The Revolution has Begun?

Note: This was written in class as a response to this video. I thought it was worthwhile to post here.

“Good” and “bad,” firstly, are artificial constructs. The connotations of these concepts changes over time. In the late-1800s Bible Belt, “bad” behavior (i.e., behavior that would send you to hell) included “speaking with levity,” according to a religious tract I saw in a museum display. Today, a regular joke section in Reader’s Digest assures readers that “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s difficult to assign the label “good” or “bad” to face-recognition advertising. As far as the purpose of advertising is concerned, this innovation is beyond good: it’s something out of a fairy tale. Retailers can finally control how their advertising dollars are spent-- no longer hit-and-miss mass advertising, but promotions tailored to their audience. If only the target demographic is viewing a particular ad—we’ll use feminine products as an example—returns on investment increases substantially. The Tampax retailer is probably slavering over this idea: he only wants to reach the percentage of total audience who is female and who needs feminine products. If he can pay for advertising to just that target, which means not paying for the audience of males, children, and postmenopausal women, his return on investment goes up per viewer.

From the consumer’s side, this is also a good situation. Dad and the boys no longer have to be exposed to those awkward Tampax spots; instead, they can see ads for things that they might use: fishing equipment, sports cars, bigger and better TV sets. They are less likely to perceive these tailored ads as junk, and more likely to stop in the store.

This is most beneficial for a company like WalMart, which sells just about everything, or other general store or department store business models. They can really put this technology to use because their diverse array of products can literally appeal to any target group.

In the utilitarian sense, then, this technology is fantastic. It saves consumers the time of wading through irrelevant advertising; it saves companies considerable risk. What more can you ask for, as a business or as a consumer?

But it’s not about asking for; it’s about looking forward. The label of “bad” comes from an understandable uncertainty. The way we perceive advertising is in a state of change. The very definition of advertising-- the mass-appealing, static “dirty little secret” of an industrialized economy—is changing. That’s scary. It’s as scary as the information revolution caused by the Internet—an upheaval that is still making waves as we work to redefine the way we have understood information since writing was invented. As long as general consensus reflects the early-1900s attitude of the crassness and vulgarity of advertising, facial-recognition advertising will be perceived as “bad”—despite the multiplicity of benefits, in cash and consumer satisfaction, that it provides.

Is that satisfaction worth a perceived invasion of privacy? That question will be answered in the course of advertising’s own revolution, which has already begun. In all likelihood, I imagine facial-recognition advertising will become almost standard. It just makes too much sense—and when have questions of morals stopped anyone?