In Alice Marwick’s article “How Your Data Are Being Deeply Mined,” she gives an example of a consumer shopping for shampoo. In this scenario the customer is undecided in his/her choice and is picking up several different bottles. In this futuristic store the consumer’s eye movements would be tracked and a coupon for a specific bottle could be printed from the shelf, urging the customer to make a specific decision.
This scenario brings up a theme that is not only related to data collection, but has been in a pressing concern in America since its beginnings. This is the freedom of choice and whether or not anyone but the individual has or should have the power to make decisions for them. People in the United States have always held the power of choice as very important. From resisting taxation without representation before the Revolutionary War to resisting Bloomberg’s decision to ban certain drink sizes in NYC, American people have always valued the ability to make their own decisions. In the shampoo example, a customer’s data in combination with their eye movements results in a third party trying to make their decision for them. It’s as though the advertising company knows better than the consumer. Based on the historical examples in this country I don’t think this will go over well if it ever becomes a reality.
Marwick addresses this problem briefly when talking about how Target began sending pregnant women coupons directed towards their specific needs. Instead of responding positively, the women didn’t like that Target knew they were pregnant. Target was forced to mix other advertisements in with those directed towards pregnancies in order to get the women to use the coupons. I feel as though the same end may come to shelf coupons. Instead of pushing one produce heavily I think they will have to give multiple options so consumers still feel as though they have the ultimate power in their decision.
The question of choice—or at least the illusion of choice—is a good one to consider. Something worth keeping in mind is that “choice” is itself historically contingent, and what counts as a “choice” has changed over time. We can look back at history and in retrospect see various struggles in terms of choice (“no taxation without representation”) but that’s not necessarily how people at the time would have framed the conflict.