Abstraction

I’ve always thought that a real evolution of advertising is moving from an inferred model to a interaction model; that is, instead of inferring qualities about a person (based on demographics, buying habits, etc.), it’s much better to involve people directly.

I did a interview recently with Light Reading that touched on this topic.

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=172485

Salient details to save yourself the jump:

“One of the most powerful aspects of subscriber profiles is maintaining a subscriber’s real-time context, and using that context in concert with personal preferences to drive policies across networks,” says Chris Hoover, Openet’s director of Product Management. “In this sense, the subscriber profile forms the foundation for next-generation interactive services. These are services customized based on an aggregate understanding of who the subscriber is, what the preferences are, and real-time context in which the subscriber is moving – without regard to network or device.”

Openet’s Hoover points out that, historically, advertising has tended to be targeted on the basis of inferences made from proxy data – basic demographics, for example – rather than positive identifications of definite interest. Such interest identification is near-impossible to do indirectly, as it is difficult to infer that a subscriber is, say, allergic to cats, or avoids alcohol [ed. note: or avoids alcoholic cats...], or is thinking of buying a new car. Behavioral targeting based on the inferential analysis of past behavior helps, but there is always a risk that the inference will be wrong – or even offend.

“But there is actually a new opportunity, which is to bring the subscriber into a bidirectional mode,” Hoover says. “By including the subscriber as part of the network profile – essentially, the subscriber as an active network element – the profile can be much more accurate. This isn’t, however, a profile that is built solely by the subscriber, but rather in concert with the subscriber, and including inferential data.”

“But there is actually a new opportunity, which is to bring the subscriber into a bidirectional mode,” Hoover says. “By including the subscriber as part of the network profile – essentially, the subscriber as an active network element – the profile can be much more accurate. This isn’t, however, a profile that is built solely by the subscriber, but rather in concert with the subscriber, and including inferential data.”

David Sedaris is hilarious, and he had a fantastic essay on air travel in the New Yorker recently. I particularly liked this passage, about traveling in business class. It so perfectly parallels my experience:

“May I bring you a drink to go with those warm nuts, Mr. Sedaris?” the woman looking after me asked—this as the people in coach were still boarding. The looks they gave me as they passed were the looks I give when the door of a limousine opens. You always expect to see a movie star, or, at the very least, someone better dressed than you, but time and time again it’s just a sloppy nobody. Thus the look, which translates to “Fuck you, Sloppy Nobody, for making me turn my head.”

I feel exactly that way whether I’m in coach (most of the time) or business (the occasional upgrade). Walking to my coach seat I’m always thinking about how much more comfortable these slobs in business are going to be for the next 12 hours or so, damn them. Likewise, I feel a vague sense of guilt if I’m sitting in my business class seat. I’m thinking “this trip is going to suck *so much more* for all of you.” Certainly it doesn’t help that I epitomize the sloppy nobody as I sit there in my fleece listening to an iPod while other business travelers whisper importantly into their Blackberrys.

Interesting article in Scientific American about a study that shows the brain is hardwired such that people fit into two behavioral categories. (More likely a continuum, but for purposes of illustration I’ll keep it straightforward).

In one category, people are predisposed to alter their behavior based on new information. In the other category, people are less responsive to new information, and tend to maintain the same behavior. Although the context of the study was political (this isn’t a political blog), I think that the study is equally interesting from a business perspective as well. A quote:

Amodio says that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a forebrain region, “serves almost as a barometer for this degree of conflict.”"People who have more sensitive activity in that area,” he notes, “are more responsive to these cues that say they need to adapt their behavior,” reacting more quickly and accurately to the unexpected stimulus. On average, people who described themselves as politically liberal had about 2.5 times the activity in their ACCs and were more sensitive to the “No-Go cue” than their conservative friends.

“They are more sensitive to the need for change and more sensitive to the need to change their behavior,” Amodio says about the politically left-leaning subjects.

At an overall statistical level, I suspect that having a disposition one way or the other is not a good predictor of business success. All other things being equal, two entrepreneurs of opposite dispositions have an equal chance to succeed at the beginning of a new venture. Where it does matter is how a person copes with the unique challenges the new business will face.

For example, a person that tends to maintain the same behavior despite conflicting information may have the tenacity and drive to stick with a business plan no matter what until it succeeds. She will have the steadfastness necessary to keep the business moving forward even when everyone is a naysayer. In some business contexts, this is exactly the right person needed at the helm; the business would fail if the leader was endlessly second guessing and altering course.

On the other hand, a business plan into which people have poured blood, sweat, and tears, may be fatally flawed. In this case, the leader must be flexible enough to honestly appraise new information that conflicts with the existing business plan, and alter the course of the business based on this new information. Here, the leader that stubbornly maintained the status quo would fail.

How do you know which leader is right for which challenge? You don’t, except in retrospect. As Nassim Taleb points out, most of what happens in life is random; all you can do is put in your best effort. A person plays much less a role in their own success (or failure) than they give themselves credit for.