What if Web Users Could Sell Their Own Data?(boss.blogs.nytimes.com)
boss.blogs.nytimes.com
What if Web Users Could Sell Their Own Data?
http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/what-if-web-users-could-sell-their-own-data/
9 comments
Isn't that what already is happening when you sign for all kinds of "consumer clubs", accept credit card offer that you don't need but has nice signup bonus, register on some side in exchange for some bonus or ability to access free service, etc.?
Given that, I wouldn't mind to except some advertisers from my Ghostery and AdBlock lists in exchange for something heading my way, either in money or in some other perks. But I don't see how this would work - they really have no way to check if I uphold my part of the bargain and probably most people give it away for free anyway by not using blockers, so this program would have very small target audience.
Given that, I wouldn't mind to except some advertisers from my Ghostery and AdBlock lists in exchange for something heading my way, either in money or in some other perks. But I don't see how this would work - they really have no way to check if I uphold my part of the bargain and probably most people give it away for free anyway by not using blockers, so this program would have very small target audience.
Yes, except that you probably receive 10% of the real value of your data by joining rewards clubs. These guys offer you 90%.
It's not the data, it's the delivery. If everyone could have a spot in all the major ISP's and datacenters and set up their own little racks, mirroring some interesting content for high speeed access around the world, then there's no need for many of the big companies that are currently raking in the dough (e.g. Akamai, Google, Netflix notice none of them own the data!).
When anyone can deliver the data by setting up a server proximate to the user, then it just becomes a question of what you have to offer. And then we see that none of the big players actually own any of the content they're serving. Suddenly they are not so valuable. If my neighbor and I run a crossover cable between our homes, that's about as "high speed" as we're going to get. If my neighbor has the same content as BigWebCompanyServingContentTheyDoNotOwn, then I'm going to choose to get it from my neighbor. It's faster.
In sum, it's the ownership of the delivery mechanism, the distribution channel, not the data. (That's why the media and entertainment industry are toast: as the internets gets bigger they cannot control distribution as easily. Eventually once everyone is online, they will have almost no control.) But what's funnier is BigWebCompany does not even own the distribution channel either! They just are the only ones serving up the content for you, from an ISP or datacenter at close proximity.
Instead they "control" things like email, web browsers, and server know-how.
When anyone can deliver the data by setting up a server proximate to the user, then it just becomes a question of what you have to offer. And then we see that none of the big players actually own any of the content they're serving. Suddenly they are not so valuable. If my neighbor and I run a crossover cable between our homes, that's about as "high speed" as we're going to get. If my neighbor has the same content as BigWebCompanyServingContentTheyDoNotOwn, then I'm going to choose to get it from my neighbor. It's faster.
In sum, it's the ownership of the delivery mechanism, the distribution channel, not the data. (That's why the media and entertainment industry are toast: as the internets gets bigger they cannot control distribution as easily. Eventually once everyone is online, they will have almost no control.) But what's funnier is BigWebCompany does not even own the distribution channel either! They just are the only ones serving up the content for you, from an ISP or datacenter at close proximity.
Instead they "control" things like email, web browsers, and server know-how.
This company isn't actually cutting checks, so the volunteers aren't selling their own data as much as letting themselves be spied upon for charity and "maybe perks in the future".
"Web users" barter their own data in exchange for the use of free services. If you sold your own data, why would companies continue to offer you a "free" account? Certainly not for the ad views...
Interesting concept, but the idea seems to be just a spin-off of the "fill out surveys for money!" business model. Especially the way in which users earn "perks" rather than cash payouts.
Reminds me of an idea where a company trains people to be professional bloggers by addicting them to writing, and in exchange a fixed salary is given.
$1 a month? Not even close.
Google did it in February with Screenwise.
It's called rebate card or a fidelity card, as offered by many commerces when you take time to give at least your address.
I'm just surprised that no e-commerce gives rebates in exchange of access to the client facebook account.