The press has had a field day with Pudding Media’s new VoIP offering. In a nutshell, the company lets you make VoIP calls for free if you let them listen in and provide targeted ads. Since many folks have already written about the horrific Big Brother implications, I thought I’d take a different approach to the news. Here are the “contextual” ads I imagine when I think of the Pudding experience…
Mari on the phone: “My daughter was really cranky yesterday afternoon. She had a massive temper tantrum and threw herself down on the hard floor…” Note: my daughter is a perfect angel and would never actually do this. ;)
Imagined Pudding ads:
Child harness! Easy. Safe. Keeps you in control.
Softest rugs you’ll ever find! 3% off now through Sunday.
Are you having trouble coping? Ask your doctor if Prozac is right for you.
Mari on the phone: “And then my computer froze while trying to run a software update…”
Imagined Pudding ads:
Check out our PC fix-it shop!
On sale! Window-defroster repair kit for your car!
Try our delicious ice pops… in new berry flavors!
Mari on the phone: “I have to travel to NYC later this week for an event…”
Imagined Pudding ads:
Plan your Caribbean vacation today!
Big Apple tours every weekend!
Girls! Girls! Girls! Best peep show in Manhattan!
Got any imagined Pudding experiences of your own?
I tried commenting on the voip-news blog post, but its moronic anti-spam feature, which looks like it would be easier to cope with than a graphical captcha challenge, insists that the correct response to “Sum of 1 + 5 ?” is not 6.
My point? This seems no different than Google displaying web ads based on what you’ve searched for, and GMail displaying web ads based on reading the private e-mail messages you’re looking at.
True. And I read somebody else who commented in this context on how touchy people have been about the Gmail “feature”.
Here’s the difference though, when I draft an email I read it over before I send it. A phone conversation is much more immediate and therefore much less deliberate. While I don’t like the idea of Google reading my email, I *really* don’t like the idea of someone listening in on my sometimes-stream-of-conscience conversations.
I’d agree completely if there were someone listening in, rather than automated monitoring software.
I think my biggest problem with this would be that the person on the other end of the line hasn’t consented to having their conversation monitored, even without humans in the process.
This also comes down to how much you trust the company providing the service and their statement that the context information is never stored. Do you trust that Google is not allowing the government to also do keyword monitoring? Do you trust that the Pudding people aren’t?
I just assume everything, everywhere is monitored and don’t worry too much about it. :)
Probably a safe assumption, Dave! But as with the airport “security” charade, the average person seems to prefer the illusion, even when the real thing is utterly out of reach.