Dave Winer, I think, is mistaken. He thinks G+ doesn't want us to use pseudonyms because it interferes with marketing profiles being aggregated for their market. If Google is using this for a justification, I think they might not understand their market.

http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/25/whyGoogleCaresIfYouUseYour.html

Actually, as a former marketing VP, I just don't buy this one (pun somewhat intended).

What marketing profiles are about is marketing focus.

Say you buy office supplies for your department at work. Great! DaveWiner buys from Staples and such.

But I don't sell office supplies. I sell movie and pop culture swag.

So you get home, and log into your personal identity of superscripter and want to buy a t-shirt from the first Jurassic Park movie. And my company happens to be buying up odd lots of old movie t-shirts and selling them to collectors. I care about superscripter. I really don't care that DaveWiner prefers Swingline staplers. Really I don't. I don't even care that his credit is good because he was using company credit cards for his purchasing.

What I do care is that I can see that superscripter's history says that he's clicked on my ads a bunch of times and never made a purchase before now, so I can offer...

Pseudonymous profiles have laser focus.

So if I am a DA in Houston (not that I know any) and I have a pseudonym that I use that perhaps I use to discuss my anime collection and shop for gay bahama resort vacations, marketing folks will not mind. The people who sell me law journals will not mind that they are not getting my anime and resort buying data, and the resort owners would get unsubbed from their newsletters very quickly if they sent them to the DA email.

This is old as dirt. This is not even new with the Internet. People got office supply catalogs at work and Sears catalogs at home, and really, marketers considered those to be separate identities because they were aggregating different sets of needs. The needs of the DA are different from the needs of the gay yuppie with free time. And as a marketer I'm ok with that.

In fact, I find that the laser focus of most split identities gives me a much better focus for my advertising. You want to know if you are getting the business or home email. Why is the real name or the pseudonym so different.

The money is good, and the interests attached to the identity are probably better focused. I am happy as a marketer.

The only possible issue I might have is if there is fraud or corporate espionage going on, and frankly, the folks who do that can do it so it looks so real, they aren't going to bother to make it look like an avatar name or a pseudonym.

Now admittedly, the abuse of productivity at work means more people are shopping the net for personal reasons from their offices, so it might get a little muddy on IP and such. But we aren't talking about IPs, we're talking about just the G+ ID NAME. Not a gmail ID. Not an IP. Not the credit card under which the purchase ultimately is made.

I mean, before G+ Google has successfully tracked these folks three ways to Sunday using metrics that still exist, right? None of them are being taken away.

Nope, don't buy it. Try again.
Shared publiclyView activity