Microsoft: Paying (for) Attention

Standard

InfoWorld reports that Microsoft is tossing around the idea of passing search advertising revenue down the food chain to end users. No details, of course…and I may just have attention/identity on the brain…but this nevertheless sounds a lot like MS doing some musing about a cash-for-attention play.

With AttentionTrust and root.net getting a reasonable amount of press, phrases like “attention economy” are starting to buzz around a bit, but as with cookies, there’s a big question that these sorts of offerings have yet to answer for the potential users: what do we get out of it? If I don’t get an improved experience (qualitatively different, I would hope, but I’d settle for quantitatively), with much more of what I want and much less of what I don’t…well, then, what’s the point of playing?

Microsoft’s thinking, then, could be a way to sidestep this question for the time being: maybe you don’t immediately get more interesting or appropriate advertising, but at least you get paid. And in order to actually get paid, Microsoft has to be able to track you — know that you are you, and know what you’re doing — so that your “saw that ad” or “clicked that ad” account can be credited. And this, in turn, means that you’re explicitly agreeing to give them full access to that attention data that all the kids are talking about these days.

I’d be pretty surprised if an actual large-scale “see/click ad, get paid” model came out of this, but it’s interesting to see such an idea being discussed again in 2005. It’s a very different view on the topic than much of what’s out there, but it sure feels to me like another acknowledgement that attention is an issue that everybody doing business on the Web will have to deal with, sooner rather than later.

SAFELINK safe links? Really?

Standard

There’s been some discussion of Marketing Scoop’s SAFELINK offering here at Return Path…most of it rather more charitable than my thoughts.

According to Marketing Scoop’s site:

Businesses who subscribe to the program are provided with a SAFELINK icon to be displayed in emails sent to prospective customers. Those who receive the email know they are protected from computer viruses, scams, or unsolicited pornography. When clicking on the icon, consumers view a SAFELINK certificate, complete with information about the SAFELINK member company.


Sigh. Been there, done that.

This is an effort to bring sender reputation into email, which I totally support, but it’s a really, really half-assed effort. Even putting aside from the fact that the design is fundamentally flawed, this approach puts the burden of validation on the user for each and every email message that they receive. For Truste-style Web site validation this is arguably acceptable, since it’s a very occasional imposition on the user, but asking me to manually validate every stinking email? No, thanks…

8:00:03 AM “Wow! 481 emails in my inbox…guess I’d better get cracking.”
8:00:08 AM “Excellent, message number one has the SAFELINK icon, so far, so good.”
8:00:27 AM “Okay, not good. The SAFELINK icon linked to www.really-disturbing-porn-emporium.net, not the Marketing Scoop site.”
8:03:32 AM “Holy shit. How do I make these popups stop? No, I don’t want to allow ActiveX controls to run. Shitshitshit.”
8:27:41 AM “Man, that sucked. Okay, on to message two. Yep, it’s got the SAFELINK icon…”