
Netflix and Spotify Ask: Can Data Mining Make for Cute Ads? - nkcmr
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/business/media/netflix-spotify-marketing.html
======
majormajor
Interesting, I'm a bit shocked that these appear to actually be real user-data
pulled things vs editorialized made-up details.

Somewhat also interesting that it looks like the negative feedback started up
before the companies commented on how they came up with the lines.

I remember a decade-oldish fast food TV commercial I remember that was
something along the lines of "dear person who ordered a double cheeseburger
and then felt regret after your buddy ordered a triple: it was only a dollar
more", and it was obviously a fictional yet relatable ad. Funny how much
things have changed since then, as companies have done such a poor job
building anything like consumer trust around data - what was once obviously
cheeky and cute (if faked) now comes off as rude and malicious and sneaky but
real. And from the article and discussion here, it seems like the _less_ you
know about how the ad creation process works/has historically worked, the
_more_ likely you are to cry foul on first blush.

------
haberdasher
This was a solid marketing response:
[https://twitter.com/Pornhub/status/940246672185217027](https://twitter.com/Pornhub/status/940246672185217027)

~~~
nasredin
Saved you a click:

Pornhub ARIA @Pornhub Pornhub would never play you like that fam Netflix US
@netflix To the 53 people who've watched A Christmas Prince every day for the
past 18 days: Who hurt you? 7:47 AM · Dec 11, 2017

I sure hope so!

A few thoughts WRT that NetFlix tweet:

The "data" culture is so pervasive, the want of privacy is so weak, that these
corporations are not ashamed to post tweets like that. And the lack of
outrage, which should be easier to amplify and snowball due to the Internet,
tells me, that the battle for privacy is lost (or impossible to win).

That Netflix tweet made me feel like a prostitute TBH, like a cog in a
machine. Brazil, the movie comes to mind.

------
xGrill
Spotify has an ads product. Everyone knows they are collecting the data. It
would be foolish to think otherwise. Using it in advertising serves an added
benefit of helping their ad sales team tell the story of how much data they
have and how they can use it to help target the correct audience.

~~~
bogomipz
>"Using it in advertising serves an added benefit of helping their ad sales
team tell the story of how much data they have and how they can use it to help
target the correct audience."

So its advertising targeting advertisers, paid for by their users and and the
artists?

~~~
dictum
This is the dream of the 21st century: machines selling to machines.

~~~
requinard
It's the foundation for economy 2.0

------
nerflad
Cute? No. These ads are smug and tone-deaf. Complete disregard for privacy has
become the rule rather than the exception on the internet, and these ads
practically celebrate that. I don't care if the data is anonymized.

I've never had a Netflix account and I've already started building my .flac
library back up and will be cancelling my spotify subscription. The
convenience of these services is not worth their disrespect to me as a
customer.

~~~
untog
Devil's advocate: what is harmful about using anonymised data this way? In an
actual "this is how it will negatively affect you" sense?

I ask because while I share your concerns (perhaps not to the extent you do)
sitting on HN agreeing with each other does little, and neither does
cancelling our accounts. What you'd need to do is explain to a vast number of
users why this is problematic in very clear terms, and I'm yet to see anyone
actually do that.

~~~
mort96
Anonymized data generally is not very anonymous. You can only trust that data
is actually anonymous if there exists no non-anonymous dataset with which you
can cross reference the anonymized data, and you can guarantee that no such
database will ever exist.

I'm willing to bet that many "anonymized" datasets are of the kind which could
relatively easily be deanonymized, especially datasets which are frivolously
used to make ads "funny".

~~~
disgusting_guy
That's an incredibly broad statement; we are talking about what movies people
have watched on netflix. What possible non-anonymous dataset could you be
cross referencing to de-anonymize it? Even if you could, who cares?

~~~
mort96
I just responded to my parent comment's premise:

> what is harmful about using anonymised data this way?

Whether it's harmful to use such data when it's not anonymous is a different
discussion.

------
schuetze
In some ways, I think the unintended consequences of these ads are very
positive. Anything that encourages us to think about the ever-increasing
amount of data held by private companies is a good thing in my mind.

I doubt that we will ever break the grip of the advertisement-driven web, but
maybe someday a corporation will make an advertisement tone-deaf enough to
spark a revolution on how the internet is funded. I'm not affiliated with, nor
do I have any stake in this concept, but I think micro-payment funded content,
like yours.org, is an interesting alternative. But I doubt many people will
adopt yours.org, myself included, until the content is on part with that of
ad-funded media.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
I have a pet-hypothesis that people really don't care about their privacy, but
rather they care about being reminded that their privacy is being violated.
That is to say they really don't care enough to do anything about it, but that
being reminded makes them uncomfortable enough to not want to be reminded.

------
PascLeRasc
The Spotify ads seem like they're just made-up numbers poking fun at data
collection practices. I think they're funny and I'm not concerned.

------
zxcb1
The advertisements advertise to advertisers that they know the users location
and most likely emotional state of mind. The personal information that may be
inferred from metadata is the additional cost of using these services. This is
why GDPR.

------
lxchase
While this detracts from the main point of data mining behavioral
transactions, I do want to voice the internal debate I have with these ads to
get some feedback. I think it's silly that they spent budget on OOH
(billboard) ads when considering other options.

These "cute" ads require reading and thinking time, and I question people even
stop to absorb and process. Granted, here we are, looking at these ads in a
digital medium. Clearly, the KPI is probably "sharability" and ultimately
brand awareness. Would it have been more efficient to just release these
digitally only? As someone who has lead advertising both on the brand side as
well as media agency side and is now trying to fix a lot of hot trash snake
oil, I really wonder what the measure success is here beyond "let's do
something funny and get people to write about us". Can these brands/agencies
answer one simple question backed by data: Was it worth it?

------
paulie_a
No. Considering the state of data collection the advertising I see is a joke.
If they manage to provide a somewhat relevant ad, I see it 100 times.

I will side on the simple answer and say. Advertising companies like Google
and Facebook collect tremendous amounts of creepy data and are blatantly
incompetent in utilizing it

------
ohstopitu
I found those ads funny (I assumed they were not derived from customer data -
just something made up for the sake of comedy).

That said I wanted to know the end-goal of those ads?

If it's going to make me convert or sign up - that does not look like it's
going to happen (no CTA, no real driver etc.)

If the idea is to be on people's mind (informational) - I can see it being
hip/fellow-kids' like (considering it's coming from a multi-million dollar
corporate entity) - I don't see how it'll last longer than a few weeks at best
(considering the amount they probably spent on it).

That said, I can see how it stands out from the crowd (creepy factor not
outstanding).

------
seanwilson
I would find it funny if the ad was about data that related to a large group
but when you're poking fun at a single user that's misguided and creepy to me.

------
toomanybeersies
When I first saw the Spotify ads with playlist names, I was a bit concerned
about the privacy side of things, since you can search public playlists and
most people have their real name attached to their Spotify account.

However, in the article Spotify claims that they sought permission before
using playlist names on their advertising, so I can't really be upset about
it.

------
bogomipz
Way to go Spotify, you paid more for that advertising space than you did to
the artist for streaming their their content to your users.

Using someone else's art as a surveillance marketing tool? Wow that's gross
even by the music industry's low standards. Congrats, you've really made it!

~~~
daenney
> Way to go Spotify, you paid more for that advertising space than you did to
> the artist for streaming their their content to your users.

How do you know what they paid?

> Using someone else's art as a surveillance marketing tool?

They're not using someone else's art for these statistics.

~~~
bogomipz
>"How do you know what they paid?"

It's well known that artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream [1]. Do
the math with the figures they mentioned in those ads. Now look at the ad
rates for the New York City subway stations.[2]

>"They're not using someone else's art for these statistics."

When you are an artist and you write songs, those songs belong to you. So yes
they are using somebody else's art.

[1] [https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-
payouts...](https://www.spin.com/2013/12/spotify-details-royalty-payouts-
cents/)

[2]
[http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/1...](http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/15156/)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _artists get paid less than 1 cent for a stream_

Spotify pays 70 to 85% of its revenues to music labels as royalties [1]. The
problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and
artists.

[1] [https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-
topp...](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-revenues-topped-2bn-
last-year-as-losses-hit-194m/)

~~~
bogomipz
>"The problem isn’t with Spotify. It’s in the contracts between the labels and
artists."

That's the convenient lie - "Oh we have nothing to do with that, that's
between the record label and the artist."

The overwhelming majority of Spotify users are free tier users(90 million) not
paid users(50 million.)[1]

Ad supported streams pay out an even worse royalty rate to artists than the
paid user tier royalty rates. And that free tier rate appears to be declining
as well.[2]

Spotify's business model depends on converting those free tier users to paid
users - that's the funnel. So yes Spotify very much depends on this awful
arrangement between the record label and artist.

[1] [https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-
announces-140-mil...](https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/spotify-
announces-140-million-users-as-its-paying-subscription-base-approaches-40/)

[2] [https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-
audiam-l...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-low-
rates/)

~~~
bkor
If Spotify gives 70-85% of their revenue to the rights holder then why do you
call this a lie? Please explain.

~~~
bogomipz
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

Because the rest of what I wrote explains exactly why this is a lie.

Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren't propping up that
corrupt system. Spotify likes to repeat this line about payouts as if it
absolves them from any blame in a system where artists can't make money from
their recordings.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Paying out 75 cents on the dollar does not mean they aren 't propping up
> that corrupt system_

So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"? If so,
that's a nifty moral framework you've got there? Not very practical, though,
if it sorts everything into the "bad" pile.

~~~
bogomipz
>"So...anyone listening to music is "propping up that corrupt system"?"

That's a total strawman and not at all what I said.

I would gladly pay artists more than .001 cents a stream if I could but I
can't. There is no option to do that. I actually believe that music is worth
more than $9.99 a month.

And in case you hadn't noticed there's not many record store left so the
ability to buy hard product that offers artists a better royalty rate is
getting harder.

My only other options are to support those artists is by paying to see them
live which is the only way most of them are able to make money now. And I pay
to see live music all the time. I also visit their merch booth and generally
buy something there like a piece of vinyl where all the money goes in their
pockets.

The Spotify model is not the only model. Artists largely don't need record
labels any more but there is no way alternative where artists can deal with
Spotify directly.

Why is that? Because if Spotify announced that they were doing to allow
artists to deal directly with them the records companies wouldn't renew their
licensing when it came due. So yes they are very much propping up that system.

You might want to look into how how the Spotify model actually works to see
why this claim of "we pay out 70% of everything we make" argument falls flat:

[https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-
royalties-...](https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-to-make-streaming-royalties-
fair-er-8b38cd862f66)

So no, I created no "piles" or "nifty moral frameworks"

------
have_faith
The more a company attempts to get cute with me or adopt an overly casual
tone, the more I avoid them.

------
analogmemory
Sure, but how about they also release all that "cute data"

