal with the 1500 requests from India? You can find the details here. The following pie chart summarizes the responses:

How Yahoo! dealt with data requests from India

 

Note that the data given is restricted to those countries where Yahoo! operates a legal entity and is hence bound by local laws to disclose data.