Four top euro carriers will use phone numbers to target ads and annoy Google & Facebook
- Reference: 1676273350
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/02/13/european_carrier_adtech_jv_approved/
- Source link:
The European Commission last Friday [1]approved formation of the joint venture between Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Telefónica, and Vodafone Group – which together boast hundreds of millions of subscribers. It will create an opt-in platform that lets individual submit their phone numbers "to activate communications from brands via publishers."
The EU statement announcing its approval of the entity explains it will "allow brands and publishers to recognize users on their websites or applications on a pseudonymous basis, group them under different categories and tailor their content to specific users' groups."
[2]
The only data that is shared between subscribers and carriers is described as "a pseudo-anonymous digital token that cannot be reverse-engineered."
[3]
[4]
Vodafone drove the idea and [5]asserts "The platform is specifically designed to offer consumers a step change in the control, transparency and protection of their data, which is currently collected, distributed and stored at scale by major, non-European players."
[6]EU plan to make big tech pay 'fair share' of telco fees reportedly weeks away
[7]Japan joins ranks of nations plotting smackdown for Apple, Google
[8]Killed EU antitrust fine could still come back to haunt Intel
[9]India's Supreme Court finds Google's appeal against monopoly fines unappealing
[10]Half of environmental claims about products are full of crap, says EU
That last bit is the crux of the matter: the EU and member nations have for years been unhappy that the likes of Google and Facebook dominate the digital advertising market while diminishing privacy.
So while Vodafone's statement makes it plain the joint venture would compete with non-European ad networks, the EU found the new entity "would raise no competition concerns" within Europe.
The four carriers have also pledged to make the platform available to others, and say trials have proven it is possible to deliver personalized ads while preserving privacy.
[11]
The as-yet-unnamed ad biz will operate in Belgium. No timeframe for operations commencing has been shared.
The four abovementioned carriers will each hold a 25 percent stake in the AdTech entity.
The joint venture is notable for two reasons. The first is that concerted action by carriers is unusual – never mind on something as tangential to their everyday ops as advertising networks.
[12]
The second is carriers in Europe and elsewhere have for years tried and failed to monetize their audiences, then bemoaned the fact that the likes of Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and the big video streamers make enormous profits that just wouldn't be possible without robust communications networks that carry their services to market.
In Europe, carriers have therefore [13]called for Big Tech to contribute to network build costs – an argument that the EU [14]quite likes but which has been mostly dismissed by the likes of Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. They argue that they already pay their fair share of network development costs by funding the development of submarine cables.
Once this AdTech joint venture is up and running, Europe's carriers will have a new way to win revenue. It will help to fund their networks, and by doing so take them into direct competition with the companies they believe should be helping them in other ways.
Grab some popcorn. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_721
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y@oYUfcNptJKfXnJAoQFUAAAABA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y@oYUfcNptJKfXnJAoQFUAAAABA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y@oYUfcNptJKfXnJAoQFUAAAABA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.vodafone.com/news/corporate-and-financial/deutsche-telekom-orange-telefonica-vodafone-form-ad-tech-joint-venture
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/eu_telco_big_tech/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/10/japan_mobile_market_reform_recommendations/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/30/intel_eu_antitrust_fine/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/23/google_india_monopoly_case/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/13/environmental_claims_eu/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y@oYUfcNptJKfXnJAoQFUAAAABA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/personaltech&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y@oYUfcNptJKfXnJAoQFUAAAABA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/27/etno_digital_infrastructure_sustainability/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/eu_telco_big_tech/
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "to activate communications from brands via publishers."
Then they will give you a €0.02 lollipop every year.
Surely, with candy waving in front of your eyes and watery mouth, you will never ever resist to opt in.
Re: will be as easy to not say yes to as not saying yes to Amazon Prime?
I have decided, after 3rd (or 4th?) time of being subscribed to amazon prime, that I've had enough, and I have obstained from amazon for well over a year. I do go there once in a while, as they're a good benchmark for online pricing, and with a large number of reviews I can go through the negative ones to make a better pre-purchase judgement - elsewhere. Effectively, amazon has become a useful tool for me. I guess, the same as beta-testers (Windows users) are a useful tool for Microsoft...
Re: "to activate communications from brands via publishers."
You are supposed to be able to say "no", but we have to protect you from that error because it's in your own interest to opt in, it would be a crying shame to miss out on all those amazing opportunities...
And this will certainly remain so as long as the induced expenses (fines) remain smaller than the profits.
Thank god it's opt in
Let's just hope opting in is indeed opting in, and not periodically not not opting in, or some rubbish like that.
Re: Thank god it's opt in
Exactly. Last time I switched provider I found that I was magically opted-in for data hoarding despite my explicit request of not being.
Anyway I forbid Vodafone to send me anything since they sent me SMSs in the middle of the night advertising a car (before phones had "not disturb" settings).
Re: Thank god it's opt in
I think such network should disclose how much money they will typically make from an opt in.
They also should be forced to share that revenue (not profit, as big corporations can easily shift them around) with the user.
Like it is for emails?
I must be getting old, because there are a number to which I have apparently subscribed, but I don't recall ever doing so (or even knowing the brand).
As an aside, if that ever happens and you submit a complaint, make sure you request the IP address and details for the "approval" at the same time (if you want to take matters further), as requesting after the complaint gets "but we removed all the details when you complained".
Re: Like it is for emails?
As an aside, if that ever happens and you submit a complaint, make sure you request the IP address and details for the "approval" at the same time (if you want to take matters further), as requesting after the complaint gets "but we removed all the details when you complained".
You won't get an IP address because of GDPR. You would need a court order for that.
Right now I'm ambivalent on this. I might just need time to think it over.
On one side, each time I think about giving my consent to something that's related to advertising, my finger automatically twitches away from the checkbox. I'm sorry, but it's a wired reflex by now, and I'm not sure I can override it. Especially when my telephone number is involved.
Seriously, I understand that this is not a consent to get spam calls, but telcos just do not have my trust right now on this matter. Not even a binding, legal agreement is enough to restore it. I am getting spam calls that are in flagrant violation of multiple laws, every day . At this point, I'm treating the entire ad industry like organized crime in a 2nd world country: don't attract its attention, the law won't protect you.
On the other side, though, I have to admit that I'm already tracked and targeted in multiple ways that are not anonymous at all, not even pretending to be. If the telcos created a way to track me that is anonymous-to-the-ad-network (if not anonymous to the telco itself), it would be yet another way to track me, but it would have two significant benefits. First, it would create competition against those that know not only what I buy and what I search for, but also what's my name and where I live.
Second, and maybe more important, if it works, it might create the political basis needed to finally make personally-identifiable tracking illegal for real. Show the ad slingers they can do their targeted advertising without knowing my personal details, and maybe this will finally give the privacy lobby enough ammo to push through something effective. Something to the effect of "here's an ID you can track, but if you try to track anything else, you get the hammer". It would be a compromise, but it also would be progress.
Right now, though, my opinion is that even if it works and it somehow gets adoption (and I can't imagine how), it will be trivial for the ad networks to de-anonymize the ID. So...
Or we don't have ANY tracking of people at all, whether opt in/out, anonymous or otherwise. As a society we managed for millennia without it, and are a few 'targets' ads really worth the privacy implications over just going back to the way ads used to be?
re. telcos just do not have my trust right now on this matter.
frankly speaking, no entity, private or public (never mind gov-related) has my trust these days. I have been resigned to the fact that even if they don't sell my data, they WILL get hacked / lose it / mis-use it, question is not if, but when, i.e. how soon.
> it will be trivial for the ad networks to de-anonymize the ID
Indeed, when they say "a pseudo-anonymous digital token that cannot be reverse-engineered" you already know this will be totally transparent, and given the number of actors very quickly public. Their reaction? "Oh sorry, that was a bug, it was supposed to be 'impossible' to reverse-engineer, not 'trivial'. Oh well, of course now it's too late to change it, sorry again. Hey, after all if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Ah yes, and think of the children too!"
So, the telco gets the cream, what would the punter get? What come out of the other end, I guess.
Why would anyone opt in for a hosing with advertising?
Those whowant targetted marketing
Why would anyone opt in for a hosing with advertising?
I did meet someone who really liked targetted adverts as it was "showing her just what she might want to buy".
That she was young and worked in marketing might have had something to do with it. Sigh.
> Why would anyone opt in for a hosing with advertising?
Nobody sane would, so obviously that opt in needs to be semi-automatic. ("Oh, you used your phone, it means you opt in, thank you.")
When four large multinationals get together, you can always be sure it's to benefit the customer.
a pseudo-anonymous digital token that cannot be reverse-engineered
Reverse-engineered perhaps, but I have zero confidence that this "pseudo-anonymous" (whatever that means) token cannot be used to identify the user in other ways.
Pseudo
According to the Oxford disctinary, oseudo (adjective) means
"not genuine; spurious or sham."
So, they are offering you a not genuinely anonymous token.
Amazingly accurate!
> I have zero confidence that this "pseudo-anonymous" (whatever that means) token cannot be used to identify the user in other ways.
"Pseudo-anonymous" means specifically that it is not truly anonymous, so this token can and will be used to identify the user.
How does this work?
Let's suppose Addpush Co. 'has my consent to use my phone number to ID me'. How then does it 'target' me? That means Adpush Co. knows what sort of ads for drain-rods, bus times, plastic macs and special 'books' I want. Either I tell them explicitly or they build a profile of my web browsing or use 'AI' to leech from my emails. Surely that's just more creepy surveillance? But also if you have a 'smart' TV that'll be tied to a phone number without you thinking about ads being pushed to your telly as well. Get your adblocker while you still can. (Has anyone seen an advert for an adblocker?) Oh and did I mention option-out after a while. How effective will that be? Not, because the ad networks have the ID and all they need to know is that it's a 'unique' ID. You know how when you move into a new house and keep getting post for the previous residents? How will you 'reset' or 'zero' your new phone number? And of course credit cards numbers are tied to phones.
Re: How does this work?
It doesn't, it won't, and it's just more spam.
The problem is the usual one contained in this statement-
The EU statement announcing its approval of the entity explains it will " allow brands and publishers to recognize users on their websites or applications on a pseudonymous basis, group them under different categories and tailor their content to specific users' groups."
Call me old fashioned, but I thought an effective advert was one that matches supply and demand. Maybe I want to buy a new washing machine. If I use Amazon, buying a washing machine will probably then fill my recommendations with more washing machines to buy. After all, who doesn't want at least 7 washing machines? Or I still remember a time while I was without PC, and without adblocker. In one 20-30min program, I might get 3 or 4 adverts. They'd all be for amazing discounts from Virgin for train tickets from London to Manchester. Or Mars telling me about how 2 brothers had 1 cup, and decided to fill it with Twix.
I didn't live in London, I had no desire or need to visit Manchester, and now every time I walk past a display flogging chocolate, I see a Twix, remember their sodding ad jingle, shudder and buy something else. And I actually used to quite like Twix*.
So ok, maybe this time it'll be different, but I very much doubt it. This will no doubt end up with the same ad-slingers running the same algorithms and creating ad-verse reactions in people who used to be their customers. I have no idea how many people are like me and develop a negative buying response after being saturation bombed by annoying jingles for products I had no need for, or no intention of buying.
So again, here's my radical idea. Let the victims decide, or at least have some control over the brands, publishers or products they're spammed with. If they don't, advertisers are just wasting their money and my time.
*I don't think this advert has been run for a good few years now, but the fact that I remember it and use it as an example of adverts generating a strong negative reaction should hopefully mean something to advertising execs. Then again, I've always been a fan of Bill Hicks. Sadly, marketing execs outlived him. Now I'm thinking about the potential of doing a DAN on Siri or Alexa so every time they hear the Twix or Intel jingle, they fire off 1,000 or so incomplete requests to those websites. Fight spam with spam?
In a time long ago ...
I worked for a now long-gone telco. One day the marketing and techie types had an away day to come up with new ideas for telephony products that were innovative, liable to earn lots of revenue and upset the major ex-government monopoly. For reference, alcohol was involved.
We came up with a great system: free phone calls. No line rental, no phone charges, just a totally free phone system. But customers would have to opt in to it by complting a fairly detailed life style questionnaire. Each member of a household (except under 16 year olds) would need to complete one, and every member of the household would be given a PIN number. When you want to make a call you have to enter your PIN, The system then plays you a targeted ad. When the ad completes you get your free call. One ad per call.
We were told by a well known advert company we brought in to validate the idea and to make the ads that it was "the most evil, intrusive idea they had ever come across". We all looked rather downcast, but they then said "We just wish we had thought of it".
So, I claim my part in prior art!
willing to volunteer their phone numbers to a startup that promises to deliver targeted ads
fuck no.
Re: willing to volunteer their phone numbers to a startup that promises to deliver targeted ads
So why did you volunteer?
Yes, you did, you don't know it yet that's all...
Default Opt Out
The simple thing here is that default MUST be that you do not want adverts.
What is this going to be?
Endless pop-ups?
Text messages?
The options endless.
"to activate communications from brands via publishers."
I wonder how disappointed they're going to be with a generic 'no thanks'?
Why am I thinking this will be as easy to not say yes to as not saying yes to Amazon Prime?