Ads in My Twitter Stream – What Happened to Informed Consent Hootsuite?

A couple of days back I chose to follow my normal course of behaviour and play with any new Twitter clients for my much loved HTC Hero.  As yet there has been nothing on par with the truly awesome Gravity client on Nokia’s Series 60 by @janole so anything new gets a fair go.

I’d seen reviews of Hootsuite’s new client and after throwing a nice shiny baked ROM at the Hero I was able to download and install Hootsuite Lite.  There is a paid for version ($1.99 at time of writing) but as the only additional benefit I could see was the ability to handle more than 3 Twitter accounts (and I use but 1) there was little point in spending the cash just to see if it works.

Setup was simple enough, even though the you get hassled a couple of times to create a new Hootsuite account before being offered a connection to your Twitter account.

Now I’m not going to review the application other than to say it’s very usable, has some decent thinking around navigation and handles a Twitter account admirably – at least on par with the current leader Seesmic in my opinion.  But something odd happened after a feed refresh sometime on Saturday.

I was out and about, hit refresh and a curious new message appeared in my stream from someone I don’t follow.  This in itself given Twitter’s problems of last weeks with random tweets appearing was nothing too odd but this tweet had a different coloured background and the format of the message was odd.

I quickly sent out a tweet to the crowd asking if anyone else had seen these “ads” but everyone who responded hadn’t. Was this the first inkling of the much talked about Twitter advertising model.  If so it was pretty well exactly what I had expected it might be but had no knowledge of it having yet been enabled.

Of course being out and about research was a little hard to do.

So yesterday I sat down for half an hour and did some digging.  It turns out that Hootsuite have partnered with a third party Twitter advertising agency called 140Proof who’s model is to sell advertising messages injected directly into one’s stream by the client application.  They look and feel like tweets but they aren’t – they are put there ONLY in the application stream.

They are inoffensive and not at all obtrusive, as I said they pretty well looked and felt how I would expect a Twitter ad to be BUT I hadn’t asked for them and more importantly I couldn’t recall ever being informed that I was going to get them.  There were no signup T&C’s with the mobile app, no details easily found on Hootsuite’s web page, nothing.

A little more digging and it turns out that, according to this article on Techcrunch that,

Twitter clients pass 140 Proof a user ID list (with no names) and the public information contained in a Twitter users profile, and on the advertiser side, advertisers bid on ads to be directed toward users based on keywords in tweets, followers, as well as device, location and platform. 140 Proof’s algorithms calculates Twitterer’s “persona” based on public tweets and who they follow and serves ads to users based on this data.

YOU WHAT?  So without my permission Hootsuite passes my PI and graph to a third party who then does their thing with it, sells that bundle (anonymously granted) and throws back a targeted advert!

Now sure my stream is public and viewable by all but that doesn’t make it acceptable for a business to utilise that information for their own gain without at least first asking for permission.  What happens if you have a private non-publicly viewable Twitter stream?  Does Hootsuite not work or do they just blindly continue to pass that data on to 140 Proof?

I don’t mind the ads, they make sense, they (in theory and assuming I pay them attention) pay for Hootsuite to offer up their client for “free” (read no money there) but informed consent is required.

For the record NOT one of the adverts I  have seen over the last couple of days has been even vaguely “relevant” nor have I clicked through on any.

I’ll be having a chat with some people over just what consent they should have obtained as surely there must be a requirement in the EU but it’ll be more interesting to see just what sort of lifespan the 140 Proof model will have once Twitter actually do get their advertising live.

UPDATE: I am interested to hear from anyone who has knowledge of the BT/Phorm case being brought by the CPA;  specifically the abuse of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

If Hootsuite are intercepting my profile and tweet stream and shipping it off (hashed or not) to 140Proof for analysis and spam would this constitute a breach also?

Don’t get me wrong I don’t want Hootsuite punished I just wonder if this is/were the case what would be their knowledge of the issue and how would the choose to address it.

GizaPage – Shame About the T&Cs

Launched today into public beta, GizaPage is hoping to reach the holy grail (in my view) of social network self management, the Social Quarterback – a single place where one can update each and every social network, manage contacts, profiles and all that goodness without having to jump from site to site. It’s a little like chi.mp but with some added, and rather useful functionality. You sign up, add the services you want to use (choose from about 40 or so including all the main SocNets), import contacts and you’re presented with a neat tabbed UI providing access to each service. Great, I’ve been banging on to people I know about having a decent Social Quarterback for a couple of years now and we’ll see if GizaPage can live up to the promise.

BUT

Concern #1 – Sign Up is a Lousy UX Sign up is yet another account creation form. Why no use of OpenID or even Facebook Connect? When will sites learn that having another account for managing sites is not the smart route?

Concern #2 – Onerous T&Cs You know that innocuous little “I accept the terms” check box we all just bypass to get at the goodies. Well, don’t just yet. A few months back Facebook tried to grant themselves a license to do what they wanted with anything you created within their walls. The crowd cried foul and Facebook recanted. Well GizaPage have done it as well. Just look at section 9 of the T&C’s. Lurking in there is subsection 9.3 reading as;

posting User Content to any part of the Website, including any third party service rendered “tabs”, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to GizaPage an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid up, worldwide licence including the right to sublicence, to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose.

Aside from the simple fact that GizaPage is providing merely a conduit for this information to the site of one’s choice (granted a quick and useful conduit) their Privacy Statements make it quite clear they won’t be sharing this content with any one else.

This granting of a license is odd, when actually using GizaPage the creation of content is actually done on the original service site – displayed within a frame. Technically here you are NOT creating your content on GizaPage’s site (you do when editing permissions, over all profile pages and such), so anything you do say against Friendfeed should not fall under their license – in theory at least.

Concern #3 – A Right to Change Terms So why grant themselves a license? Seems harmless enough but also hiding in the T&C’s GizaPage grant themselves a right to change those terms at whim and without notification.

Can anyone else see a problem here?

I’m off for a play with the site BUT I will be careful what content I create for now, at least, until some clarification over these T&Cs is made.

TescoDigital – Destroying Brand Trust 101

So after my rant about the silly episode in trying to purchase a digital copy of Lily Allen’s new album, and with all that off my chest maybe I should highlight a couple of bits that really irked me.

Listen and React Appropriately

As mentioned I can accept technical failings when attempts are made to correct them.  But sloppy or incomplete answers, not actually reading the information given and acting upon it are straight from the “Helpdesks for Dummies” manual.

If someone gives you the error message, and a very specific one at that, come clean about the fault and any resolutions.  Don’t hide behind 1001 questions that aren’t related.

Even more importantly if you think you’ve solved  the problem at your end, for goodness sake check it works before letting the customer know.

Terms and Conditions

In the course of investigating the in’s and out’s of this little episode I chanced to actually read through TescoDigital’s terms & conditions.  Now like most corporate entities they are long, onerous and not really designed to be read by humans – after all why would a normal consumer want/need to read them, Tesco is a trusted brand.

Well they are shite quite honestly.

Phrases like;

The Tesco Digital Site is provided by Tesco without any warranties or guarantees.

and,

To the full extent allowed by applicable law, you agree that we will not be liable to you and/or any third party for any consequential or incidental damages (including but not limited to loss of revenue, loss of profits, loss of anticipated savings, wasted expenditure, loss of privacy and loss of data) or any other indirect, special or punitive damages whatsoever that arise out of or are related to the Tesco Digital Site.

have NO place in T&C’s of reputable, reliable and trustworthy businesses in my opinion.  If you building a brand which you want people to trust stand behind it, offer up warranties and guarantees, even better just be known for putting things right.

Deliver, Don’t Ditch

Wayne’s final solution was to unilaterally cancel the sale (albeit with a refund) and bale. In effect Wayne’s actions could be perceived by me (the customer) as,

“Tesco has done it’s bit, we can’t be bothered trying to solve OUR problems anymore and for three quid why would we so here’s your money back, be  on your way.”

Yes I refer to Tesco not TescoDigital because as a customer I’m seeing the brand not the outlet and let me tell you the image of that brand isn’t looking so great from my end right now.

They broke the contract = bad.

They destroyed the brand trust = disastrous.