Topic: Is Google/WhatsApp/Facebook listening to our conversations for targeted ads?

[CraigDS]

You know, just as folk rationalise to pander to their delusions, the same can be said for the opposite. Unless you are deliberately playing Devil's Advocate (which is sound), how can you see this as anything other than a typical case of hotwording?

I've worked using paid advertising, for my own companies and before that setting up full paid marketing plans for others, for at least the last 8 years across a number of different platforms. I've seen it develop and seen what you can and can't target - so i have a bit of an insight into what is and isn't possible when it comes to setting up the back end settings for this type of marketing.

I also happen to believe in coincidence, as it happens in life all the time - yesterday I was speaking to my gf about Whatsapp (neither of us use it) and then my sister rang me asking my advice on how to set up Whatsapp as she's just decided to download it. Now did I think she had a bug in my apartment somewhere and was spying on me? Or did I think it was just coincidence?

The simplest explanation to you may be that you think your phone is spying on you, however to me that's not the simplest explanation.

[Skidder.]

I've worked using paid advertising, for my own companies and before that setting up full paid marketing plans for others, for at least the last 8 years across a number of different platforms. I've seen it develop and seen what you can and can't target - so i have a bit of an insight into what is and isn't possible when it comes to setting up the back end settings for this type of marketing.

I also happen to believe in coincidence, as it happens in life all the time - yesterday I was speaking to my gf about Whatsapp (neither of us use it) and then my sister rang me asking my advice on how to set up Whatsapp as she's just decided to download it. Now did I think she had a bug in my apartment somewhere and was spying on me? Or did I think it was just coincidence?

The simplest explanation to you may be that you think your phone is spying on you, however to me that's not the simplest explanation.

At the risk of going around in circles - impossible? What?

You know - there's this great thing on the internet that you can buy. You put it in your house and it listens to your hotwords and you can pretty much control a number of menial tasks from your armchair.

There's also this thing on Apple and Android phones - remember Ziggy from Quantum Leap? - Well it is just like that, you ask it a question and it answers you on the spot. You don't even have to press a button, it recognises your voice and learns how you talk.

Cars too - they have built-in voice activation for a number of settings and things whilst you drive.

All this advertising shite has been going on way before both you and I were into marketing and it will be going on long after we are dead - companies would suck their own collective cocks through their assholes to get leads on customers... haven't you ever seen Glengarry Glen Ross?

[CraigDS]

At the risk of going around in circles - impossible? What?

Not anywhere in my reply did I use the word impossible so not entirely sure what you've read.

You know - there's this great thing on the internet that you can buy. You put it in your house and it listens to your hotwords and you can pretty much control a number of menial tasks from your armchair.

There's also this thing on Apple and Android phones - remember Ziggy from Quantum Leap? - Well it is just like that, you ask it a question and it answers you on the spot. You don't even have to press a button, it recognises your voice and learns how you talk.

Cars too - they have built-in voice activation for a number of settings and things whilst you drive.

Yes, those systems can respond to a set number of pre-programmed questions such as change a song, put lights on, give weather conditions, etc. They are pretty good but still pretty basic.

What they cannot do, and don't have the computational power to do, is listen to every single word said, by multiple people in conversation, decide which of those people is saying what, decide on the subject of the conversation, decide on the context of the conversation , and then sell extremely targeted adverts based on that. They also don't record every single word and send this back to the device manufacturer so these things can be worked out there.

Do you really think Mr Tippy Cup seller wants to buy targeted adverts to someone without a kid like mentioned above? Does that sound like well targeted advertising?

All this advertising shite has been going on way before both you and I were into marketing and it will be going on long after we are dead - companies would suck their own collective cocks through their assholes to get leads on customers... haven't you ever seen Glengarry Glen Ross?

Yes, they will suck it to get well targeted leads. Not ridiculous ones which the vast majority of examples in this thread appear to be.

[B0151?]

The way you said that makes it sound like your friend used the full product and brand name (I mean the colour as well), all in a very brief conversation. Seems more bizarre to me than the phone listening in.  Are you sure it wasn't some product placement from your Truman Show overlords? Sounds like your friend is in on it!

[John C]

You went for a shit at a friends house?

And he hasn't realised why an ad for this keeps popping up

[CraigDS]

And he hasn't realised why an ad for this keeps popping up

Ah, a great toilet reading book.

[CraigDS]

Almost forgot to post this (as the max attachment size on here wouldn't allow me to do it directly off my phone), but look what I got a targeted advert for yesterday 

100% not spoken to anyone on the phone or in person about these.

[Crosby Nick]

You went for a shit at a friends house?

Must have been Paul's.

[Skidder.]

Almost forgot to post this (as the max attachment size on here wouldn't allow me to do it directly off my phone), but look what I got a targeted advert for yesterday 

100% not spoken to anyone on the phone or in person about these.

Okay, so go backwards, tell us what you think triggered it and I'll test it on mine too.

[CraigDS]

Okay, so go backwards, tell us what you think triggered it and I'll test it on mine too.

Could be multiple things. Not sure if RAWK has any retargeting pixels on the site which would have allowed it to be picked up. Think I also searched for the name of the cup which would be enough on its own.

The problem is that Amazon have a very broad setting on their advertising. Their spend is so huge and across such a wide range of products that they can't narrow it down based on my other behaviour and likes for every single product type. Hence I get shown baby cups when have not got a kid, or even young relatives and have little to no previous baby related search history.

[kennedy81]

Not sure if this doesn't deserve its own thread, but there's a great Guardian article here on the 'attention economy':

'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia

Interview with Tristan Harris here, who was featured in the article. Very eye-opening stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlPF9_1VIso

[gazzam1963]

Just thought of this thread an hour ago , about two hours ago my sister in law is in our kitchen / dining room and I offer her a roast dinner but she says she's had fish fingers and then we go onto a conversation how there not the same anymore , thinner not as white even mentioned birds eyes ones then an hour later goes on Facebook and here as I'm flicking through is a video you must see , and it's an advert for birds eye fish fingers
Really weird

[Alan_X]

You know, just as folk rationalise to pander to their delusions, the same can be said for the opposite. Unless you are deliberately playing Devil's Advocate (which is sound), how can you see this as anything other than a typical case of hotwording?

Don't you think that it is an even larger coincidence that the bloke was actually talking about it? I mean, the word coincidence has been thrown around here quite a lot - but 9 pages on, are you seriously still thinking that people's experiences and stories are just coincidence?

The simplest explanation to this is simply that his phone picked up on buzzwords (linking brand names, etc...) rather than well... If I gleaned this right - he signed in on their Wifi, so their friends' searches and purchases have somehow infected his phone... and out of all of the hundreds and thousands of items they could have searched for, (or others), 'it' has chosen to throw this one advert at him?

Or.

A device that has a microphone on it (that reads speech very well), that is carried around everywhere, has a number of top 10 app downloads on it and the resources to monitor hotwords at the end-user level, has picked up on a 'vocal cookie' and linked an advertising campaign to him.

I am astounded that folk still think that... well, I will quote the mother of all cynics:

. I heard you say that...

What I don’t understand is why it has never happened to me. I get loads of targeted ads based on my searches. They’re really noticeable because I search for stuff for work tht is quite unusual and the targeted ads stand out.

There’s no doubt that Facebook and others use all sorts of inputs into their algorithms. I just don’t see how this voice thing actually works. I talk about all sorts of things every day but none of them come up in ads unless I’ve also searched for them or otherwise shown interest.

I read the thread with interest but after ten pages all there is are anecdotes, confirmation bias and coincidences. Are Facebook, Google and the rest using our info to target ads? Yes, undoubtedly because they say so. We each speak between 7,000 and 20,000 words every day but most of the examples given are based on the apparent correlation of one or two words out of those thousands of words and if the examples are true, then Google/Facebook etc are not only selecting one or two words out of thousands but deliberately selecting words that have no cross-reference with any searches or likes in the rest of their social media.

Isn’t that a bit odd? The basis of these algorithms is to bring together different sources of information to create targeted ads. The fundamental argument of this thread is that the words that are listened to have absolutely no link to anything else.

[Alan_X]

Just as a quick experiment I logged into my Amazon account to look at the suggestions it had for products I might be interested in. Of the hundred or so products suggested I have never bought, searched for, or spoken about 95% of them. And of the rest they are things like Gillette Mach 3 blades, Fairy liquid, Andrew toilet rolls and other popular brands.

There were twenty suggestions for sweets (I don't eat sweets), twenty for baby products, a load of shitty snacks that I'd never touch in a million years and so on.

I just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Isn't Amazon in on this?

[Elmo!]

Just as a quick experiment I logged into my Amazon account to look at the suggestions it had for products I might be interested in. Of the hundred or so products suggested I have never bought, searched for, or spoken about 95% of them. And of the rest they are things like Gillette Mach 3 blades, Fairy liquid, Andrew toilet rolls and other popular brands.

There were twenty suggestions for sweets (I don't eat sweets), twenty for baby products, a load of shitty snacks that I'd never touch in a million years and so on.

I just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Isn't Amazon in on this?

Do you own an Amazon device? (I agree with you on this but not owning an Amazon device would make your test redundant).

[CraigDS]

Do you own an Amazon device? (I agree with you on this but not owning an Amazon device would make your test redundant).

Not if you’ve got the Amazon app installed.

[Brian Blessed]

Just as a quick experiment I logged into my Amazon account to look at the suggestions it had for products I might be interested in. Of the hundred or so products suggested I have never bought, searched for, or spoken about 95% of them. And of the rest they are things like Gillette Mach 3 blades, Fairy liquid, Andrew toilet rolls and other popular brands.

There were twenty suggestions for sweets (I don't eat sweets), twenty for baby products, a load of shitty snacks that I'd never touch in a million years and so on.

I just don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Isn't Amazon in on this?

You've got someone pregnant and Amazon is thinking not only of the baby, but when he is a kid, then a teenager hitting puberty.

[Alan_X]

Do you own an Amazon device? (I agree with you on this but not owning an Amazon device would make your test redundant).

I've got an Amazon account and have the Amazon Prime app on my phone and iPad.

[Elmo!]

I've got an Amazon account and have the Amazon Prime app on my phone and iPad.

Yeah of course was forgetting about the apps as someone who doesn't use Amazon much.

[Skidder.]

. I heard you say that...

What I don’t understand is why it has never happened to me. I get loads of targeted ads based on my searches. They’re really noticeable because I search for stuff for work tht is quite unusual and the targeted ads stand out.

There’s no doubt that Facebook and others use all sorts of inputs into their algorithms. I just don’t see how this voice thing actually works. I talk about all sorts of things every day but none of them come up in ads unless I’ve also searched for them or otherwise shown interest.

I read the thread with interest but after ten pages all there is are anecdotes, confirmation bias and coincidences. Are Facebook, Google and the rest using our info to target ads? Yes, undoubtedly because they say so. We each speak between 7,000 and 20,000 words every day but most of the examples given are based on the apparent correlation of one or two words out of those thousands of words and if the examples are true, then Google/Facebook etc are not only selecting one or two words out of thousands but deliberately selecting words that have no cross-reference with any searches or likes in the rest of their social media.

Isn’t that a bit odd? The basis of these algorithms is to bring together different sources of information to create targeted ads. The fundamental argument of this thread is that the words that are listened to have absolutely no link to anything else.

Yes - it is fucking 100% odd - but if you think I am arguing for arguings sake, you should just leave the thread, because we will just go around in circles with each other and we both know (at least, I hope you do) that we have the cajones to go on. Whether it is purely anecdotal or not, as the BBC has reported, it is possible.

Whether or not companies would is another thing.

I believe that they would - perhaps that is paranoia, delusional, corp-cynical, anecdotal - who knows?

But to glean your point, if possible, if practiced - can you honestly say that anyone here on these forums could understand the praxis of it all?

I know that this thread has deviated and pranged the sides with differing views/point(s), but at the core, it really isn't just coincidence that other folk have experienced similar happenings (not just on here) - 100 monkey syndrome? active imaginations? Or could it be that certain carriers, phones and/or programs (backtailing) are only used?

But...

Alan, a question for you -

I was watching Louis Theroux on my TV the other day and I had my phone and my laptop at my side.

I logged in on Facebook to post this:

""So you have some boundaries."
Oh Louis..."

I did the whole TV-tagging thing and low and behold, without typing a single word - Louis Theroux was the first hit.

Was my phone somehow listening to what I was watching or is there another explanation?

I did ask this of another poster and they offered a very reasonable explanation?

What do you think?

(I didn't ignore your point - I will try to swing back on it).

https://myactivity.google.com/more-activity

Anyone who hasn't already visited this, should visit it already. It is no smoking gun by far, but it will let us know just what information Google holds about your devices.

[Anywhichwayicant]

Of course they are.

WhatsApp actually seem decent when it comes to personal info, but most definitely a lot of companies are.

The common man won't actually know what these companies are doing with their details/info until a decade down the line.


There's a reason these people are billionaires.

[Skidder.]

Of course they are.

WhatsApp actually seem decent when it comes to personal info, but most definitely a lot of companies are.

The common man won't actually know what these companies are doing with their details/info until a decade down the line.


There's a reason these people are billionaires.

Whatsapp share information with Facebook - they are in cahoots - one day, Facebook and Whatsapp will merge.

That information, is of course, not your encrypted messages.

[CraigDS]

I was watching Louis Theroux on my TV the other day and I had my phone and my laptop at my side.

I logged in on Facebook to post this:

""So you have some boundaries."
Oh Louis..."

I did the whole TV-tagging thing and low and behold, without typing a single word - Louis Theroux was the first hit.

Was my phone somehow listening to what I was watching or is there another explanation?

I did ask this of another poster and they offered a very reasonable explanation?

What do you think?

Well did you type the message first? As if so the obvious one is you included a name in the message.

The less obvious one is it was probably one of the most posted about TV shows at the time you were posting, so it was higher in the list.

The even more less obvious answer is it was the most popular show to post about by the group FB have profiled you into based on your previous posting history, hence it showed up first at that time.

[Graeme]

Craig, give up trying to provide rational explanations. You can lead a horse to water.....

[Brian Blessed]

I've never watched Louis Theroux, but do they say his full name alot in it? How did your phone pick it out of the probably hundreds of words spoken during it?

[CraigDS]

I've never watched Louis Theroux, but do they say his full name alot in it? How did your phone pick it out of the probably hundreds of words spoken during it?

Come on, it's obvious the media companies are all in it together and provided FB with a copy of the programme before hand, which was uploaded to their voice recognition systems and identified the TV programme Kidder was watching.

[Alan_X]

Of course they are.

WhatsApp actually seem decent when it comes to personal info, but most definitely a lot of companies are.

The common man won't actually know what these companies are doing with their details/info until a decade down the line.


There's a reason these people are billionaires.

It's the last line that is my reason for finding this so unlikely. How do you monetise picking up random spoken words? 

[Xabi Gerrard]

It's the last line that is my reason for finding this so unlikely. How do you monetise picking up random spoken words? 

For targeted ads, no? If a device picks up you and your other half talking about, say, camping, you might see targeted ads for tents, etc, next time you log onto a website.

Personalised data is huge business in online advertising.

[Anywhichwayicant]

It's the last line that is my reason for finding this so unlikely. How do you monetise picking up random spoken words?

Advertising is huge business.

Any gap you find, you take it.

Even small businesses spend substantial money on advertising.


I honestly find it amazing that people think this isn't going on.

[stoa]

For targeted ads, no? If a device picks up you and your other half talking about, say, camping, you might see targeted ads for tents, etc, next time you log onto a website.

Personalised data is huge business in online advertising.

But why isn't there more of this? All we're hearing is isolated incidents of ads matching something people talked about or watched on TV. So, let's say those kind of targeted ads are really a thing why don't they happen more often? We only hear about isolated incidents. Surely they'd be used more often and people would be able to mention various incidents instead of citing single events...

[Anywhichwayicant]

But why isn't there more of this? All we're hearing is isolated incidents of ads matching something people talked about or watched on TV. So, let's say those kind of targeted ads are really a thing why don't they happen more often? We only hear about isolated incidents. Surely they'd be used more often and people would be able to mention various incidents instead of citing single events...

All we heard were isolated incidents of the Gulf of Tonkin, no chemical weapons in Iraq, NSA spying on everyone...

[Xabi Gerrard]

But why isn't there more of this? All we're hearing is isolated incidents of ads matching something people talked about or watched on TV. So, let's say those kind of targeted ads are really a thing why don't they happen more often? We only hear about isolated incidents. Surely they'd be used more often and people would be able to mention various incidents instead of citing single events...

I'd imagine it's because voice is such a nascent technology and we'll see more and more of it with time.

It's a newish tech frontier and has only recently started getting to the point where it's practical to use in everyday life, rather than typing. See the graph attached* to see both how many more words are now recognised and also how much more accurate its become. Bare in mind the y-axis is exponential, so a slight increase in the graph represents a huge increase in words recognised.

So it's only recently that devices are able to pick up the nuances of spoken language. Then factor in the legal issues - just because companies can now recognise what people are saying, they still have to get your permission to use it as data. They'll get that permission by burying it deep in the small print which no one ever reads. Most older tech/apps that you use probably have neither the ability nor your permission (because back when you accepted the terms the technology for it didn't exist).

We'll start seeing a hell of a lot more of this when voice assistants, like Amazon Echo, become more common place, which will be quite soon.



*Graph is from Mary Meeker's annual tech trends report, haven't got a link to it but I used this copy in a presentation I made earlier in the year. Just Google Mary Meeker Tech Trends and you'll find it in, I think, her 2016 report.

[stoa]

All we heard were isolated incidents of the Gulf of Tonkin, no chemical weapons in Iraq, NSA spying on everyone...

That's just comparing apples and oranges. Surely if your phone is listening to you for targeted ads it would happen more often than just once. We've read stories about people seeing ads for a cup for kids or whatever despite not having kids or needing one of those cups. Why did the targeting happen on that occasion and not when that person was talking about something they might actually need? It just makes no sense to listen to a bunch of sounds and words and then produce "targeted" ads from that. You need to get a lot more details to make it worth it. You need to find who is talking in what context and match that with even more of their data. Then it might make sense, but it's also quite a hassle to go through for something that might not even have an effect...

[Anywhichwayicant]

That's just comparing apples and oranges. Surely if your phone is listening to you for targeted ads it would happen more often than just once. We've read stories about people seeing ads for a cup for kids or whatever despite not having kids or needing one of those cups. Why did the targeting happen on that occasion and not when that person was talking about something they might actually need? It just makes no sense to listen to a bunch of sounds and words and then produce "targeted" ads from that. You need to get a lot more details to make it worth it. You need to find who is talking in what context and match that with even more of their data. Then it might make sense, but it's also quite a hassle to go through for something that might not even have an effect...

It's being kept quiet because what sane company is going to come out and say "Yeah, we're listening to your conversations and using them to make money".

Many posters have given their own personal experiences in this thread alone, yet are dismissed as delusional or conspiracy theorists. A lot of people outside of RAWK are also saying the same.

You can pretend it's not happening all you want, but it is.

[Xabi Gerrard]

it's also quite a hassle to go through for something that might not even have an effect...

Whether targeted advertising is effective or not (it is), companies are still willing to pay huge amounts to make sure their adverts reach an audience they believe will be receptive.

If you're selling football boots and have the budget to reach 10,000 people, would you rather a scattergun approach to reach a completely random selection of the 10,000 people (inc grannies, granddads, pregnant women, etc), or would you rather it reach 10,000 boys/men aged 8 to 40?

The more specific you can get your adverts to reach your target audience, the more money companies will pay.

This is the same principle, advertisers are trying to target people who have expressed some sort of interest in their product (see my earlier example of targeting tent adverts to someone who's recently mentioned camping).

[CraigDS]

For targeted ads, no? If a device picks up you and your other half talking about, say, camping, you might see targeted ads for tents, etc, next time you log onto a website.

Personalised data is huge business in online advertising.

Talking about camping does not make for good targeting.

I could be talking about how much I hate camping, or how my sister is going camping, or how much my brand new tent for the next time I go camping cost me (so why do I want a new tent?).

The system would not only have to pick up 100% of a conversation, it would have to differentiate between the two or more people talking, possibly over each other, pick up the content and context of the conversation by each of those, and then filter this to determine products and marketers this would benefit.

Now I'm not sure if you've ever used any current speech enable devices on the market today, but they can only just about handle direct commands they are pre-programmed to listen for and respond to.

There is simply no way your phone, TV, whatever can pick up and process all that. Certainly no way that would not have been picked up by now by the many people who examine the latest code and processes in new tech.

Also, speaking as someone who does a lot of targeting marketing on multiple platforms, there are simply no options available to target based on data obtained via conversation and given the bad targeting this thread seems to make it out to be I would not be too happy to pay for it either.

[Skidder.]

Well did you type the message first? As if so the obvious one is you included a name in the message.

The less obvious one is it was probably one of the most posted about TV shows at the time you were posting, so it was higher in the list.

The even more less obvious answer is it was the most popular show to post about by the group FB have profiled you into based on your previous posting history, hence it showed up first at that time.

Not at all and it isn't the first time it has happened - it has happed while watching Ozark, Walking Dead and even The Apprentice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-using-people-s-phones-to-listen-in-on-what-they-re-saying-claims-professor-a7057526.html#gallery

Have a look at that article - the basis of which states:

"Facebook says that its app does listen to what’s happening around it, but only as a way of seeing what people are listening to or watching and suggesting that they post about it."

So, Facebook themselves state that they at least have the capacity... they have the power to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcGTuPrndA

This is fiction - of course it is; but the very concept behind it is 'real'. That was first, apparently proven in the 1980s...

I admit I don't know the tech behind it, but in all honesty - if this is true, could it be possible that Van Eck could be some sort of basis for the praxis of this?

In fact - I have just tried to replicate it by watching The Apprentice on BBCIplayer with my phone where it was the other week - didn't replicate...

Either I am going mad, or there is some other marker to be used - I agree, the simplest explanation would be trends and likes...  But still, I am not 100% unconvinced that this is just wanton confirmation bias.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Before I address the individual points, I just want to clarify that I'm not commenting on any instances that may have been mentioned in here, I'm just saying;

- The technology now exists to make this happen (voice recognition has both the vocabulary and the accuracy, and processors have the speed to filter the data);

- Targeting advertising is much sought after by companies as they know it's effective, and hence will pay money for it.

Right...

Talking about camping does not make for good targeting.

I could be talking about how much I hate camping, or how my sister is going camping, or how much my brand new tent for the next time I go camping cost me (so why do I want a new tent?).

The system would not only have to pick up 100% of a conversation, it would have to differentiate between the two or more people talking, possibly over each other, pick up the content and context of the conversation by each of those, and then filter this to determine products and marketers this would benefit.

No no no no no no no. Just no. Don't know if you're being naive or obtuse here. Think of it like this. I'm going to give you the HUGE benefit of the doubt and say that 50% of people that talk about camping are saying something negative or indifferent, like they hate camping or something. (In reality it will be nowhere near this high). That leaves 50% talking positively about camping. The tent company can now scattergun advertise and hit, what less than 5% of people who coincidentally want to go camping. Or they can go for the option where 50% of the people want to go camping. They can get that from picking up the word "camping" without context. Given the choice, they will always pick the latter option.

There is simply no way your phone, TV, whatever can pick up and process all that. Certainly no way that would not have been picked up by now by the many people who examine the latest code and processes in new tech.

The tech is now out there mate. Maybe not in your phone or TV, but it's available. Big data is also huge business (as you must know through your line of work?) so being able to process the data into usable patterns is also not science fiction.

Also, speaking as someone who does a lot of targeting marketing on multiple platforms, there are simply no options available to target based on data obtained via conversation and given the bad targeting this thread seems to make it out to be I would not be too happy to pay for it either.

I don't know what instances (and hence technologies) people on here have been talking about regarding their devices listening to them, and I also don't know specifically what industry you work in. What I do know though is that;

-tech is at a point now where it is possible;
-targeted advertising is big business, and your data is being used for advertising purposes in other media, e.g. cookies on websites, likes on FB, etc;

I think the crux of your argument is that the tech isn't there though yet, right? That's where I disagree.

[CraigDS]

No no no no no no no. Just no. Don't know if you're being naive or obtuse here. Think of it like this. I'm going to give you the HUGE benefit of the doubt and say that 50% of people that talk about camping are saying something negative or indifferent, like they hate camping or something. (In reality it will be nowhere near this high). That leaves 50% talking positively about camping. The tent company can now scattergun advertise and hit, what less than 5% of people who coincidentally want to go camping. Or they can go for the option where 50% of the people want to go camping. They can get that from picking up the word "camping" without context. Given the choice, they will always pick the latter option.

Now let's pretend you didn't just make up some figures to try and argue a point for a minute...

That is simply not targeted. You said it yourself, it's scatter gun.

Do you do any sort of targeted marketing? I've managed and advised accounts for years upon years now, and now have a couple of my own for my own businesses which I set up and manage very successfully. I def have a good idea how it works.

I would not be paying for 'targeted' audiences like what you said. I'd be throwing away a good proportion of my money.

The tech is now out there mate. Maybe not in your phone or TV, but it's available. Big data is also huge business (as you must know through your line of work?) so being able to process the data into usable patterns is also not science fiction.

So is it there or not? You say it's there then you say not in your phone or TV.... which is kind of important isn't it? You know given that's how people claim they are listening in.

I mean unless we all have some secret mainframe in the walls which nasty FB installed whilst we were sleeping?


Have you used Alexa, or Siri recently? Would you say they have the ability to do as you suggest as it they stand?

I don't know what instances (and hence technologies) people on here have been talking about regarding their devices listening to them, and I also don't know specifically what industry you work in. What I do know though is that;

-tech is at a point now where it is possible;
-targeted advertising is big business, and your data is being used for advertising purposes in other media, e.g. cookies on websites, likes on FB, etc;

I think the crux of your argument is that the tech isn't there though yet, right? That's where I disagree.

My argument is numerous...

- The hardware is there, but the software to collect and sort the data to be a sellable product to those purchasing highly targeting advertising is not.
- There is zero evidence of the hardware undertaking such processor power supping work or that this info is sent off your phone (people regularly check for this sort of shit).
- There is no market currently where any platform is selling targeting audience to marketers based on listened to conversations.

I do however agree you are profile and tracked a huge amount of other ways.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Do you do any sort of targeted marketing? I've managed and advised accounts for years upon years now, and now have a couple of my own for my own businesses which I set up and manage very successfully. I def have a good idea how it works.

I do strategic consulting work for tech firms (and other types of companies) rather than specialise in marketing. One of my clients is an online performance marketer. Fair enough though, I don't get into the nitty gritty. My example was (obviously not great! but also) trying to demonstrate in simple laymans terms how the tech could pick up words and patterns.

Another example (feel free to shoot down!) - when you search for something in a search engine and next thing you know you're seeing that product all over your FB feed, pornhub, the Guardian website, etc? You don't have to be Nostradamus to see that's where we're going with voice, I just think we're getting there sooner than you I guess. I appreciate that specifically searching for something is different to mentioning it in passing, but I know enough about tech companies to know they're innovative and competitive enough to  try this - whichever of the giants captures the market first will make their shareholders a lot of money. And that's their raison d'etre.

So is it there or not? You say it's there then you say not in your phone or TV.... which is kind of important isn't it? You know given that's how people claim they are listening in.

I actually meant your phone or TV, as in the phone or TV belonging to CraigDS from the internet, rather than a generic 'your'. You could be using a Nokia 64 or Brionvega TV set for all I know, in which case your phone or TV clearly wont have the tech. Even older smartphones or non-smart TVs (which I still use) probably wont be able to.

- The hardware is there, but the software to collect and sort the data to be a sellable product to those purchasing highly targeting advertising is not.
- There is no market currently where any platform is selling targeting audience to marketers based on listened to conversations.

On these two points, I think it's important to talk about how new tech products are introduced to the market. They don't innovate the finished article and then roll it out to market. They'll follow Lean StartUp methodology - create a basic product, not for the general market, put it out there (either themselves or to select clients), test, get feedback, iterate, put it back out there, test, feedback, iterate, and on and on until they've got a saleable and working product. So if/when this tech gets introduced as a finished product to be sold on to the market (such as to companies like yours - no idea who you work for or what you do), it will already have been out there in another capacity for some time.