IOVO – Data Power to the People?

The Facebook data scandal with Cambridge Analytica has resulted in an unexpected boost for privacy advocates. Not only is the public more aware of how their data may be used (or misused), there are efforts afoot to empower consumers to better protect their personal data. 

One effort is the recently announced IOVO (Internet of Value Omniledger) which is a DAG (digital acyclic graph- the next generation blockchain) that enables consumers to reclaim their data, secure it and better regulate its use. It is obviously an idea whose time has come, now with special urgency created by the Cambridge Analytical misuse. IOVO is based in Poland but is taking a global approach to data recapture-ment and security.

The panel at the recent IOVO introduction consisted of three very compelling participants; Jeffrey Wernick, an early investor in bitcoin and a self-described crypto currency entrepreneur, Brittany Kaiser, currently Co-Founder of the Digital Asset Trade Association and formerly Business Development Director, Cambridge Analytica and Krzysztof Gagacki, Founder and CEO, IOVO. 

The State of Personal Data

Kaiser noted that today, data companies are flourishing and will continue to do so in the future, despite the recent controversies. “We have given away our information in almost every action in our digital lives,” she noted. “Our data has been harvested, monetized, licensed and sold for advertiser targeting. We did not originally sign up for that. Our data should belong to us as individuals and individuals have been exploited,” she concluded. 

Unfortunately when we agree to terms and conditions on a site, we also agree to allow our data to be collected throughout our digital journey.  This has resulted in the creation of the world’s most powerful companies, such as Google and Facebook, to capture billions of dollars in value off our individual data by creating a new asset class and business model based on big data. However, if an individual does not agree to share their data, it can still be collected and shared through connections who have agreed to share their data.

“Data is not the most vital and valuable asset in the world. Data is the new oil and has even surpassed oil as value,” Kaiser stated. As companies continue to collect data on a massive scale and create algorithms in combination with other datasets, the business of data will continue to flourish in the future.’’

Changing the Business Model

The unfettered Wild West usage of personal data has got the change. The panelists agreed that it is time to create a permission based structure where individuals have control of their personal data and allow companies to use it on a carefully curated and controlled basis with some form of compensation. But where do we start? Is this a self-regulated effort by companies or will it require government regulations?

Wernick described his 4P data manifesto; Data is our Property, only used with Permission. It must be Portable and it represents our Personhood. There are currently “Data rapist platforms,” he exclaimed. Is it individual property or it is everybody's property? If it belongs to everybody then all should have all access to everyone’s data. “But we don't have access to others property. Platforms are curators,” he noted. Data should belong to the individual and require our consent to use. Unfortunately “data is frequently used in unknown ways and in ways that is not good for us. Often it is used against us. It is perverse.”

Power to the People

“I hope that as we expand the potential and possibilities in a blockchain world we can disrupt institution” business models that capture and sell personal data, Wernick noted and added that the concept of universal income may be facilitated in a world where individuals can sell their own data.  “Every human being has value and they are not getting compensated for it,” he concluded.

And the data collected is not just from the digital journey. There is also a plethora of offline data sets and big data aggregators that merge all of these disparate data sets together. Think Info group, Magellan, Equifax and Experian for example. “You can purchase offline ground truth data,” noted Kaiser. Where do you vacation, what are your credit scores, your behavioral patterns, your political data and what media you use. “Data scientists can figure out how you voted even if at ground truth is not available,” she added.

The solution is, according to Gagacki is to “Make data not just a legal right but also a core value of the internet economy.” An omniledger can provide infrastructure for all companies who want to benefit from an individual’s data ownership. Since the data adds value to a company he believes that “We are actual employees of these companies and are not being compensated. It is time to compensate all of the users.” He disagrees with the Facebook economic model. “We need platforms where you can share your value and be compensated for that. Imagine what that means,” he mused, “Everyone could feed themselves off the value of what they create every day.”

“Owning your data is your ultimate freedom,” stated Gagacki. “Large companies have their economic value based on users. We don't have rights in sharing our data and data is the most valuable asset in the digital economy. If we don't stop it now the future generation will have no rights.”

This article first appeared in www.Mediapost.com

Broadcast Television: Another Technology Able to Adapt

With all the increased competition among content viewing platforms, one might be forgiven for thinking broadcast television is under great strain. But to adapt a phrase from Mark Twain: The report on the death of broadcast television is greatly exaggerated.

In fact, television is not only not dying, it’s poised for a new era of growth and evolution. As Ed DiNicola, head of TV at Cambridge Analytica, notes in MediaPost, “What some are calling the end of TV is just another evolution.”

Working in Tandem

Buying both television and digital gives advertisers greater impact, with the combination of television and digital delivering better results than either can achieve individually. Jasper Snyder, executive vice president of cross-platform research and innovation at the Advertising Research Foundation, actually found a “kicker effect” when TV is added back to digital spending.

Turner’s and Neustar’s recent study demonstrated that television is making good use of advanced...

Read the full article on the Videa blog.

Quantifying the Trump Effect. An Interview with Cambridge Analytica's Matt Oczkowski

Cambridge Analytica has been in the news recently because of their astute use of big data to guide surprisingly successful political races from Brexit to Donald Trump. But to some like Matt Oczkowski, Head of Product at Cambridge Analytica, these upset victories were no surprise at all.

Charlene Weisler: I am fascinated as to how your company used data to not only predict Brexit but also the election of Donald Trump. Can you give me a quick overview of your approach and any insights?

Matt Oczkowski : A lot of the issues in most public polling and in public perception of the Trump campaign in particular is that most people had a fundamental misunderstanding of who the voting electorate was going to be this year. It was a turnout and sampling problem. So the reason we were hired by the Trump campaign was to quantify the Trump effect which is how Donald Trump is different from the generic Republican. Most data science and data modeling in politics is done “R vs D” – Republicans versus Democrats – like a Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama.  The binary question is solved. But as we both know Hillary Clinton and Donald trump are far different from any type of generic Republican or Democrat. So where we had a lot of success was understanding the trends that unfolded on election night in three major demographic groups which were - a major increase in older rural voters, a massive decrease in the African American vote this year and a slight increase in the Hispanic vote – and once you start to understand these three trends, you extrapolate who is going to show up on election day.  

Charlene Weisler: So you had a sense before Election Day who was going to show up and who wasn’t going to show up?

Matt Oczkowski: Correct. We had the benefit of having access to all of Trump’s donors and all of Trump’s event attendees and when you start to collect this first party data, it starts to give you an inside peek at what a Trump-specific supporter is like. I can compare them to previous Republican donors. I can look at their voter records and see if they showed up to vote before. And that, early on, allowed us to start building a picture what a Trump supporter looks like in our heads. But what was a really big indication was when we started to get absentee ballot and early voter returns about a month or so out from the election. Those three trends that I just mentioned were very apparent in the early vote returns. Wisconsin was probably the biggest surprise in the election this year and we saw these trends unfolding. Four weeks prior to the election allowed us to change a lot of our tactics in terms of candidate travel, media spend, focus on issues and speeches.

Charlene Weisler: So within a four week period, it was possible to change the course of the election?

Matt Oczkowski: Absolutely. We knew going into it that we had to build a really dynamic data program that could keep up with the candidate because depending on the week, Mr. Trump could tweet one thing and it would change the entire view of the electorate on that week. So our data program had to be very elastic which means any time a stone was thrown into the water we had to be able to track the ripples and see what different parts of the electorate were actually moving in a particular direction. So we undertook a big reweighting exercise, four to five weeks out from the election, where we resampled all of our polling, reran all of our modeling  and it showed generous approximate 3 point bumps across the entire rust belt. The state we were most nervous about going into Election Day was Florida. We knew that if Trump won Florida he won the election. We felt really good about Pennsylvania and Ohio so we put a lot of emphasis on Florida. The reason why Florida was so on the bubble for us was because of the significant Hispanic population voting in our persuasion universe. Once we started to see the returns from the rural counties and Florida around 8:30 Central time we knew the election was over. 

Charlene Weisler: Were there any data points that you found to be particularly or surprisingly valuable?

Matt Oczkowski: Yes. If you were to look at a generic Republican in the database, with the issues they cared about, you would see issue #1 likely be Jobs and the Economy , #2 would be Security, #3 would be Government size/Taxes.  For an isolated Trump specific supporter, the three issues were #1 Law and Order, #2 Immigration and #3 Trade. And when you start to understand that profile, an isolated Trump supporter looks a lot like a Bernie Sanders supporter. It is Blue Dog Democrats. It is people who have been disenfranchised by the political system who feel that the government hasn’t done anything for them in the past and who came out to vote this year – and they haven’t been out to a voting booth in several elections (which is a very difficult thing to quantify). I don’t blame most of the press organizations because they don’t have access to a lot of this information and data but I think they were foolish to assume that 2016 would play out like 2012. It was a very different electorate.

Charlene Weisler: Are you continuing to look at the data to see how his presidency will play out and whether there are issues he should avoid or embrace?

Matt Oczkowski: I still don’t have a full understanding of the election yet. There are about four battleground states where I have gotten back data thus far from secretaries of state. There is still a large collection process going on. And as that data comes in we continue to learn more and more about what happened. We are working with a number of clients now taking this program and furthering it to keep this understanding of the American electorate alive for a number of different purposes. 

Charlene Weisler: So if you were going to give some advice to some Democratic candidates based on the data, what would it be?

Matt Oczkowski: There are two things I like to say. One,  it’s throw out the playbook. The Clinton campaign fell into the trap of running the Obama 2012 campaign. Hillary Clinton is not anything close to Barack Obama the candidate. So you need to build a program that is unique towards her. And the other fatal mistake they made, it was not focusing on rural areas. 

Charlene Weisler: I was surprised that of the three top issues for Trump voters, none were the Economy. 

Matt Oczkowski: The fourth issue which would be surprising to you was Wages. People felt that they deserved to be paid more, which is not necessarily a Republican issue, raising the minimum wage of any kind. Economics was a driver. A lot of Trump supporters followed his lead His first major issue was Immigration this election. Law and Order became an issue because of what is happening in the news and the press. Often times we find that the news media drives the discussion in the presidential election. Other years it has been second amendment with reports of shootings. This year there were a particular set of issues that drove the narrative. Economics is always an underlying factor but we found that with that specific core of Trump universe really supported him. 

Charlene Weisler: And the Trump universe is large enough to carry the midterm elections?

Matt Oczkowski: It’s a combination of two things. It's Trump winning his people and bringing new folks into the Republican party out winning the established Republican base. One of our struggles early on was winning back the traditional Republicans that had never seen a style and tenor of candidate like Donald Trump before. So if he can win these two factions, absolutely. And midterm election maps are much more favorable to Republicans than they are for Democrats this year because of turnout. The question is will Trump’s people come out again when he is not on the ballot and I think that is what we are trying to understand and derive here.

This article first appeared in www.Mediapost.com