Blippy.com - share what you buy and be inspired by others' purchase
Yesterday I designed up to one of the most border communities, which I have participated in ... so far. Blippy.com lets you share your transactions with friends, acquaintances and strangers. This means that everything I buy on Amazon, Threadless, and iTunes will now be seen on my Blippy account . I had an American bank, I also wanted to link my Visa or Mastercard for the service. And also a few others - primarily American - services connected with such as Zappos, GoDaddy, Audible and Blockbuster and one can expect that more will follow as the site grows.
TechCrunch has made a video with CEO Philip Kaplan, who explains what the service is about and why he thinks it's a good idea for a community. See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSibRDdKG04
Facebook tried real idea of Beacon . service was subjected to massive criticism and closed again in late 2009. In my eyes was the problem in the first place that people on Facebook were never asked if they would be with and that they had no control over the information that flowed between sites and other users. In the second instance can it discusses how much information people are willing to share. But although there have been some reactions to Facebook's recent changes to what information is private on Facebook, then it is my belief that it is not less information, which we are willing to share. Although Blippy just makes you think about privacy, I will not let this blog post about this issue further.
What is interesting is the relationship between transaction and the buyer and potential buyer.
Christopher Rolleyson writes in an article on the often interesting SocialMedia.biz that:
"Federated identity + social vil bli rapidly a mechanism for people to ask deres friends for input on buying beslutninger. It vil change how people buy. "
First Ordinary people's ratings and reviews has been one of the first steps towards services that offer social elements for the assessment of the product. We can in some cases be comfortable and get more valid information about a product or service when many people have submitted their assessment than when there was one expert's assessment. Similarly, Google's and Facebook's Friend Connect provide sites with products or services ability to distinguish between what close friends think and what the large amount of people have said.
Second Blippy makes product recommendations even more present. We do not evaluate everything we buy. And we do not tell about everything we use in our daily lives again and again. It is two sided: first promoted the specific product to friends. For my part, it applies if a new album has been released without my knowledge. It can also be true bargains for example. clothing. I do not fear that my close friends buying the exact same T-shirt on Threadless as I do. But they will certainly be inspired to buy a different product because of price. Second, services in which we organize our operations will be promoted. If I am interested in the product, so I know both how it can be bought and at what price.
Third When Jason Calacanis buying PacMan for your iPhone, then there will potentially be people who follow him, which goes out and does exactly the same. Buyer PacMan for the iPhone. Furthermore, it opens up marketing efforts in the form of sponsored purchase, because the penetration occurs through recognizable and trustworthy people - friends and influential or respected persons. It is not new, but it is more direct and easier than ever before.
4th The data I leave on Blippy are available to other people online. And businesses. These companies will be able to see me as a potential customer and may be able to find to market themselves directly to me. It might be very costly to market themselves to the individual, where the price for a product or service is low. But the company sells a product that requires fewer sales per month, to achieve a satisfactory performance, so it is perhaps interesting? More interesting, however, the problem of automation of the marketing of goods at a low price can be solved without it means that the consumer spammes with offers or feels his privacy invaded.
5th Being a service like Blippy, which has data on the user and to the products that are purchased can be a very profitable business. Not that my personal data be sold, but because they give information about buying patterns, geographic differences, trends, personal relations influence their structural development, etc., etc. It is not something reserved for Blippy and something I am particularly concerned about. We know today from supermarkets who make assessments on what goods and services which appear together in the merchant's shopping cart.
I am aware that my approach is too positive, carefree and naive. But I think decency about privacy can be a constraint to development. It's not a question of narcissism or to walk around in public without pants on. It is a matter of being aware of what data I leave where and to take control over it. Ultimately, my approach may leave as much information that I myself is an information overload? I say this based on the motto that if it looks as though no information about me is secret, then no information about me interesting. So far, one need not come. But I wish that others would think about is that the information can be found about me on the web is no different than those found for me in the physical world. The difference is perhaps how easily accessible they are.
What is the future for Blippy? We can expect that similar sites shoot up. Blippy already has 2,500 users and 10,000 waiting to be let into their beta version. I got my invite yesterday and has 20 invites back to where someone might want to try it. My account is here: http://www.blippy.com/scherz/
Andreas wrote:
January 13, 10 at 21:35Fantastic. I think even a lot of privacy vs. extra service, truth and success by giving up immediately. So far I got there a need for some macro reciprocity - that we can look after business in the cards, like the consumers are looking at the cards. Ev.t make it illegal to price differentiation based on buying habits (eg, people who buy relatively much music that may not be as price sensitive when they are relatively rarely buy a book. So the people pay 2 kroner extra for a book). Another form of discrimination is reportedly VISA (which has all the information about all the people buying (if they use one of their credit cards)) that uses people's buying habits to predict such divorces - and resulting credit risk. Here is the problem of course if you get rejected a loan because of an obscure anticipation of divorce. It is somewhat the same problem as with the racial-profiling. One could for example try to legislation restricting positive opportunities, but prohibits dataminet negative sanctions. But it's a fucking mess.
appropos information online: threadsy trying to gather all this shit.
Erik Scherz Andersen wrote:
January 13, 10 at 22:09Hi Andrew, thanks for your comment.
Your suggestion about macro reciprocity pleases me well.
I think the companies (except Google) will open up even more in the next year. If they want to be part of meeting space "social media", those of consumers (hopefully) forced with the same openness about themselves that they expect from us. (In this context, we recall that consumers did not disclose everything about themselves when we expect of firms).
The question is not whether we as individual consumers can see through the multinational companies stories, actions and accounts, but if we jointly (as Wikileaks and Wikipedia) can lift us above single file protests, where boycotts are most common weapon for a body that forces a continuous pressure on companies. It's a question even if I pronounce it as a truth. I do not know if I think of a Consumer in another, larger perspective?
I was not aware of the history of VISA. True or false, I do not even know about the kind of rejection should be replaced by a consultancy to identify the possibility of marital problems.
Why do not you think that it's ok to price differentiation in relation to the buying habits? If I want to buy 3 bags chips at the local supermarket, so I get it cheaper. I choose so Faktas because I only want one.
Incidentally, I have in the topic is not involved with identity theft or information theft. But the whole subject is of course huge. It puts you up to by mentioning such. "Truth" and "success".
Do you have an invite to threadsy - Tell so I do not have to stand in the queue ...
Andreas wrote:
January 13, 10 at 23:00Yes - huge topic. and somehow, identity theft is only the most obvious - and in an "if" sense lesttest to handle (we have for many years known to fænomenenet and forgery etc. - well, the problem just got bigger - but in principle it is just more of the same).
I am against price discrimination when it is hidden. Your example with candy bags are something a little different I think. Everyone gets the same deal, but of course, an offer which companies have thought about (predicatably irratonal - Dan Airily's blog / book has just had a post about the burger chain's changing menu offers). The difference relative to the type of price discrimination I think of is that not everyone gets the same deal. Amazon was given some years ago (internetår papirår = 100) started to provide customers different prices. So if your clicks are revealed you as a price jump flap, so you got a slightly lower price than if you just clicked on the purchase immediately. It was discovered - and amazon stopped. Probably because they realized that the behavior was harmful in relation to the desire to be a reliable company where you do not behovede to check prices.
Amazon is also interesting. For amazon is never the cheapest leverendør when I buy books. Very often the Danish e-lounge actually a little cheaper. And it is Danish and small and everything I want to support. Amazon has scared so damn much data that they are better able to suggest me books. And then I'd buy there anyway. I'll pay for that they know me.
And that brings to mind something else: that when the data is a competitive factor, so we'll start just as slow to form structures called "natural monopolies". Amazon is soon to deliver books and they are not expensive. AND the book is the same. But they have more data - and can therefore recommend new purchases. SO until e-lounge gets data, I will not buy from them, but as long as I do not buy from them, they get no data ...
Same problem with facebook. Facebook has value by virtue of the 250 million. Users who log in every month (total is shown approx. 350 million. profiles) - not the interface. But how anyone could create a competing service when the network is a different place.
AND it is in this perspective it is interesting to facebook very aggressively protects their side against screenscraping. And wondering what blippy can use Amazon's data (for example, they may pass them on to the e-lounge ... hardly).
And then there's still much more to say - including about why I think more and more on open source (because as personal data are used, they will also be abused - and here it is reassuring that everything is open source source code will be looked through by correctly lack eyes - we are short, exactly what data programs send anywhere ... and the security / insisting on control would be appropriate ... but maybe people will be indifferent).
Anyways - I write and write. And reach I press send before I read. Sends you a threadsy invite if I can.