Interesting, I'm a bit shocked that these appear to actually be real user-data pulled things vs editorialized made-up details.<p>Somewhat also interesting that it looks like the negative feedback started up before the companies commented on how they came up with the lines.<p>I remember a decade-oldish fast food TV commercial I remember that was something along the lines of "dear person who ordered a double cheeseburger and then felt regret after your buddy ordered a triple: it was only a dollar more", and it was obviously a fictional yet relatable ad. Funny how much things have changed since then, as companies have done such a poor job building anything like consumer trust around data - what was once obviously cheeky and cute (if faked) now comes off as rude and malicious and sneaky but real. And from the article and discussion here, it seems like the <i>less</i> you know about how the ad creation process works/has historically worked, the <i>more</i> likely you are to cry foul on first blush.
This was a solid marketing response: <a href="https://twitter.com/Pornhub/status/940246672185217027" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/Pornhub/status/940246672185217027</a>
Spotify has an ads product. Everyone knows they are collecting the data. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Using it in advertising serves an added benefit of helping their ad sales team tell the story of how much data they have and how they can use it to help target the correct audience.
Cute? No. These ads are smug and tone-deaf. Complete disregard for privacy has become the rule rather than the exception on the internet, and these ads practically celebrate that. I don't care if the data is anonymized.<p>I've never had a Netflix account and I've already started building my .flac library back up and will be cancelling my spotify subscription. The convenience of these services is not worth their disrespect to me as a customer.
In some ways, I think the unintended consequences of these ads are very positive. Anything that encourages us to think about the ever-increasing amount of data held by private companies is a good thing in my mind.<p>I doubt that we will ever break the grip of the advertisement-driven web, but maybe someday a corporation will make an advertisement tone-deaf enough to spark a revolution on how the internet is funded. I'm not affiliated with, nor do I have any stake in this concept, but I think micro-payment funded content, like yours.org, is an interesting alternative. But I doubt many people will adopt yours.org, myself included, until the content is on part with that of ad-funded media.
The Spotify ads seem like they're just made-up numbers poking fun at data collection practices. I think they're funny and I'm not concerned.
The advertisements advertise to advertisers that they know the users location and most likely emotional state of mind. The personal information that may be inferred from metadata is the additional cost of using these services. This is why GDPR.
While this detracts from the main point of data mining behavioral transactions, I do want to voice the internal debate I have with these ads to get some feedback. I think it's silly that they spent budget on OOH (billboard) ads when considering other options.<p>These "cute" ads require reading and thinking time, and I question people even stop to absorb and process. Granted, here we are, looking at these ads in a digital medium. Clearly, the KPI is probably "sharability" and ultimately brand awareness. Would it have been more efficient to just release these digitally only? As someone who has lead advertising both on the brand side as well as media agency side and is now trying to fix a lot of hot trash snake oil, I really wonder what the measure success is here beyond "let's do something funny and get people to write about us". Can these brands/agencies answer one simple question backed by data: Was it worth it?
No. Considering the state of data collection the advertising I see is a joke. If they manage to provide a somewhat relevant ad, I see it 100 times.<p>I will side on the simple answer and say. Advertising companies like Google and Facebook collect tremendous amounts of creepy data and are blatantly incompetent in utilizing it
I found those ads funny (I assumed they were not derived from customer data - just something made up for the sake of comedy).<p>That said I wanted to know the end-goal of those ads?<p>If it's going to make me convert or sign up - that does not look like it's going to happen (no CTA, no real driver etc.)<p>If the idea is to be on people's mind (informational) - I can see it being hip/fellow-kids' like (considering it's coming from a multi-million dollar corporate entity) - I don't see how it'll last longer than a few weeks at best (considering the amount they probably spent on it).<p>That said, I can see how it stands out from the crowd (creepy factor not outstanding).
I would find it funny if the ad was about data that related to a large group but when you're poking fun at a single user that's misguided and creepy to me.
When I first saw the Spotify ads with playlist names, I was a bit concerned about the privacy side of things, since you can search public playlists and most people have their real name attached to their Spotify account.<p>However, in the article Spotify claims that they sought permission before using playlist names on their advertising, so I can't really be upset about it.
Way to go Spotify, you paid more for that advertising space than you did to the artist for streaming their their content to your users.<p>Using someone else's art as a surveillance marketing tool? Wow that's gross even by the music industry's low standards. Congrats, you've really made it!