Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nextgrid | Hacker News Reader

> Roy Taylor, the chief executive of Californian-based business Ryff, says his firm is taking digital product insertion one stage further. > It has developed the technology whereby the product placement is targeted at individuals, and changes depending on who is watching.

A film is supposed to be an experience, and the products/brands within it (whether "organic" or "placed" with the approval of the cast) is part of it. I don't like how they're planning to change it dynamically.

View on HN

I think it goes far beyond that. Silently tailoring experiences right down to the personal level compromises our shared understanding of reality and fractures society. I believe this kind of thing is responsible, in no small part, for the increased political tensions we see today. How can we have a democracy when everyone gets custom-made propaganda, and no one knows what's being whispered into anyone else's ear?

Exactly, what if this comment would change depending on who is reading it?

That could be a very good thing.

Imagine a wiki page that skipped all the stuff you know and focused on things in your ZPD. You'd save a lot of time and have a much more positive view of learning.

We'd get situations like when Exxon sent one kind of ad messaging to left-leaning Facebook users ("we're fighting climate change!") and one to right-leaning Facebook users ("regulations bad!")[1].

Companies could have their products or services featured in a movie but set the context depending on some demographic feature of the viewer. And just like that you can give a positive impression of your company to two groups holding opposite positions. An example could be having the protagonist driving an electric eco-car in one version and a gas-guzzling 4WD in another; just make use of cheaper and cheaper CGI.

1. https://www.michaelwest.com.au/two-faced-facebook-how-the-di...

What shared understanding of reality? Does not fiction already fracture society?

Targeted advertising and dynamic ad swapping like in this article is, uncharitably put, an insidious form of gaslighting. In a world that already has problems with determining what is true, this type of a business is simply irresponsible and poison.

If you're trying to determine what is true, you'd better avoid fiction altogether.

Fiction is probably more damaging than we credit, when it persistently paints an inaccurate view of the world. But at least we all have the same access to fiction, and can therefore talk about aspects of it that might be wrong or damaging. But when someone tells some "fiction" to you and you alone, they'd better at least tell you they have done so - otherwise we call that a "lie".

If they told you it's the original version, then that'd be a lie.

Otherwise it'd be a lie just like all the other fictional verbal narratives that aren't prefaced with a warning.

Fracturing society is a feature, not a bug, of our current news landscape. It keeps people from thinking too hard, about things like Billionaires and members of Congress generating fortunes during a pandemic.

No, I think this technology is much simpler. It means that product placement contracts can now generate annual recurring revenue, instead of once-off revenue.

Movies and TV shows could be shot and distributed with exposed 'source code' (eg. visible green screens) which the client or local distribution network then seamlessly overlays with an appropriate brand.

Advertisers can be rotated in and out depending on who pays the most, and multiple advertisers can be signed up based on a segmented viewer base to maximise revenue.

Its also a long-term source of work for advertising agencies and video technicians, I guess.

Yeah, not a fan either. Netflix has done at least a couple 'choose your own adventure' style films. The idea itself is...fun. Maybe I'm boring, but I just don't like it. I want to be told a story, not decide the story myself.

Something made to be a choose your own adventure is a different experience to a film - it's a lazy video game basically.

With Bandersnatch at least you are still being told a story.

One of the central themes is how you are controlling the character, making the character feel a lack of agency. It's far far too Charlie Brooker to be as simple as you describe.

That Bandersnatch went (spoilers?) meta, while being one of the first of its type, really highlights the limits of a very simplistic CYOA medium like that, I think. What else do you do with it now? Bandersnatch already said the only thing that medium had to say that's worth a damn. And hell, that exact thing had already been explored by "real" video games, many times over.

Yeah at present, people can see a film separately but still talk in depth about tiny details of it. When this tech is in place but new some conversations are going to get confusing. Once everyone is used to it it'll be a slight annoyance, and something that some people will actively avoid - perhaps putting premium prices on original copies.

>premium prices on original copies

This is only possible if sharing and copying is made impossible. History is on the side of the sharers. I'd rather miss the cultural experience of the millennia than buy into shenanigans like this.

I believe this is how you see "real life" ad placements when watching sports events through TV - custom insert based on viewer/household demographic.

In other words: "We choose your own adventure".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com