"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" Book Review

"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" by Joseph Turow

Do you notice the ads that are shown when you check your email or watch YouTube? If not, then maybe you should. These ads say a lot about who you are but surprisingly, you have no control over this.

What kind of ads you see is decided by data-mining companies that compile information about what you do online (and offline), including what you buy, how you buy and how often you buy. They even know your gender, your age and your household income. And the most surprising fact of all is that it's all legal for them to get this information from you--without your consent.

The most sinister part of this new knowledge is that these companies sell and trade your personal information for their own gain--putting you into possibly unfavorable categories, also known as 'waste', which may affect your credit and future employability.

Joseph Turow's book, "The Daily You..." compiles many years of information searching, research and internet activity to define how a person is judged by these data-mining 'super-powers' who are controlling what we see on the internet. Instead of the long-held belief that we control our information on the internet, Turow shows a shocking behind-the-scenes look that reveals how little we actually control while we unknowingly surf the world wide web.

In Turow's introduction, the book shows us how, "(Marketers and other companies are) performing a highly controversial form of social profiling and discrimination by customizing our media content on the basis of marketing reputations we don't even know we have."

He gives a fictional account of a middle-class family with children who happen to eat at a lot of fast-food restaurants. For example: Mr. Father notices a bunch of ads on his page for used cars, dieting, and loan companies. When complaining about the low-trend in the web market, Mr. Father is shocked to hear from his boss that she gets ads for Mercedes Benz and BMW's on her web page.

However, this scenario is NOT fictional--it's real. Recently, I visited a blog for Plus-sized women and found many ads thereafter, wanting me to shop at Zulily--Plus-size women's fashions. Based on my IP address (which contains my gender, age and location), I constantly get ads for weight-loss, shoes and cash loans. Note: I am not a Plus-size woman, I don't like shopping for shoes and I don't need a cash loan. I can't help but feel insulted by these false statistics that some data-mining company gleaned from my IP address.

Joseph Turow also notes in his introduction that, "In broader and broader ways, computer generated conclusions about who we are affect the media content--the streams of commercial messages, discount offers, information, news, and entertainment--each of us confronts."

Take a look at the news clips you see when you log-in to your email. It usually has breaking news, world-wide news events and major disasters. However, take a closer look and you may see a lot of 'fluff' pieces such as: A celebrity got a make-over, B celebrity got a new dog, C celebrity has a new haircut, etc. Not exactly news-worthy, is it? What you may not realize is that these fluff pieces are geared toward people in your age group and like it or not, you're now subject to the new definition of 'news', i.e. Tabloid Entertainment Daily.

By this definition our view of the world is drastically shrinking when viewed by these narrow margins of what people our age should view. This is just one consequence that is outlined in, "The Daily You".

Turow then complies a history of the media-buying system which is behind this whole ad-centered philosophy and argues that unless people understand how this system works, they can't hope to change it. These media-buying agencies control around $170 Billion dollars in the United States alone!

But remember, we pay them too. These agencies depend on us for their data and we as their targets influence how they spend their money. Many of these agencies have a lot of competition within their ranks to reach us (the consumers), and they spend their precious money to throw more ads at us in return. The more we know, the more we can influence their decisions.

But it's a long battle...

These companies control more than just our buying information. Some of these companies also handle our private background information--what is believed to be private. Companies like Acxiom, used in some background checks, actually furnish our private information to media agencies for a very hefty price.

The way these companies and marketers define us is crucial when we are applying for a home loan, student loan or a job. How will we be judged based on these advertisements? What are these companies saying about us? Do we have good credit or bad credit? Do we pay off our loans or are we considered a risk because we haven't established credit yet? You may be surprised what they are saying, and there's not a whole lot you can do about it.

The main thing missing in all of the data-gathering companies' practices is transparency. It's not so much that they're following us--although that's creepy enough. It's that they're not telling us that we're being followed, that they're using our information for their own gain--all without our knowledge!

Considering that these companies and marketers are constantly bombarding us with 'ad choices' it's surprising how little control we have over what should be our right to choose. Do we really have control over the ads we see?

Turow challenges this assumption that "the consumer is king" in his first chapter. He titles his book after, Nicholas Negroponte's own 1995 book, "Being Digital", using an example of The Daily Me, "an online newspaper whose content would be customized to suit the interests and beliefs of individual readers".

This breach of privacy and conflict of interest would go against ordinary laws but these companies have billions to spend on lobbyists to influence the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC implemented a privacy policy requirement in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, and is supposed to oversee Online Privacy for the public.

Privacy advocates are still arguing these cases with the courts but the answer is lost among marketing lobbyists who control most of these courts. Take a look at who's on the Federal Trade Commission, then take a look at the top people involved in companies like: Acxiom, BlueKai, Rapleaf, etc. Notice anything? Their ties to each other are closer than you think.

Acxiom is a member of Privacy and American Business, the Center for Information Policy Leadership and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA).

--Consumer Data Products Catalogue 2011

Turow describes in his second chapter, how these marketing machines use technology to gain their information through: cookies (browser enabled devices that collect your personal information), phishing scams, permanent 'markers' in your computer hard drive, 'active' links (once clicked on, can track your progress through the web), and web bugs.

What caught my eye was in the third chapter, where Turow explains how companies get your information and 'feed' them to other companies in his chapter titled, "A New Advertising Food Chain".

"Nytimes.com has an arrangement with the LinkedIn social-media site to match nytimes.com registrants to their LinkedIn profiles and transfer that information to nytimes.com for its use in advertising".

Last Updated on February 13, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/privacy.html#b

I happen to have a LinkedIn profile page (but no Nytimes.com account), and having other people other than my future employers look at my page and use it for data-mining is something I call, online stalking behavior.

He goes on to say that website publishers can purchase data about registrants (from other sites besides Nytimes.com), "from information vendors such as Experian and Acxiom and append them to their files." This data can contain personal information about their job, their household income, their location and even how many kids they have.

There is so much to say about Google and their co-hort AdSense, that I covered the topic in my previous blog post, "They're Watching Us", with Yahoo!'s similar AdChoices company. Turow writes about the history of these sites and how the search engine giant, Google, helped pave the way for marketers to track what you search.

Chapter four, "Target or Waste", is an actual title marketers use to classify us Americans and whether or not we are worth pursuing. Those in the waste section get ads and coupons for low-class deals in the supermarket, while those in the target area may see exclusive shopping deals for Nordstrom, Bloomingdales or Tiffany & Co.. Looks like I'm in the waste pile...

Acxiom (a large 'marketing-communication agency') has a lot to say about you in their Consumer Data Products Catalogue, concerning your demographic, household income, race and other personal factors that may determine if you are worth pursuing as a consumer (target) or not (waste).

If that's not creepy enough for you, here's another quote I found about how Acxiom puts you in a 'race-box'.

"Our Race model provides information on the major racial category: Caucasians, Hispanics, African-Americans, or Asians. The Country of Origin model provides more detail on ethnicity, with the actual country of the consumer’s heritage." 

Page 9 of Consumer Data Products Catalogue 

http://www.Acxiom.com/site-assets/catalog-consumer-data-products/

Reading about their separate categories for said people above is enough to make your stomach turn. Here's another quote from their catalogue which deems one category "too close to the bottom of the list for net worth".

"41 TRuCKIN’ & STYLIN’ Truckin & Stylin’ households are in their mid-to-late 30s and live in rural towns. Though, on average, they earn middle incomes, they rank below average for income when compared to the nation and drop too close to the bottom of the list (58th) for net worth." 

(Page 31)
Ibid.

Do you fall into this category? Well, that's just too bad. You are now cast into the waste pile.

Turow went through this many-paged catalogue (59 pages in PDF form), to point out more of what Acxiom does to get rid of the waste pile, which is to put many people into a segment called, "contact suppression".

"Enhances marketing performance and increases ROI (Return On Investment) by recognizing undesirable or less responsive consumers through deceased, prison, bankruptcy, taxes, liens and judgment, underage and geo suppression" 

(Page 53)

Ibid.

Reading chapter four is enough to educate even the most oblivious internet surfer, to the dangers of these data-mining companies. Trouble is, they're pretty much everywhere and there's little to no escape from them. These companies have insinuated themselves in our every-day life: our shopping, car insurance, health insurance, education and credit card dealings. You'd have to be a total Luddite to not be followed and tracked all the time.

Chapter five, in "The Daily You" focuses on media buyers and the pressure they put upon publishers (those who provide content to people), to share private information for the sake of revenue.

Since subscriptions are at an all-time-low, publishers have no choice but to rely more on the advertisers who give them money to put ads on display. Trouble is, advertisers won't pay money without the data--and they are in greater control of what publishers are producing for us consumers. You may notice how closely the articles in what you read resemble the ads that are right next to them. How can you tell which is which? The line is so blurred that even publishers have trouble discerning the difference.

There used to be laws limiting such vagrant mis-use of content, but no more. To paraphrase Turow's findings in the television industry, The U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, ruled that previous industry codes that "dictated maximum hourly commercial minutes", were invalid--thus, leaving the area open to an unlimited amount of leeway to mix "commercial components into programming".

This was one of many decisions in 1996 (along with the Telecommunications Act), that eroded previously upheld codes of conduct for marketers to adhere to. With the fall of television regulation, it wasn't long before the internet regulations would follow suit.

Chapter six deals with social media targeting, tracking and off-line stalking behavior.

With new mobile devices such as Smartphones (iPhones, Androids, etc.), advertisers can now track everyone, everywhere. Since there are little to no regulations to protect people (a.k.a. consumers), advertisers can track people when they're essentially 'offline' as well.

Social media is defining the new landscape that advertisers have to navigate. New social media platforms such as Facebook, Foursquare and Twitter, allow people to share information with their friends in real-time. Sounds great, right? Well, what people don't know is that advertisers see whatever you post here. They can figure out what location you're in, what stores are near by, and send direct feeds to businesses as you are using your mobile device. They are tracking you from your phone!

Foursquare is especially vile in their stalking behavior. They track and gather information about where you go after you log-in and submit your information. Foursquare encourages you to constantly check-in at various locations and add your friends--all without telling you that this information is viewable by other companies, third-party sites and search engines.

For example: In the morning you go to the store for groceries (you might be a stay-at-home mom), you stop for gas at a gas station but use your parents credit card (you must be a college kid), then head to the movies with your friends on a Friday afternoon (you don't have a job), then go to someone else's house to cook dinner with the groceries you bought (must be a boyfriend)--cue ads for 'couple's dinner & movie' special.

Now Foursquare has all this valuable information about you: your gender (female), household income (single--non-working), your interests (movies--chick-flick, romance, comedy), what you buy (instant pasta, salad, canned fruit, cheap white wine) and who you hang out with (college age, middle-income, pre-owned vehicle driver, beer & cheap wine buyer, Safeway shopper w/ club card, etc.).

Do you get the picture? The more friends you add on Foursquare, the more Foursquare can track your friends and also shape an opinion of you: (low-income, drug user, lives in mobile home, is on welfare...) Oops, that's not you, is it? The wrong person must've added you as a friend...

Although tracking is limited on mobile devices, companies are figuring out ways to track your mobile phone through accounts which are used for PC's, laptops, and other devices. Think of those 'bundling' services that conveniently put all your devices onto its network for one low price. They're not doing it for your benefit--it's so they can track you. It's much easier to track all your devices under their network, rather than having each device under a different competing network.

The same is true when you access the same publisher with a different device (smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.). You are required to log-in each time, so by using multiple devices, they have greater access to what you're using and what you're doing on each device.

According to Turow, "The New York Times reported on a technology company called Ringleader Digital, which had created a product called Media Stamp that, according to critics, could surreptitiously acquire information from a mobile device and assign it a unique ID". This was from an article Tanzina Vega did in the New York Times.

See Tanzina Vega's article, "Code That Tracks Users Browsing Prompts Lawsuits", New York Times, September 21, 2010. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/technology/21cookie.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

According to Vega's article, Flash Cookies are used to track users buying behavior online and people are taking legal action against these companies, including Ms. Burn, after she found out she was being tracked without her knowledge. From Vega's article, Flash Cookies are harder to erase than regular cookies and many people aren't aware of them. More alarming is that,

"Flash cookies can be used to restore HTML cookies that have been deleted from a user’s computer, circumventing a user’s privacy settings."

--Tanzina Vega, "Code That Tracks Users Browsing Prompts Lawsuits," New York Times, September 21, 2010

Such Big Brother spying is commonplace now but Turow gives a frightening view at how far this will go in the future. He gives a forecast about how this practice is moving to the household T.V., into the privacy of people's homes.

More than ever now, people stream the internet on their TV sets through Hulu.com or Roku. These providers often have ads that are geared toward the person's interests or location. I remember seeing an ad made for PG&E from my hometown! It was shown three times while I viewed content on Hulu Plus (which was supposed to be ad-free).

But having a search engine provide television may not be a good idea. Google Television, which aims to "link the internet to the living-room TV", has more access than you think to what people are watching. Their goal is "to organize television via search so that people will use Google Television instead of individual channels as a starting point for viewing".

Imagine if the shows presented for you to choose from was based on your 'profile' that Google gathered from your searches. "Search engines will then individualize their results so that your suggested television agenda will depend on the search company's understanding of you", quotes Turow.

But that's not all, besides limiting the choices you have Google Television promises to be the ultimate Big Brother. "And when you start a viewing session, Google Television, Comcast, or another entity will take advantage of that by watching you," Turow writes.

I don't think I'll be watching Google Television anytime soon... Heaven forbid I should see programming based on my gender and age bracket: The Kardashians Strike Back Season 1, Paris Goes To Hilton Season 3, and last but not least, Justin Bieber Has A New Song! Season 10.

Technology is developing faster than most people can keep up with. The use of mobile smartphones has exploded in the past five years. And yet people use these devices without a second thought for banking, online purchases and Facebook posts.

It's hard for citizens to rely on a government entity to protect privacy rights, since the government is heavily influenced by the same violators that are endangering privacy. Most people don't even know their privacy is being violated or that these companies operate this data-mining under a legal umbrella--shielded in legal jargon that is both contradictory and confusing.

Marketers argue that what they're doing is perfectly legal--after all, they wrote the rules! Self-regulation is non-existent and it's hard for privacy activists to prove that being spied on isn't all that bad. Based on a study funded by marketers, spying on people's activity is good for the economy!

According to a 2005 survey conducted by Turow, "large majorities of U.S. internet users" are largely unaware of what is going on. "They overestimate the protection the government provides for them". In 2009, Turow noted that "78 percent of American adults" didn't understand that just because a business has a 'privacy policy', doesn't meant that the business is protecting your privacy.

In most privacy policies I've read, it states that, "We may use your information to enhance your experience on our site...we may use your information for affiliate parties and subsidiaries...we may provide information to other sites and companies to improve our site..." Not very explicit, is it?

The truth is, if most people were given a choice, they'd rather not give out their personal information. When Facebook announced they would allow users to have a nickname instead of using a real name, many people changed their real names to a fake one. However, Facebook still manages to trace you and force you to enter your real name when you sign up. Even Google/YouTube is constantly bugging people to use their real names on their accounts.

If people really understood how these marketing companies are getting their information and then selling it around, people would think twice about putting their information out there. In some cases, people would be incensed enough to tell their government officials what is happening, and pass a law to protect their privacy rights. This has happened before but without much success, as the paid-for-by-special-interests courts throw out each case and consider them invalid.

It's not enough that we are callously judged by these companies as they spy on us. We are subject to a secret discrimination process which under the Constitution is illegal. Worse yet, we have no access to any evidence to defend ourselves with. It seems like all is lost when it comes to protecting our information online and off.

In chapter seven, Turow describes a future where everything we see and do is decided by the reputations these companies have set for us. What is more alarming is that the technology these companies use will be ever-intrusive, using voice and face recognition software, location chips and our fingerprints to follow and 'tag' our every move. We will be oblivious to the methods but ever-so-willing to cooperate in exchange for 'goodies' that companies promise to us.

Think of the Raley's, Safeway, Kmart, CVS, rewards card that we are required to carry in order to 'get the best deals'. Are we really getting all they are promising us? Do some people get better deals on their cards than I do? Or are they just finding another way to ply our information away from us to sell?

The fact is, they are tracking your every purchase, your every move through the shopping aisles and recording it--all without your knowledge or permission. Perhaps you didn't read the fine print when the salesperson asked you to give your phone number or email but you just threw away any privacy you previously had by getting that so-called 'rewards' card.

By putting people into these "reputation silos", Turow argues that our society will become further fractured and antagonistic. It will be like 'keeping up with the Jones' ' but on steroids. How will we feel when we know our neighbors are getting a much better deal on a product than we are? Worse yet, how will it affect our trust to know that certain businesses are charging more for us to use their service, than someone else?

There was a story covered in the news about Mac users being charged more for tickets on Expedia and other travel sites, than for Windows users. The reason? Mac users have more money to spend. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The point is: A) Expedia is reading information about your computer and browser without your knowledge or permission B) Expedia is ripping you off because you're a Mac user--and finally C) Charging different prices for the same product just because you're using a different computer is probably illegal.

I found this out for myself when I went online to buy tickets to travel and saw the prices were much higher when I used a Mac than when I used a PC for sites such as Travelocity, Orbitz, Expedia, and other sites. It's like charging someone a dollar extra for bread at the supermarket, just because they drive a Hummer instead of a mini-van!

In the words of the author, judging people based on data gathered without their knowledge, "will produce a corrosive social atmosphere characterized by resentment and distrust of both government and marketers."

If we can't rely on the Federal Trade Commission to protect our privacy, or the useless self-regulation idea that marketers stress, what can we do to protect our privacy?

Turow lists some major points that people can use to better educate and defend themselves against such online discrimination. I've added my own description to his points to better illustrate what people can do.

• Teach our children well: Kids don't know they can still be tracked online even if they are 13 years of age and younger. Tell them not to submit any information on any site that asks for their email, birthday or geographical location. Use educational game sites instead of commercial ones. Discourage chat rooms and never let them buy products, meet people online or use GPS on any of their devices.
• Let people know what is really going on with their data: Join discussion groups, meet with elected officials, write to your newspapers and tell people the truth. The more people know, the more they can do something about it.
• Create a "Do Not Track" regime with rotating "relevance" categories: Some browsers such as Firefox, allow you to erase cookies and other internet markers. However, some sites will insert new ones and require you to install another cookie in order to use their site. At best, you can temporarily erase them each day--but you may not be able to escape them all. Just be aware of which sites require cookies and why.
• Pass ground-level government regulations to force a playing field of good actors (industry and web sites, providers, etc.) See what local agencies are doing to protect your privacy and urge your local government representatives to uphold the rights of citizens regarding online and offline privacy. Try American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or other organizations that lobby congress to protect rights.

"The Daily You: How the New Advertising Industry Is Defining Your Identity and Your Worth" by Joseph Turow is a must-read for anyone interested in protecting their privacy both online and off. Turow also wrote, "Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age" (a study of deceitful marketing practices in America) and is a Professor of Communication and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, Annenberg School, University of Pennsylvania.

RECENT UPDATES

Is it possible to change your reputation, to try to 'fix the game', as it were? Can you really change your digital habits (online and off) to get a whole new reputation? Or will they find some excuse to shove you farther down the social ladder?

In my own search for the truth I will attempt to find out what these companies are saying about me. I will attempt to clear my browser of all cookies daily and go to web-sites that are deemed to be 'high-class': Vogue, Architectural Digest, Conde Nast, Mercedes Benz, etc. I will add a bunch of high-profile people to my 'friends' list and 'like' stores on Facebook that are beyond my reach, like Tiffany & Co..

I will post my findings on my blog for other readers, so that they too can try this experiment.

CONCLUSION

I continue to get ads based on my so-called 'relevant information' and IP address along with previous websites I've visited. Most of the ads are insulting and it's practically impossible to complain to AdChoices to tell them, "Please don't show me pictures of women sticking needles in their eyelids for Botox commercials!". I'm not even 40 and I really don't think I need Botox--nor would I ever use it in the future.

Based on these ads I can tell that AdChoices has a very low opinion of me. They think I need to lose weight, so I see ads for diet pills and animated GIF's of fat women slimming down to stick figures. I'm considered ugly and wrinkly, hence the ads for Botox, ProActive and acid facial treatments. They think I'm rich enough to afford such things but that I'm poor enough to need cash advances from my local bank. I'm also on the computer at odd hours of the day, so they think I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I get ads for baby products and stupid "Moms Only specials at Raley's".

Just once, I wish they'd get it right. You'd think with all the spying they're doing on me they would at least show an ad I'm interested in.