The objective of the entire ad industry is basically to determine what it is you're in the market for. Funnily enough, I'd have no problem telling someone/thing what I'm in the market for providing the offers received matched my specified criteria.
On any given day of the week, we're all in the market for something, right down to a tube of toothpaste. I've always thought that if advertisers knew, from the source, what that item was, their focus would shift to the value of the offer versus today's focus on identifying potential buyers.
The problem is - every minute of every day, they'll show their wares, while I'm interested only seldom to buy things. Most people buy their toothpaste, brushes and toilet disinfectant at the supermarket, when they do their weekly shopping - why would I have to be bombarded with it constantly?
It's like in those movies when they tie you down to a chair, forcibly open your eyes, and blast you with tormenting images.
I never even once bought something I saw advertised online (in sidebars, for example), because I mostly think they are scams - my parents are more gullible though, and I feel bad for them, so I block their ads to protect them.
Video reviews from some people I trust are other story.
Big problems, create big opportunities. Some of the developments that may occur to address this issue over the next 10+ years:
- Development of a robust water entitlement exchange
- Decoupling a water right from the land to create a more tradable asset
- Regulation change to allow for water leases
- A shift away from growing 'thirsty' crops in drought-prone regions
- Decentralization of water treatment plants to reduce distribution costs
- Increased use of grey and recycled water in the home
- Pricing changes based on its use within high water use industries
- Increased use of GM crops designed to require less water
- State-sponsored overseas farming specifically for US import of thirsty crops
- Less water exporting occurring. I.e. selling thirsty crops to China
It's something that's occurring elsewhere in the world on the basis of a) a population wanting to consume a thirsty crop such as rice, which requires water they don't have; and, b) not wanting to give up its food security and rely on traditional imports.
I don't know that this is something the US has done but the motivators noted above still stand.
As someone from Australia who's quite accustom to experiencing droughts, I can tell you such a scenario is handled very differently overseas. Off the top of my head, this is how I've seen it approached in Melbourne:
1. No outdoor water use, whatsoever. That includes washing the car, the dog, watering the garden, hosing down a sidewalk. If you're caught doing any of these, you're in for a $500 fine
2. You're not allowed to fill a swimming pool and all public fountains are turned off
3. The water company will go door-to-door exchanging water restricting shower heads for those currently installed. Egg timers for use in the shower are also given away
4. A marketing campaign is launched promoting the 4 minute shower (the duration of the above-mentioned egg timer)
5. Water saving products receive government subsidies. I.e. rainwater tanks, low water use toilets, etc
I see almost none of this happening in CA and, for the life of me, I can't understand why.
Putting the article aside, I love the functionality. Mapping a story to exactly where you were on the trip when it occurred, the way the NYTimes has, is an amazing way to present the story.
As a user of the product, I love what these guys have done. Although I'd be curious if the end goal is similar to that of AddThis; i.e. selling user data for ad targeting?
No, we definitely do not want to start selling user data. Our whole goal is to connect the applications and services that people use, making it easier for them to work with technology.
http://upperlane.com/ I stopped working on it about 6 months ago. There's still an opportunity there, however, it wasn't going to provide me with a visa.
If the US and Europe's Universities are at all similar to Australia's, the company is going to have an uphill battle. Australian universities receive a lot of government funding based on metrics that are heavily weighted toward the number of papers published. The Prof. and the university therefore view commercialisation as a competing interest that restricts the publishing process while the technology is patented.
