Does Facebook have a right to monetise its users conversations?

 Let's think about phrasing this question in another way. Does Tesco have the right to monetise my shopping pattens. Or do credit card companies have the right to monetise the information gained by my shopping patterns.. 

Do credit card companies use this information. Of course they do. They segment, they target, they refine offers; they buy information from various market research agencies, etc --and just think how much information a simple search of postcode and property sales will provide a marketeer. So an online conversation is simply another form of data--whether it's more or less private than peeking into my shopping trolley or analysing my credit card statements is a matter of opinion.

As long as I give permission and Im aware of how my data might be used, then it's fair game. If one doesn't want the information to be used, then it's best to stay away from "free" services. Equally website, publishers and marketeers need to be transparent about what they plan on doing and allow people to explicitly opt-in to services.

Data are the crown jewels of online and increasingly offline businesses. "Context" will be increasingly powerful too for companies as they to not only generate revenue but how they can more effectively segment their customer base.

Of course, this leads to the next question: how much is my data worth to you? And, if I own my data (whether it's a conversation or a credit card transaction), is there a way that I can monetise or generate revenue from sharing my data with you, the company? That is a way of turning the argument around and help individuals generate revenue from their own data?

Something for the really creative markeeters to consider!

Kerry Ritz
Palringo

Very good post. I completely agree with you.  However, you canot be sure whether your data is not being misused and that is very the insecurity comes from.

Not convinced supermarket analogy works.

Facebook is not a retail shop one transacts with openly.

How it thinks its brand will retain resepct while its business serves its own ends without transparency remains to be seen

What is the value add to its users (don't think we are its customers) in how it utilises data they supply?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that it is free is worth it.  And I'd say that the users are customers, why would you think otherwise?

It is in the T&C's and it is a 'business'. The problem is now there is such fragmentation sites such as Facebook offer an idea opportunity to deliver highly targetted messages. Private conversations are maybe different but if you choose to place all your personal information on a website you should be prepared to be targetted.

I am not saying that I like it, but I do agree.  This is exactly how it is.

 PS: I like your avatar :)

This is a blatant invasion of privacy.  I advocate everyone leaving Facebook if this happens.  If the conversations are monetised then it stands to reason there is some pretty sophisticated software analysing said conversations. The next step is the government will claim that in the interests in protecting us further against "terrorism" they need access to everything posted and communicated on Facebook.  The owners of Facebook need to look really hard in the mirror and ask why they want to do this?  what value is there in it?  I think it's a lazy way for brands to get access to market research and what's to stop them choosing the conversations of people working for them?  Crazy and needs to be stopped in it's tracks.

I jnow what you mean, however I don't think that people will be wiling to leave facebook even if this happens.  It is too established and free!!! Many of us will rather take is a fact and keep using the site.

Yes, I would guess that the primary function of Farcebook - is to reap data.

Data is or soon will be, after all, the final currency.

What it does with the various data which is gathered is up to the owners of the data.

The users have already agreed to this, by taking part.

There's no point crying about it - I would say either use it or dont - but I think once you close your account - they can still retain the data you have supplied them with - although I've no idea on what terms and for how long.

In the most part I would guess that this data is analyzed en masse. A little like Hari Seldons mathematical principle of Psychohistory from the Asimov novels. - But of course, there is no reason at all why individuals can not be singled out for 'analisys'

- or groups, or types, or sorted by age, race, religion, political persuasion, favourite football team, fascination with the colour blue, left brain/right brain orientated, movie goer, aggressive, passive, attractive - you name it. 

I would be willing to bet that various advanced 'Narrow AI' applications are employed in the scanning and interpretation of data, collected via Farcebook. As AI becomes more advanced more subtle extrapolations will be possible. These extrapolations will become very valuable information. If you require custom extrapolations - for a new product or branding etc - then the data is already stored - and the AI can re-analyze using the impetus you supply !
 

I take the point on Hari Seldon but the analysis of conversations is another matter. Hari analysed data on a galaxy wide scale.  Cheltenham HQ spend enough of our money recording, assessing and monitoring our conversations, emails and text messages as it is.  To record and then analyse conversations opens up a whole new world of misuse of data.  We may as well employ the thought police or what about appointing 1 person in every company to report directly into the government or perhaps one person in every street, hang on wouldn't that be the Stasi... is this conversation being monitored, have I been ear marked as a trouble maker because I dare to question a company's strategy. 

Data is king ( Isn't that why the president elect and the outgoing president have courted google so obviously) but surely we have some say in how the data especially our private conversations is used, we can opt out of most things (if you really try) but not facebook unless you take it to the highest court of the land to fight your case.  I think we'd all have no issues if data was used sensibly (and wasn't lost or open to corruption on a regular basis) or for benign purposes but the that's not the case especially as the government has already started it's investigations into how Facebook can be used to track "the terrorists".

This is a very controversial topic actually. I would argue that we have power over sites like facebook and as I mentioned earlier - if we don't like this we can always stop using sites who do this.  This would force them to stop using such practices!

yup it has right to monetise its users conversations.