A few weeks ago I was tasked with the evaluation of a service for a business. The service is a fairly recent kind of technical service that my client needed. The specific service I am writing about is provided by a large, public corporation. I will keep the kind of service and the specific tool being evaluated anonymous because I don’t want to offend specific sensibilities and because the following advice is general for all B2B marketers. As is often the case with B2B services, the corporation’s website offered a limited free trial in exchange for contact information. I filled in my contact details (well, my email address. I don’t like to be interrupted so I do not volunteer phone or physical addresses at this point), and went about the free trial. The trial proved conclusive and in my report to my client contrasting the different competing services I specifically recommended this one. My assignment was over and I went back to my current full time occupation as a law student.
Today I received a promotional email from that corporation. It was obviously related to the service I have test-driven and as such I expected this marketing email as part of the bargain: test drive the service in exchange for the contact information and the permission to send promotional emails. However, when I saw this specific email, I immediately went for the jugular and hit the unsubscribe link, effectively withdrawing that permission. The corporation has killed what could have become an ongoing conversation. Here is why, an excerpt from my email to the responsible marketing manager:
(1) Give me an option to subscribe to plain TEXT messages. HTML is not welcome here. If the choice is between HTML mail or no mail, I will rather choose no mail.
(2) There are many reasons for my preference not to receive HTML mails. The most important is that I do not like my every step to be tracked. It is even more horrifying to me how the tracking is implemented in this specific email message. Why do you put my name, email, company, phone, and title in the tracking URL? If I wanted this obscure third-party outfit hiding behind the domain name [REDACTED] to know my contact information, I would have volunteered it myself. I find the way tracking is implemented in this email inconsiderate and leading to spam.
(3) Another reason to prefer TEXT over HTML is bandwidth. You can’t know, when sending out the email, if I am reading it on cheap wired bandwidth or on extremely expensive roaming cellular bandwidth or anything in between. Please be respectful of my bandwidth and limit your messages’ weight — trim away the fat that is HTML and deliver substance only.
(4) And another reason to prefer TEXT over HTML is speed-reading. It is scientifically measured that a user reading all emails in the same font and on the same background reads faster and absorbs more substance than a user faced with formatting choices of the sender. There is a certain degree of personal preference here, but it is also scientifically measured that some fonts are more readable than others, specifically fixed width fonts. Save the cost of having your email styled, it is a waste of your resources as well as of reader’s time.
(5) Last but not least, with a count of over 30 URLs and zero sentences, what you have dumped on me is information overload. Don’t expect any response to that. The more quantity is crammed into a single message, the less relevant it becomes. At some point the threshold of spam is reached. This is what happened in this case, both technically (my email service provider’s spam filter was triggered) and humanly: there was no value to me in an email that is only a list of badly obfuscated links. Hence I unsubscribed.
I hope this feedback is helpful to you in structuring your future marketing activities. As far as I am concerned, I am unsubscribed from this particular B2B marketer’s emails. He has killed the conversation. I am still of the opinion that the corporation’s service is competitive, and I will still recommend it to other clients with similar needs. But there was no value added whatsoever by the B2B marketer and he or she should be worried if the CEO finds out. Add value or be trimmed!
Say no to the data miners, reclaim your independent judgement.
Peer pressure to join Facebook has never been stronger. Much of social life at law school happens through Facebook, but the pressure is not only from students: friends and colleagues from previous lives are touting Facebook as the promised land of social networking. While I generally agree that social networking tools can add to one’s personal and professional life, it does not have to be Facebook. I am using, amongst others, LinkedIn, Vimeo, and this blog. There are many reasons why I don’t use Facebook. A few of them are below, excerpt from an online conversation with a fellow photographer.
Q: Facebook is so great, you do not know what you are missing! Why don’t you join us?
A: If it works for you, good for you. I tried it in the past and it did not work for me. My attitude to Facebook is: join it if you like it, but do not force others to join it. By publishing your content exclusively on Facebook you make a conscious decision to exclude people like me who, for whatever reason, have decided not to use Facebook. It is your right and I am at peace with your choice, just do not expect me to join Facebook for you, no matter how cool you think your Facebook presence is. If Facebook is the only way to join, then I am not meant to join. I am not singling out Facebook: if Youtube is the only way to join, I won’t join that either. On the other hand, if you cater to users of many different social networks, I might consider joining. Ultimately it is you who decide to limit yourself when you choose to ignore that there are other tools out there, some of which offer better interoperability enabling you to reach a wider audience.
Q: You are missing on plenty of opportunities such as potential jobs and customer!
A: If I was looking to source a service, I would be stupid to limit myself to Facebook. The same applies for the sourcing of a product from other sites such as eBay or Amazon. The appeal of clusters — markets, industry associations, social networking sites — is undeniable, but restricting the choice to one single cluster is not smart and audience size is not the only factor to consider when selecting which clusters to address. While at the time of this writing Facebook can boast the largest audience, it is not necessarily the most relevant audience for every situation. For jobs I would rather post and search on LinkedIn and Monsters.com; and for more specific visual art skills I will rather use sites such as DeviantArt, Behance, and Flickr. Facebook can actually have a negative impact on business opportunities since it exposes aspects of a person’s life that have no place in a professional environment and are more likely to harm the person’s prospects of landing a contract or a job than helping those prospects. Facebook is not the golf club.
Q: Why such hostility toward Facebook?
A: It is not so much hostility as it is indifference. Given my previous experience with it I consider Facebook to be at best a waste of time. Given its track record I do not expect it to contribute anything meaningful to my life. Personally I would not trust any information, not even public information, to an outfit that
- has such a dismal record when it comes to respect for its users;
- was born and is still driven by and built on the evil intent of taking advantage of ordinary people’s personal information even in situation when this use results in a significant material disadvantage for the concerned people.
Q: Why do you think that Facebook is intrinsically more evil than Google, Apple, Yahoo, Microsoft, your bank, credit cards, phone company, internet service provider, government, big business, etc.?
A: The fact that I use other suppliers and not Facebook does not mean that I think that Facebook is intrinsically more evil than them, just that they serve my needs better than Facebook. That said, I see a significant difference between Facebook and the other entities mentioned above: the interest alignment between users and customers. For most of the above businesses, the users are also the customers or at least an important customers class. Facebook’s customers are the marketers and others with an interest in spying on its users. Faced with a trade-off between the interests of its paying customers against the interests of its non-paying users, Facebook naturally aligns itself with the interests of its paying customers. The users are simply the cattle that Facebook delivers to its customers. Where the other businesses have other sources of income than those conflicting with the users’ interests, Facebook has not and consequently has little to lose in behaving the way it does.
Q: Do you really think that Facebook can somehow extract your personal information other than that which you provide it, the required name, email and date of birth which you have most likely already provided to all of the businesses mentioned in the previous question?
A: You might have provided the information yourself, but was it voluntary? Read this short ZDNet blog post for a basic explanation of how Facebook collects a lot of data from you and a pointer to a solution by highly reputed German technology publishing house Heise. For a more detailed understanding, let me guide you step by step in the process of how your information leaks to Facebook:
- You enter the URL of a website you want to visit into your browser.
- Your browser sends a request to the server associated with that URL. The request includes your IP address (which can be associated with a geographic location and other information that pieced together generates a unique fingerprint to identify you. If you are using a mobile browser, the GPS coordinates are likely to be sent too.
- The server sends back instructions to your browser how to build the requested page for display. Unless the website does what is described in the above ZDNet blog post (most websites do not), those instructions usually include fetching content such as images and scripts, or Facebook’s “like”-button, from third-party servers.
- If your web browser is not protected with tools like RequestPolicy and NoScript (most browsers are not) it will request these third-party images and script. In the process it will leak your IP address, web browser fingerprint, GPS coordinates and the website that you are visiting to the third party, i.e. to Facebook if the request is for a “like”-button.
- With enough sites enrolled in the scheme, i.e. enough sites displaying a Facebook “like”-button (or a Google+ button, they are all the same), the third party server that sends you the “like”-button will record your browsers visits many times per day and record a complete and extensive breadcrumbs trail for your online activity over an extended period of time. You don’t need to be logged into any account for this to happen, but when you do log in, personal data gets associated with the trail. IP addresses do not change often, unless you are using The Onion Router (very few users do). Even if you set the do-not-track header (which Microsoft, kudos to them, has set by default in Internet Explorer 10), there is no guarantee that the other end will respect your request.
- From the above information, a data-miners like Facebook or Google (yes, others do it too) obtain a very detailed picture of your online activity and probably know you better than your parents. GeoIP information is used to connect the online trail to physical locations. Fingerprinting techniques are used to distinguish individual browsers (an approximation for individual persons). The moment you log in with your profile, the crumbs trail gets associated to it. Log in with other profiles on other sites and they might get associated as well. Public records such as phone books and land registries are used to enrich the data with physical locations and phone numbers. Census data and other information about the neighbourhood is used to enhance the information. If you check in on sites such as FourSquare, the data collection will include detail of some of your offline habits as well, although an “anonymous” GPS track from your mobile device coupled with static map data is already enough to figure out where (and with whom) you are hanging out. If you log on from work or from campus, or just display a website with a visible “like”-button or an invisible web-beacon that has the same spying functionality from such locations, your workplace becomes also known to the data miner. Ultimately, the profiles they keep about ordinary people are more detailed than the profiles that the FBI keeps about persons of interest.
Q: Does anyone here actually believe that their name, email and date of birth, as well as general interests such as photography are somehow otherwise unknown to the powers that be ? Seriously ?
A: It depends on your behaviour, online an offline. Marketers have asked questions since long before the internet and generally people tend to be trusting and willing to share, so probably your statement is right most of the cases. That said, identity theft is such an endemic problem nowadays because the marketers do not secure their databases properly and questionable individuals break into them to steal all of this valuable personal information. Date of birth is something you should keep for the state and for financial institutions. Other businesses may have a legitimate need to ascertain that you are of legal age. There is no need to give them the exact (identifying!) birth date. Give them a bogus birth date that makes you slightly younger and you are safe. I generally recommend not to volunteer information to marketers, whether it is on websites, product registration forms, or sweepstakes, because their interests are not aligned with yours. All they want is your money. If a business insists on personal details that are not necessary to close the transaction, bring your business elsewhere.
The school year is around the corner and more pressure to join Facebook is likely. If you are happy with Facebook, good for you. I will not adopt Facebook any time soon. Just the memory of how difficult it was to close the previous account is deterrent enough: they did not let me close the account unless I manually removed every piece of information from it first. Having been through that, I do not want to do it again.
Precise Pangolin, or 12.04 is a long term support (LTS) release. One might think that particular care has been put into it. 11.10 (Oneiric Ocelot) has served me well during my first year in law school, but I thought that going on an LTS version will serve me better for the next two. Wrong.
Contrast and compare Ubuntu 12.04 and Kubuntu 12.04. When I boot my backup workstation attached to a 47″ FullHD TV with the installer CD, Ubuntu installs just fine, it recognizes the 1920×1080 resolution of the display and gives me a usable desktop. Kubuntu in contrast set it up with tiny fonts that are not even readable with a magnifying glass. Moreover, I don’t even get to update the settings: the second or third window or dialog no longer open / displays, and the old venerable 3GHz Athlon X2 is slower than a snail. The same machine that runs smoothly with Ubuntu. Both on the same 12.04 LTS basis. What is wrong?
One of my keyboards is a Logitech diNovo Edge. Bluetooth. A long standing bug has not been fixed yet, so I must install with another keyboard and then pair the diNovo. Up until 10.04 it used to work perfectly without the need for such workarounds. The bug seems to be fixed in the upcoming Quantal Quetzal release, but hold your breath if it will be fixed in the long term supported Precise Pangolin, released less than six months ago.
My laptop’s wireless used to work. Until a bug broke it. I found a workaround: blacklist the kernel module (i.e. disable the driver in Linux-speak) that was too greedy and grabbed for himself the wireless card even if it was not able to drive it. The bug is fixed in the upcoming Quantal Quetzal release, but the developer asked me if I needed a backport (i.e. a fix in previous versions of ‘buntu) and to mark it as invalid if I don’t. Since I have the workaround with the blacklisted module, I would lie if I would say that I need it. The point is not whether I need it or not. The point is: is Ubuntu 12.04 really supported until 2017 and what exactly does “support” mean, if obvious bugs that have been fixed in the development version are not fixed in the “supported” versions?
Under such circumstances it is difficult to recommend any ‘buntu version. Those are situations that the ordinary user should not be confronted with. Upgrading? What was I thinking…