Should We Really Unthink?

A startup wants consumers to Unthink. Are they targeting the right issue?

By James York, 31 October 2011

There's a new social networking gunslinger in town: Unthink.com. There's no doubting that it's talking a good game and the site design is sturdy, having been covered by Forbes already in USA; most of the discussion thus far has been an out-pouring of anti-Facebook rhetoric. Unthink claims to emancipate consumers from a model that it believes exploits them - focusing on the personal invasion of privacy. But is it on the right track - a white knight or just another wolf in sheep's clothing? We consider the social media paradigm before answering that question.

Google's omnipotence and the leviathan nature of the internet ushered in an era of "free" content. Whilst Google wasn't a network as we know it, it was still highly social - it knew everyone. Social networking rose as the organiser of personal data; search became the organiser of public data. Services were provided for no financial consideration and we, the consumer, suckled away at the internet's teat. Ah, the sweet, sweet goodness of free everything; it was great, we thought "they" must be making money out of advertisements. Consume now, think later [never]. But you know that.

It's no secret that Facebook, Twitter and Google are carving up the social and media landscape; your digital CV is managed by LinkedIn and your music is increasingly powered socially by the likes of Spotify. Spot the two camps? We'll elaborate why there are identifiable camps later, unless you're sharp and spot it early. It isn't so much a one-dimensional ad model, however, that's making the valuation for some of these mega-digital-brands so high, it's data. Data is knowledge, knowledge is power and power is money. There's an unspoken currency when it comes to online and we all subscribe to it when we except "free" on face value. It is of course the old chestnut: privacy and attention.

Mark Zuckerberg himself told Techcrunch in 2010 that his idea of privacy is that there really isn't any; "People have gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time." He's effectively arguing that the personal price people pay isn't relevant, it's something they don't even value. Perhaps this model needs to be given a different metaphorical context to appraise it.

Imagine you're eating out with your lady or a loved one; the restaurant is completely free from 12pm until 2pm. Free. Trouble is, your entire conversation is being recorded and watched closely. Every time you both mention something that suggests an interest in a product or purchase or place - an ad rep/TV/radio ad/leaflet appears in front of you and pitches away. Mention you're interested in a mini break; cue the man from the travel agency peddling his wares. Your meal is free though, don't forget. You can always ignore the ad man. How many of us would appreciate that constant eavesdropping? Few. Remarkable then that the digital world doesn't quite suffer the same reaction. It all feels so remote and far way.

It is ironic how old adages ring true with the social media equation; there is no such thing as a free lunch. The price has been information and the gatecrashing of lives. What's so ingenious about this equation, and it's the reason it's made these businesses so much money, is that the average consumer has no idea how much their private data is "worth". So much so, Zuckerberg is able to explain his collection of the world's data in exchange for a social software [which he owns and makes billions from] as a "social norm". Most of us would find repeated interruption or recording of real-world conversations highly smothering, even insulting. How many times would you tolerate it? Sadly, since many citizens are grossly apathetic about their individual impact, control or influence in this world, it's only natural that many think little about use of highly personal information in the name of "targeting". It's been an easy trade; perhaps the free lunch novelty would work? Given a big enough restaurant. Scale is far easier in the digital world - we don't see the server farms chewing through power by the megawatt.

Larry Page, CEO of Google, has a clear philosophy about their role: display and advertising is the cornerstone of the internet, "...it's also funding all the content that's on the internet. It's an important thing... to fund the content that gets created," as he told his audience at the Google Zeitgeist 2011. An entire ecosystem built on the premise that you want free and that your activity and data is a small price to pay to fund the whole schlep. Perhaps. But then again, there is only one Google, one dominant social media player and one tech brand really making dollars [Apple]. Sound like choice and competition? Why doesn't Larry offer a paid license to Google's search engine; that would allow punters to dodge the ads, avoid the data logging, gauge value. 99.9% of consumers might still use it for free, but at the very least it would offer an alternative although it might not be in his best interests.

Even the UK's Marketing Week Editor - who should be a proponent of advertisement-power looked a little naive, in a recent edition, about his own sector's impact; "And regarding the ads? Whether they be in the press, on TV or online, if you don't like them, just do as most people do. Ignore them." But ignoring something doesn't necessarily make it's existence or constant presence acceptable - especially in a digital context. A consumer cannot justifiably gripe about ads in public places, the ownership interest is different and those ads talk to everyone (the targeted and un-targeted). Social networks, however, have a deeply personal connection. The two types of advertisement don't look like the same race, they just have a common ancestor.

Perhaps the ethos of Unthink is correct - perhaps Facebook is taking this "Googlean" philosophy too far? It's not that Facebook has a model that effectively leverages personal lives, it's that it does so with no alternative option for the consumer: in or out. That surely has to ring some alarm bells. Unthink is but one example of market reaction to this stifling model.

Consider what would happen if Facebook was asked to quantify its "worth" to your life; it delivers a software that organises your social life and you pay for many other forms of software. Facebook has value. Take away all the data and ads and consider what it's worth to you, monthly or on an annual or permanent license. Put a price on it. Ignore the data traded when you signed up and think about it. What monthly subscription or product price could tempt you? If it's zero, then that might point to something even more telling. If it wasn't for the data trade-off, you'd be forced to undergo this consumer exercise. Find another product in the real world where that mindset fits.

Perceived Value is your mind's instinctual valuation of a product or service. When challenged to pay for Facebook, many of us would baulk. Social life consumption is different to that of goods and services. But in reality, everyone is paying. That free lunch scenario has been happening. The real question is not: would you pay, it's: why don't many care that they already are paying? Collectively paying with their own personal life. Unthink have found a thread here and are tugging at it, which means that there is definitely enough discord amongst the consumer masses to have encouraged them to spend years building the site.

When the social and free start-up sites where listed, did you spot the odd ones out? It was Spotify and LinkedIn: the only sites of the aforementioned trailblazers to offer a value choice. Spotify offers a paid subscription OR a model where ads pound your mind. Unlimited access or anonymity and commercial silence? Spotify's model is perhaps the superior in that sense - it removes ads for your money, a fair trade. No brainer to some: a choice.

If indeed Facebook offered an ad-free, full data deletion upon request - we-don't-store-your-data, you don't have to be seen by friends, your feed is your own construction - what a wonder it might be. In the world of Google, Facebook and many other highly social digital brands, the product is fuelled by ads that require a consumer trading away something of limited value to them - but collectively worth billions to the oligarchs- as a method of funding the whole party. Dressed as a favour, it is actually something that lacks transparency - there's no customer services desk on the internet, after all. Often the wider ramifications of this data creep are not seen, that other sage adage of "divide and rule" seems to reign free. There are enough consumers willing to overlook the economics and sense of it all to keep it rolling. Yet start-ups like Diaspora and now Unthink have emerged to challenge this model of privacy. Are they still just as flawed though?

Unthink's attempt to take on the Facebook approach is admirable, but it still falls short - because it fails to quantify its value, it falls foul of the same assumption: advertising and brand engagement should pay for digital content. Period. One glance over the site doesn't explain exactly how they intend to make money. Then you see the word "brands". It all becomes clear - same old, same old.

This makes the idealism of it all quite questionable. Instead of pushing for transparency and an amnesty on what every user's personal data collectively means to these businesses, the site cryptically attacks the obvious chinks in the system's armour. But these dents can be quickly hammered out from the inside - Facebook is a strong incumbent after all. If Unthink is truly an idealist business model, it's in danger of missing the real battle - the battle that George Monbiot recently addressed: "We're hooked on a drug [advertising] that is destroying society. As with all addictions, the first step is to admit to it."

In a competitive world, choice is everything. Advertising is not the enemy - it's just overwhelmed choice. When barely any digital brands are willing to put a price on their efforts, how can a consumer possibly establish worth? They are not properly informed or even given a choice. Just because we are all trading away our personal data by the gigabyte doesn't mean that it should ever be thus or even that it works. The father of the web himself, Tim Berners-Lee, couldn't spell out the stark responsibility of online any more pertinently if he tried - "I feel that the web should be something which basically doesn't try to coerce people into putting particular sorts of things on it." If ad and privacy-funded models qualify as coercion, then Tim's vision may have already been bastardised beyond repair.

Perhaps it's better to 'unthink' about it that way, it makes more sense.