Yahoo, Bucking Industry, Scans Emails for Data to Sell Advertisers

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yahoo-bucking-industry-scans-emails-for-data-to-sell-advertisers-1535466959

by hemancuso • 8 years ago

239 109 8 years ago

wsj.com

martokus• 8 years ago

Because they know everyone that would have ever left them has already done so. Nothing to lose...

Trochal• 8 years ago

Not all users are clued up on whats happening in the tech world, some users are just users who want an email account.

lostgame2• 8 years ago

Sure, and Google is happy to do that, for the layman or the techie.

There's just no need, or space, for Yahoo anymore.

unit91• 8 years ago

No great surprise. The only people still using Yahoo aren't very tech savvy and don't know about the data breach, plaintext passwords, etc.. My guess is Yahoo can get away with this and they know it.

mtgx• 8 years ago

Didn't Yahoo also promise a few years ago it wouldn't do that (only after they saw a backlash against scanning the emails, I believe).

stevecalifornia• 8 years ago

Try deleting your Yahoo account. It doesn't work. They say they delete your account but then it wills till be there getting emails. It's impossible to delete your account.

sulam• 8 years ago

I predict this will have changed recently due to GDPR.

pimmen• 8 years ago

They violate multiple GDPR restrictions already by having all kinds of options already pre-checked for you when you click "allow", and hidden no less.

https://twitter.com/ow/status/999575371556294656?lang=en

ballenf4• 8 years ago

Honest question: is it better to delete the account or leave it as a placeholder to prevent the name being taken by someone else? I have an ancient yahoo address that gets a lot of spam and a few newsletters, but I'm 99% sure that there are some website credentials out there that still use the address and dozens of contacts who still have it their address book.

I started to (try to) delete the account several times and always hesitated out of fear. And when I ask myself "what's the harm in leaving it there?" I can't really come up with a good answer.

Also interesting aside, Yahoo/Oath nag me every couple weeks to agree to the new Verizon draconian privacy forfeiture terms. I wonder if they'll eventually block logins and cutoff email forwarding if I never click through. My cynical hunch is that they'll equate logins with consent after updating the TOS to explain this.

drharby• 8 years ago

It is risk averse to keep it and functionally useless. Yahoo recycles unused handlrs after a timeout of a few years and scammers find these and still all accounts associated with them.

Usecase: friend dies, years later some turkey kid stole his facebook bv his login was yahoo email based and BOOM has access to a lot of social media data.

lostgame2• 8 years ago

I'm personally shocked Yahoo is still a company.

I personally don't know anyone daft enough to use their services up here in Canada - even in the US (where I have personally seen the 'average Joe's' tech knowledge - especially in central and southern states - shockingly much less than that in Canada) it seemed folks avoided it, except the lowest-of-the-low in terms of tech knowledge.

They have, for the years since AOL was known universally as the worst tech company, seemingly fought for that title.

EDIT: Surprised at the downvotes. I'd love to know why.

Rotdhizon2• 8 years ago

This is a bit off topic from usual discussion but a few years ago a game I play launched, probably around early 2015 or 2016. The dev hosted the game on Yahoo servers, and their incompetency almost killed the game. Their services that dealt with game hosting were constantly going down, grinding to a halt, or just being unwillingly to resolve issues. At the time Yahoo was on its way out of that sector and planning on axing that service. I'm not sure if its closed down yet or not, but thankfully the dev moved over to aws, no problems since then.

duskwuff• 8 years ago

What "Yahoo servers" are you referring to? As far as I'm aware, Yahoo never provided cloud compute services -- the only Yahoo game hosting I'm aware of was for their own in-browser games.

gnicholas• 8 years ago

Plenty of folks use Yahoo, especially for secondary accounts. Also, when the iPhone launched, the only outside email provider that had 'push' privileges was Yahoo. I remember having a Google > Yahoo email forwarding setup just so I could get my gmail forwarded to me in real-time.

ArchTypical• 8 years ago

since AOL was known universally as the worst tech company

When it started to fail, it was lamented, but technically? It was exploitive and full of dumb subscribers, but the tech was fine.

except the lowest-of-the-low in terms of tech knowledge.

Used yahoo for decades, since I was around when it started. Still do, for one email address.

gaius• 8 years ago

but the tech was fine.

Yep, AOLserver was one of the first “app servers” and it was well regarded. The other PG built his company around it.

maxxxxx2• 8 years ago

It's just a matter of time until all companies that sit on a ton of data start using it to make money. There is just no way around it unless they are being forced by law not to do it.

Barrin922• 8 years ago

it's not just a matter of time. As stated in the article, Google actually reverted its policy on the issue and has since stopped collecting data from user email content.

There's nothing inevitable about this. Even apart from law employees can steer the direction of companies, especially in tech where businesses are so dependent on a relatively small number of them. If you think privacy practises at your place of work are bad, bring it up.

ballenf4• 8 years ago

Are you suggesting that Google took a stand on principle and voluntarily gave up gathering more data on users of its free services out of respect for privacy?

Or is it perhaps more likely that Google gets enough info from users via others means that it simply wasn't getting enough value out of email scanning? Or maybe starting a trend against email scanning hurts competitors more than it hurts themselves?

ForHackernews2• 8 years ago

Isn't Yahoo gone? Shouldn't headline be "Verizon-Oath"?

niij• 8 years ago

In the same sense that "Google" is gone and we should now be saying Alphabet. That is the holding company, but the brand remains.

super-serial• 8 years ago

That's different - Yahoo has completely different owners now whose main business is in a different sector.

Headline should read:

"Verizon after acquiring Yahoo disregards normal tech-company conventions and snoops on everyone's emails like a scummy ISP."

vageli• 8 years ago

Google LLC still exists.

ForHackernews2• 8 years ago

Do brands decide to violate user privacy? Or do people make that choice?

my_usernam3• 8 years ago

From the article - Rob Griffin, chief technology officer of digital-ad consultancy Tovo Labs, “is how do you monetize it without the icky factor?”

Uhhhhh how about don't read emails? If I have a fantasy football team, please sell me football stuff. If I click on an article relating to health concerns, sell me organic whole foods stuff.

Can you imagine someone 20 years ago throwing all your mail into a scanner and saying, "don't worry I'm only checking for keywords and receipts"?

Joeri• 8 years ago

This is the thing I find really weird about online advertising. Every other medium has ads based on the content or demographic that most likely reads that content. Those ads are always contextually relevant, sufficiently diverse (rarely will you see the same ad repeated everywhere) and few people find them invasive. Online, however, ads are tailored to you as a person. They chase you around the web, even for products you already decided you didn’t want, and are always vaguely creepy. Why is it that way? Is it really more profitable, or is personalized advertising google’s long con?

psergeant• 8 years ago

Why is it that way?

If the other methods could target you technically, they would

tdb7893• 8 years ago

Companies seem willing to pay more for more targeted advertising and if other mediums could switch over to it they would (the issue is that something like print can't). I'm not sure what other motivation they would have besides profit incentive for it.

dhimes2• 8 years ago

even for products you already decided you didn’t want

Or even more weird, for products you already bought and are unlikely to buy again.

tomnipotent• 8 years ago

Is it really more profitable, or is personalized advertising google’s long con?

Yes, it helps. Contextual ads help me find new customers to market to, hopefully through relevant content that overlaps with my product, but what do I do with all those visitors that stop by and don't convert? Retargeting lets me capture that interest and incrementally improve my media spend - and on tens of millions a year in media spend, this can be significant.

I wish I had better alternative but unfortunately these are the tools we have to work with, and creepy ads that follow you around the internet are going to last until we figure out better ways of spending investor money without feeling like we're burning cash to the Advertising Gods.

barbegal• 8 years ago

Did you know that most Google ads have a button you can click in order to tell Google that you don't want to see the ad again. Even advertising videos on YouTube have this option. You can tell them when an advert is not relevant or you've seen it too many times. Oddly Google doesn't publicise this much even though its probably a feature which improves their profitability.

tboyd47• 8 years ago

I worked on a team that did both direct-sold and programmatic ads for a digital publisher and direct-sold was way more profitable. Less headache, too. I'm in the "long con" camp.

It seems to me that programmatic ads are popular mainly because it's easier to measure engagement, not because it's more profitable for publishers, then at some point Google and Facebook got the advantage of network effects.

mrep4• 8 years ago

rarely will you see the same ad repeated everywhere

I rarely ever watch cable but I swear cable ads would repeat the same exact video ad multiple times per show but maybe it has changed nowadays.

Why is it that way? Is it really more profitable,

Probably depends on the product. For google search where your search query is generally highly relevant to what you are looking for and therefore advertisers, probably not much. For facebook when I am scrolling through the news feed and I'm not looking for any product in particular, probably a lot because that is the difference between showing me a generic ad with low click through rates versus one that is tailored towards things I probably want and therefore much more likely that I will click on it.

uptown• 8 years ago

I searched Wayfair for nightstands once. They're seven months deep into a campaign to close that sale by any means necessary. I'm half expecting to find a salesperson inside my home someday.

Razengan• 8 years ago

I cannot recall an instance of ever discovering something I wanted, through any advertising, except in these exceptions:

- Game recommendations on Steam and other platforms.

- Highlighted apps on the App Store.

- Before the internet, games and apps in magazines.

Everything else that I have ever spent money on, I have discovered through word of mouth (including places like Reddit or HN), searched for it myself, seen it incidentally in the wild (e.g. hearing a song outside or seeing someone using something) or when browsing shops and stores in person.

How often do other people here remember buying something they saw in an ad (that they didn't already know of)?

ReverseCold• 8 years ago

The only ads that are ever actually relevant to me are the ones that are there because they're relevant to the page/app content.

If I'm looking at x, selling me something that makes x easier or otherwise compliments x makes a lot more sense than selling me something that I looked at 2 months ago and didn't intend to buy.

otabdeveloper2• 8 years ago

Is it really more profitable

It is. Online, you can use statistics and probability theory to actually test what's more profitable instead of relying on ad-hoc metrics about what "feels good".

They chase you around the web, even for products you already decided you didn’t want

These are a small minority of online ads. They're displayed in places where nothing more profitable or contextual can be displayed. (I.e., most websites, since most websites are junk.)

SilasX• 8 years ago

Yes? Gmail was promoted on the grounds of "hey it's just ads based on automated scans of the emails, no human actually looks at any of it" and that was a big part of people accepting the tradeoff.

Kind of refutes the claim that it's just like showing specific emails with date/times to the general public.

6stringmerc• 8 years ago

Can you imagine someone 20 years ago throwing all your mail into a scanner and saying, "don't worry I'm only checking for keywords and receipts"?

Yes, and actually Acxiom is a lot more powerful and comprehensive than your postulation, if you care to look into them.

Unregulated data mining is, in my opinion, going to lead to the next collapse of culture. The cow is already out of the barn and it's on the way to Chicago. I don't think it's an unfair analogy considering the experiments thus far in totalitarian environments.

ryan-c• 8 years ago

I got my report from them, it's a mix of disturbingly detailed and laughably inaccurate.

eli• 8 years ago

Grocery stores were using loyalty cards to track purchases and profile shoppers 20 years ago weren't they?

casefields• 8 years ago

USPS Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, which was put into place following the post-9/11 anthrax mailings.

https://consumerist.com/2013/07/03/forget-the-nsas-hi-tech-s...

Animats• 8 years ago

Doesn't gmail scan your mail for data to target ads?

ableal• 8 years ago

A couple of years ago a friend sent me a barbershop quartet video and I spent a few days getting hairdresser ads ...

executesorder66• 8 years ago

Solution: use an adblocker.

joefkelley3• 8 years ago

In the past. We (I worked on gmail ads during this time) stopped doing it about a year ago.

https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...

bpchaps• 8 years ago

Is any of the data used from that collection/analysis still around?

ianwalter• 8 years ago

Thats good, but something tells me I still shouldn't fully trust Google/Gmail with things like this.

davchana• 8 years ago

Now I get ads in gmail relevant to what I search on google.com

wodenokoto• 8 years ago

What is the monetisation scheme of Gmail now? Just a free enticement to buy the G-suite?

hotpotjunkie• 8 years ago

Yeah, we believe you. wink wink nudge nudge.

jim_bailie2• 8 years ago

I hate yahoo and all these evil companies with their personal data collection fetishes.

phailhaus• 8 years ago

It's because you're not paying for their services.

jim_bailie2• 8 years ago

Ha, unfortunately I am.

gowld• 8 years ago

Most companies sell your data even if you pay.

paul7986• 8 years ago

They can read all the spam they want ... it's what yahoo email was built for .. of one your trash email addresses!

vermooten• 8 years ago

Does anyone still use yahoo for email? It's a place where spam goes to die.

oaththrowaway4• 8 years ago

Oath (Yahoo) doesn't even use Yahoo Mail. We're all on GApps.

soared2• 8 years ago

Are you guys internally talking about bid caching/etc? Curious if its on your radar/in discussion or just a non-point.

Nightshaxx2• 8 years ago

What exactly is Verizon's plan with your company if I may ask? Are they just looking to make money off of existing customers and the few good products they have, or are they going to try and make a move to become a serious silicon valley competitor?

GoToRO• 8 years ago

Me.

bogomipz• 8 years ago

So Verizon bought Yahoo a company where every single email account had been known to have been compromised[1], and now they are seeking to monetize those same accounts by scanning their their contents and selling that data to third parties? No wonder the Yahoo hacks and very late disclosure didn't derail the deal. These two basement brands deserve each other.

[1] https://www.oath.com/press/yahoo-provides-notice-to-addition...

fancyfish• 8 years ago

This is a big business for hedge funds too, not just advertisers. Every Uber receipt, every Amazon purchase, every receipt that hits your email inbox. Aggregated and tracked at the product SKU level. That is pure gold for investment research. Few sources of data can match what email inboxes provide.

E.g. Superfly Insights [1], Return Path [2]

[1] https://alternativedata.org/data_provider/superfly-insights/

[2] https://returnpath.com/downloads/know-email-data/

1024core• 8 years ago

This is why Amazon no longer lists all of your purchases in your email receipt. It just says "your order of XXX and N more items".

Scoundreller2• 8 years ago

Huh. I guess Facebook’s move away from including someone’s update or message in their notification emails had to do with more than getting you to go to their site...

sleepychu• 8 years ago

Today the lost hours maintaining my personal mailserver suddenly don't feel so lost!

Yahoo, Bucking Industry, Scans Emails for Data to Sell Advertisers

Related Stories