#Zero Party Data

[madhukumarc]

Where can businesses find reliable data for audience segmentation?

Sources Businesses Find Reliable Data for Audience Segmentation:

Businesses can find reliable data for audience segmentation from various sources, ensuring accuracy and relevance for targeted marketing efforts.

Some key sources include:

1. Zero-Party Data: 

Data that is intentionally and proactively shared by customers with businesses, enables them to personalize their marketing strategies more effectively. Also, refer to email marketing data.

2. First-Party Data: 

Data obtained directly from customer interactions on websites and sales channels. Provides authentic insights into customer behavior and preferences.

Refer also to Google Analytics, Google Search Console, and other marketing analytics platforms.

3. Surveys and Interviews: 

Gather accurate, basic information about audience interests and behaviors. Offers insights directly from the audience, helping to understand their needs and motivations.

4. Behavioral Data: 

This presents the behavior of the audience, including their actions on websites. Provides valuable insights into audience engagement and preferences. Heat maps can come to the rescue.

5. Social Media Platforms: 

This delivers information about audience interactions, such as likes, shares, saves, and comments.

Offers insights into the social engagement patterns of the audience and the type of content that is most engaging.

6. Salespeople Interactions: 

This provides firsthand insights into customer preferences, objections, behaviors, and needs, which can be valuable for refining audience segmentation strategies.

7. Customer Service Calls and Feedback: 

This offers direct feedback and firsthand information about customer preferences, needs, concerns, and behaviors.

This helps in understanding customer segments and tailoring marketing strategies to better meet their needs.

Image Content Source - LinkedIn Ads Privacy Playbook

In summary, by leveraging these diverse sources, businesses can gather comprehensive and reliable data for audience segmentation, enabling them to tailor their marketing strategies effectively.

Here's related information that you may also find helpful – Marketing Automation Statistics [Accelerate Efficiency and Sales].

[cubera]

Personalizing Email Marketing With Microsite Emails – CUBERA

The number of email users has tremendously increased to 4.25 billion (Statista) people by 2022. Considering the world population of 8 billion people by 2022 (un.org) was a phenomenal achievement. Read more.

Visit- https://cubera.co/personalizing-email-marketing-with-microsite-emails-cubera/

[snugglyporos]

// hi, the only question I have is who or what are the greens and why do they deserve to be on this chart

because I have been told there is apparently a welsh party that has at least 6 more seats than them

also who is going to be the first person to write the headline that this party had a 100% increase in seats

[cubera2024]

Best AdTech Ecosystem Company in Bangalore | Zero Party Data - CUBERA

Cubera leads the AdTech industry by empowering brands with access to zero and first-party data, enabling transformative advertising strategies. Our data-driven approach enhances campaign efficiency, transparency, and performance, making Cubera the go-to platform for innovative advertising solutions. Cubera’s services ensure seamless, effective campaigns. With Omni-Channel Targeting, AI-powered Cohort Analysis, and comprehensive Ad Services, brands can reach their audience across platforms with precision and transparency, maximizing engagement and ROI. Cubera’s powerful suite of tools—Cube, Cubera Identity Graph, Vertex, and Edge—delivers advanced data integration and targeting capabilities. These tools empower brands to execute highly efficient and transparent ad campaigns, leveraging the latest in AdTech innovation.

[phantomrose96]

I'm thinking about Tumblr Live again and ruminating on WHY it's such a huge flop and I think I've figured it out: They've completely refused to make it a tumblr feature...

By which I mean (begrudgingly goes to unsnooze Tumblr live) this:

^This is meant with zero insult or derision to the people above, but these are absolutely not Tumblr users.

Every single thumbnail I've ever seen for Tumblr live seems to say "This is for clout!" "This is for a thirst trap!" "This is for influencers!" "This is for Tiktok wannabe stars!" "This is for showing your pretty filtered face and reaping what people on Instagram and Tiktok are desperately chasing!"

I'm remembering that Reddit has (or had) livestreams you could tune into like this. I've tapped into some. Ones I remember offhand include:

a guy just wandering around downtown in his city silently showing people the streets and stuff

a guy streaming his attempt to beat the last level of Celeste

a guy streaming his dog he was petting

And that, that was Reddit. That was undoubtedly just regular Reddit users going "oh stream feature? yeah okay. here's my dog." "here's my video game." "here's my street corner in Prague."

And when I think of all the recent successful Tumblr features, they're all things that correctly tapped into actual Tumblr user interests. Blaze had people go "haha yeah here's my dog." "here's my advertisement for a horse lawyer (lawyer who is a horse)." They let us buy crabs because, fuck it, crabs. The blue checkmarks were funny. Polls turned into the fandom brackets people have desperately wanted to make for a decade+. I'd wager the merch that calls on old Tumblr memes is at least decently successful.

If Tumblr Live wanted the chance to be successful, it should have been angled toward Tumblr users. "Here, you can livestream your cat if you want." "You can livestream yourself working on some fanart and chatting." "You can livestream yourself going bird watching because birds are your hyperfixation and you can identify them all by their song to all your followers who want to tune in for bird facts."

But Tumblr Live has never tried to be that. It ONLY seems like it wants to be a Tiktok-clone, Instagram-clone, clout-chaser baited-hook trying to pull converts over from Tiktok/Insta/etc who are trying to grow their influencer brand, which Tumblr is lethally hostile to.

(And ALL of this is only touching on the concept behind what's happening here. I haven't even touched on the third-party streaming service and questionable data protection.)

Like fine, I guess I get it from a business model of trying to grow your userbase--since catering to your existing userbase doesn't pull in new meat. But this will not work. Because anyone, tumblr-native or not, trying to grow themselves as an influencer will NOT find success here. This place is not a place of honor. No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here. Nothing valued is here. What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. We will not watch your Shein haul stream.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Forcing Google to spin off Chrome (and Android?)

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/19/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do/#shiny-and-chrome

Last August, a federal judge convicted Google of being "a monopolist" and acting "as one to maintain its monopoly." The judge concluded that key to Google's monopoly was the vast troves of data it collects and analyzes and asked the parties to come up with remedies to address this.

Many trustbusters and Google competitors read this and concluded that Google should be forced to share its click and quer y data. The technical term for this is "apocalyptically stupid." Releasing Google's click and query data into the wild is a privacy Chernobyl in the waiting. The secrets that we whisper to search engines have the power to destroy us a thousand times over.

Largely theoretical answers like "differential privacy" are promising, but remain theoretical at scale. The first large-scale live-fire exercise for these should not be something as high-stakes as Google's click and query data. If anything, we should delete that data:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/07/revealed-preferences/#extinguish-v-improve

The last thing we want to do is use antitrust to democratize surveillance so that everyone can spy as efficiently as Google does. In theory, we could sanitize the click and query data by limiting sharing to queries that were made by multiple, independent users (say, only sharing queries that at least 30 users have made), but it's unlikely that this will do much to improve the performance of rival firms' search engines.

Google only retains 18 months' worth of click and query data, thus once we cut off its capacity to collect more data, whatever advantage it has from surveillance will begin to decay immediately and fall to zero in 18 months.

(However: the 18 months figure is deceptive, and deliberately so. Google may only retain your queries for 18 months, but it is silent on how long it retains the inferences from those queries. It may discard your "how do I get an abortion in my red state" query after a year and a half, but indefinitely retain the "sought an illegal abortion" label it added to your profile. The US desperately needs a federal consumer privacy law!)

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

And just to be clear, there's other Google data that would be very useful to rival search engines, like Google's search index – the trove of pages from the internet. Google already licenses this out, and search engines like Kagi use it to produce substantially superior search results:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

The DOJ has just filed its proposal for a remedy, and it's a doozy: forcing Google to sell off Chrome, on the basis that both of these are the source of much of Google's data, and no rival search engine is likely to also have a widely used browser:

https://9to5google.com/2024/11/18/us-doj-google-sell-chrome/

This represents something of a compromise position: the DOJ had initially signalled that it would also demand a selloff of Android, and that's been dropped. I think there's a good case for forcing the sale of Android as a source of data, too.

In competition theory, these selloffs are referred to as "structural separation" – when a company that provides infrastructure to other firms is prohibited from competing with those firms:

https://locusmag.com/2022/03/cory-doctorow-vertically-challenged/

For example, it used to be that banks were prohibited from competing with the companies they loaned money to. After all, if you borrow money from Chase to open a pizzeria, and then Chase opens a pizzeria of its own across the street, you can see how your business would be doomed. You have to make interest payments to Chase, and your rival doesn't, and if Chase wants to, it can subsidize that rival so it can sell pizzas below cost until you're out of business.

Likewise, rail companies were banned from owning freight companies, because otherwise they would destroy the businesses of every freight company that shipped on the railroad.

In theory, you could create fair play rules that required the bank or the railroad to play nice with the business customers that used their platforms, but in practice, there are so many ways of cheating that this would be unenforceable.

This principle is well established in all other areas of business, and we recoil in horror when it is violated. You wouldn't hire a lawyer who was also representing the person who's suing you. Judges (with the abominable exception of Supreme Court justices!) are required to recuse themselves when they have a personal connection with either of the parties in a case they preside over.

One of the weirdest sights of the new Gilded Age is when lawyers for monopoly companies argue that they can play fair with their customers despite their conflicts of interest. Think of Google or Meta, with their ad-tech duopoly. These are companies that purport to represent sellers of ads and buyers of ads in marketplaces they own and control, and where they compete with sellers and/or buyers. These companies suck up 51% of the revenue generated by advertising, while historically, the share taken by ad intermediaries was more like 15%!

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/25/structural-separation/#america-act

Imagine if you and your partner discovered that the same lawyer was representing both of you in the divorce, while also serving as the judge, and trying to match with both of you on Tinder. Now imagine that when the divorce terms were finalized, lawyer got your family home.

No Google lawyer would agree to argue on the company's behalf in a case where the judge was employed by the party that's suing them, but they will blithely argue that the reason they're getting 51% of the ad-rake is that they're providing 51% of the value.

Structural separation – like judicial recusal – comprehensively and unarguably resolves all the perceptions and realities of conflict between parties. The fact that platform owners compete with platform users is the source of bottomless corruption, from Google to Amazon:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payola

In other words, I think the DOJ is onto something here. That said, the devil is – as always – in the details. If Google is forced to sell off Chrome, rather than standing it up as its own competing business, things could go very wrong indeed.

Any company that buys Chrome will know that it only has a certain number of years before Google will be permitted to spin up a new browser, and will be incentivized to extract as much value from Chrome over that short period. So a selloff could make Chrome exponentially worse than Google, which, whatever other failings it has, is oriented towards long-term dominance, not a quick buck.

But if Google is forced to spin Chrome out as a standalone business, the incentives change. Anyone who buys Chrome will have to run it as a functional business that is designed to survive a future Google competitor – they won't have another business they can fall back on if Google bounces back in five years.

There's a good history of this in antitrust breakups: both Standard Oil and AT&T were forced to spin out, rather than sell off, parts of their empire, and those businesses stood alone and provided competitive pressure. That is, until we stopped enforcing antitrust law and allowed them to start merging again – womp womp.

This raises another question: does any of this matter, given this month's election results? Will Trump's DoJ follow through on whatever priorities the current DoJ sets? That's an open question, but – unlike so many other questions about the coming Trump regime – the answer here isn't necessarily a nightmare.

After all, the Google antitrust case started under Trump, and Trump's pick for Attorney General, the credibly accused sexual predator Matt Gaetz, is a "Khanservative" who breaks with his fellow Trumpians in professing great admiration for Biden's FTC chief Lina Khan, and her project of breaking up corporate monopolies:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/trump-nominates-khanservative-matt

What's more, Trump is a landing strip for a stroke or coronary, which would make JD Vance president – and Vance has also expressed his approval of Khan's work.

Google bosses seem to be betting on Trump's "transactional" (that is, corrupt) style of governance, and his willingness to overrule his own appointees to protect the interests of anyone who flatters or bribes him sufficiently, or convinces the hosts of Fox and Friends to speak on their behalf:

https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/comprehensive-review-revolving-door-between-fox-and-second-trump-administration

That would explain why Google capo Sundar Pichai ordered his employees not to speak out against Trump:

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-employees-memes-poke-fun-company-rules-political-discussion-2024-11

And why he followed up by publicly osculating Trump's sphincter:

https://twitter.com/sundarpichai/status/1854207788290850888

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[3liza]

some other interesting things I saw today on my four mile march along Lake Union:

1. a "sorry I missed you" card left on a mailbox cluster for houseboats, from the Nielsen ratings corporation. immediate reactions: can't believe Nielsen ratings are still a thing, it sort of makes sense to target houseboats since they must be 99% owned by boomers, but wouldn't they not usually have cable? maybe they have satellite. i thought about stealing the card because I've always wanted to be a Nielsen household specifically for the purposes of data spoilage

2. very stereotypical German Shepherd Guy laboriously walking his clearly purebred and already basically crippled shepherd yearling on, of course, a prong collar, doing absolutely zero food or praise reinforcement. dog was visibly nervous. I smiled at him because I wanted to pet a puppy, no response

3. millennial woman walking a pug past me while on her phone, just long enough to overhear the four words "kennel cough last year" as she passed. i bet it did ma'am

4. about twenty yacht dealerships. seriously why aren't we vandalizing these places

5. the fascinating and ancient China Harbor restaurant which has been a rotting, monolithic black tiled cube down at the waterfront for decades. apparently it shared a building with a swimming pool, that cannot smell good to either party. I've always wanted to go to China Harbour but it's apparently one of those nightmarish buffets that have mostly disappeared and not one of the good ones. like surviving from the 1950s type of buffet.

photographs don't do the looming effect of this architecture enough credit. also apparently they finally closed last month with a 3.1 rating on yelp

[time-traveling-fetus]

Yesterday at work we were having an all staff day, which is basically a day in which instead of working the administration decides to waste everybody's time with a "fun" party in a very cold room and uncomfortable chairs and speakers that are too loud. But the main events were several people who were invited to give presentations about... I'm not actually sure what it was about. It was several hours of vague statements about diversity and community empowerment and how libraries are the most important institutions in the world that imparted zero information unto me. Not that my job has any relevance to what they were talking about anyway; I dont interact with the public.

Anyway a partner organization was collecting data by having everybody text an automated number with their answers. One question they asked was "What programs would you like our organization to support at the library?" And every answer updated a word cloud in real time. Unfortunately most people didn't understand that if you were submitting a multiword phrase you needed to use dashes instead of spaces to prevent the words from being separated. So the screen immediately displayed in big huge letters the four most common words: PRISON SEX DANCE PARTNERSHIP

[probablyasocialecologist]

While maintaining that “for some, the best outcome will be transition,” it nevertheless effectively recommended that the N.H.S. abandon the guidelines embraced by major mainstream medical associations and restrict the use of medications that have been offered for decades to adolescents across the globe with vanishingly few negative side effects or regrets. The reason, the report says, is that these treatments are insufficiently supported by reliable, long-term evidence. Then, remarkably, the report recommends treatments — psychological treatment and medications for depression and anxiety — that have even less proof behind them in helping children (or adults) with gender dysphoria, though they may help with other mental health issues, and many children with dysphoria already get these treatments. And for all its insistence of evidence, the report is peppered with mere speculation about the potential causes of gender dysphoria: pornography and the phenomenon of social contagion are invoked, with zero credible evidence to support them. It is a strange document. Social conservatives welcomed the report. But it has also been heralded in some liberal quarters in Britain, where even the Labour Party has supported its conclusions, and around the world as a model of open-minded rationalism, of well-intentioned — progressive, even — unbiased scientific inquiry attempting to provide information in young people’s best interests. This, they declare, is what following the science and the evidence looks like. But is it? In an effort to evaluate the Cass report’s findings and recommendations, I spent the months since it was released poring over the document, researching the history of transgender medicine and interviewing experts in gender-affirming care as well as epidemiologists and research scientists about the role of scientific evidence in determining care standards. What I have come to realize is that this report, for all its claims of impartiality, is fundamentally a subjective, political document.

[...]

A great deal of the media coverage of gender-affirming care in the West has painted a picture of huge numbers of children, some of them suffering from profound mental illness, rushed into medical transition, practically force-fed puberty blockers and hormones, then fast-tracked to surgery once they turned 18, based on unproven treatment and perhaps bogus science. But the report itself not only fails to show any evidence of significant regret among patients or other forms of harm; its own data also contradicts the notion of rushed transition. Of the more than 3,300 medical records examined as part of the review, about a quarter of children and adolescents were referred to an endocrinologist, which suggests a significant screening process. Indeed, on average, patients had more than a half dozen consultations before being referred. If anything, the evidence suggests a lack of care bordering on neglect, which is not surprising considering that millions of people are on waiting lists for treatment of all kinds by Britain’s crumbling health system. One of the most common pieces of feedback was that young people lingered on waiting lists, sometimes for years. A number of participants in focus groups convened for the purpose of the report said they felt that they had to “prove” to clinicians that they were transgender.

[...]

At one point the report posits that because a child has never had the experience of growing up in their assigned sex, they would have no way to know whether they might regret transition. “They may have had a different outcome without medical intervention and would not have needed to take lifelong hormones,” the report says, referring to children assigned female at birth. It is hard to know what to make of a statement like that. A person gets only one life; waiting to see how it works out isn’t really an option. To a queer woman like me, this is an ominous echo of something many of us have heard many times in our lives: Maybe you just haven’t met the right man yet. The wish — whether expressed by a parent, a teacher, a therapist or a suitor — is a wish for a child not to be queer. It is hard to find a satisfying explanation for these kinds of conjectures and conclusions in the report other than this one: Many people find transgender people at best unsettling and possibly deluded or mentally ill, or at worst immoral and unnatural. They appear to believe it would be better not to be trans. As much as Cass’s report insists that all lives — trans lives, cis lives, nonbinary lives — have equal value, taken in full it seems to have a clear, paramount goal: making living life in the sex you are assigned at birth as attractive and likely as possible. Whether Cass wants to acknowledge it or not, that is a value judgment: It is better to learn to live with your assigned sex than try to change it. If this is what Cass personally believes is right, fair enough. It can charitably be called a cultural, political or religious belief. But it is not a medical or scientific judgment.

13 Aug 2024 | Link

[lets-try-some-writing]

hello :] this isn't really a request so much as a hypothetical question, but have you ever thought about writing what would happen if optimus stayed regressed after s2e2 and was brought back to the team as orion pax, with the team having zero idea what to do with him and needing to adjust to living with a guy who's definitely not optimus in optimus' body while also at the same time working to figure out how on earth they're supposed to get his memory back (and needing to teach him pretty much everything about the current operation all over again)??? again, not explicitly a writing prompt, but i do want to know if you have any thoughts (｡･∀･)ﾉﾞ

I SWEAR this is a fic about this on Ao3 that I read at some point. Look it up. It's somewhere, maybe in the Optiratch stuff. I can't bloody remember. That said, here are my thoughts on the concept.

I imagine that it would be a very difficult adjustment for both parties on some fronts, but also probably a lot easier in some areas as well. Orion Pax was not a warrior, but he was a brilliant tactician unburdened by the horrors of war that left Optimus so very shattered in some regards. Orion's youthfulness and extensive knowledge would allow him to come up with plans that may not be new, but surprising enough to be effective due to having long since been lost to time. Think of it like turning up to a shootout with spears and somehow winning due to cunning. That's how I see Orion's logic working.

Additionally, Orion would be a fantastic foil and glue for the entire team. Being far more emotive, I imagine he would bring much needed life and wisdom back to the group, giving them hope for a better future. It would be like having a young and fresh off the Matrix Optimus back, if only without the added god knowledge. He could actually connect to his team, helping them through their issues as they in turn help Orion adjust and slowly work through the absolute mountain of data and war crimes witnesses by both sides of the war.

Battle would be difficult for him though, and I do imagine Ratchet is suddenly going to have to get back on the playing field while Orion re-learns how properly fight. I think he'd pick it up quickly, muscle memory and all that. But the mental effects would be difficult for him initially, thus leading me to believe he'd be a bit of a homebody while he learned the ropes. But having to learn all these things would give him yet another excuse to bond to his team and learn new battle tactics that he can apply better than Optimus (being so set in his ways) ever could. Who knows? He might actually be able to do some actual damage to Megatron.

Essentially, the mental stuff would be a LOT for Orion, but I imagine he would adjust and maybe even end the war peacefully with the help of his team. Or barring that, he can use old cleverness to earn them a victory without as much bloodshed.

[simply-ivanka]

Tim Walz’s Progressive Tax Experiment

The Minnesota economy is no success story on the Governor’s watch.

By The Editorial Board - Wall Street Journal

Our friends in the press don’t seem to care about Tim Walz’s economic record as Governor of Minnesota. But Americans might be interested since it foreshadows where a Kamala Harris-Walz Administration would take the country with their policies.

Minnesota boasts a low employment rate (2.9%), but that’s less impressive than it seems. Nearly all of its job growth under Mr. Walz has been in industries that rely on government spending. Since he entered office in January 2019, Minnesota has added a net 41,500 jobs. This includes 43,900 in healthcare and social assistance and 12,600 in government.

Private industries have lost jobs, including finance, information, professional and business services, retail, manufacturing and leisure and hospitality. Such job losses started before the pandemic but accelerated during Mr. Walz's prolonged lockdowns and have increased during the last year.

Manufacturing employment has declined by 7,500 over the past 12 months, while professional and business services have shed 22,700 jobs. This is especially notable since Mr. Walz last spring signed a giant tax increase, including a 1% surcharge on investment income over $1 million. He also reduced standard deductions for businesses such as for net operating losses.

At the same time he expanded myriad tax credits such as for rent, film production, dependent care and families. Minnesotans can even get a $150 refund for contributing to state political parties and candidates. Such tax credits shrink the tax base so much that Democrats have to keep rates high. Minnesota’s top rate is 9.85% not counting his one-percentage point surcharge—which sends the rich or retired out of state.

Households with roughly $5 billion in adjusted gross income left Minnesota between 2019 and 2022, according to the most recent IRS data. Minnesota in 2022 ranked eighth in income loss among states as a share of overall AGI, after Illinois, New York, California, New Jersey, Alaska, Maryland and Massachusetts.

Top destinations for Minnesota refugees include zero-income tax Florida, Texas and South Dakota. South Dakota’s rate of job growth has been more than four times higher than Minnesota’s since Mr. Walz took the helm. At least overtaxed and jobless Minnesotans can vote with their feet. If Ms. Harris wins, all Americans might have to live by California and Minnesota rules.

[pocketfullofarchivists]

I’ve just updated my “can’t be normal about” list so I feel like talking about newer ones:

- The Phosphene Catalogue been there for some time since ending first season but it’s so good and I never talked about it! It’s art catalogue for weird and/or cursed objects except it’s also very personal detective investigation. The way story is told? interesting and gratifying and also vibes are good

- Modes of Thought In Anterran Literature - imagine way too realistic university lectures being recorded…but almost everyone around that professor convinced he went bonkers. There’s so much data with zero proof! and also, somehow people who try to take it seriously(or just touching the subject) is getting. Weird.

Ugh too much spoilers to explain but it’s fascinating. Also bringing me flashbacks from uni days

- Inn Between - okay short episodes not doing it for me usually(way too stressful) and that’s probably why I didn’t add it until current seasons This is classic dnd adventure with some meta plot and interesting characters

it’s short, it’s fun, it’s following inn following fun adventuring parties

of course I got way more invested with pathetic and not so good characters, of course