1.
The
Individual
IPO
James
Lanyon
Draft
1
(unedited)
07.10.14

2. Contents:
The
opportunity
Why
should
anyone
believe
this?
Four
Stages
of
Acceptance:
-­‐ Stage
1:
Proliferation
-­‐ Stage
2:
Adoption
-­‐ Stage
3:
Standardization
-­‐ Stage
4:
Commercialization
The
Individual
IPO
-­‐ Analogs
o Progressive
o FICO
-­‐ Antilogs
o Klout
o Hyperpersonalization
-­‐ Signals
o The
Incorporated
Woman
o Millenials
and
Privacy
o The
Pivot
to
Passive
o Shawn
Buckles
&
The
World
Economic
Forum
Assumptions

3. The
opportunity
Smart
devices
are
about
to
take
a
significant
evolutionary
step.
The
increase
in
the
device’s
ability
to
capture
and
quantify
individual
data
(physical
function,
location
an
interaction),
combined
with
early
indication
that
technology
providers
see
smaller
business
models
in
quantified
data,
can
and
likely
will
lead
to
the
opportunity
for
consumers
to
create
their
own
personal
economy.
In
the
future,
consumers,
as
individuals,
will
have
the
opportunity
to
control,
package
and
sell
for
value
their
own
personal
data.
Conversely,
by
commercializing
their
own
data,
consumers
will
also
have
the
ability
to
exert
greater
control
over
their
personal
data
privacy.
This
is
as
opposed
to
the
current
consumer-­‐data
paradigm
whereby
little
perceive
commercial
value
exists
at
the
individual
level
(i.e.
I
am
an
economy
of
me
that
I
can
leverage
for
my
own
profit)
and
privacy
concerns
tend
to
exist
but
are
exchange
for
less
tangible
benefits
such
as
perceived
personalization
and
security.
Why
should
anyone
believe
this?
September
2014
will
likely
signal
a
turning
point
in
consumer
electronics.
Apple
is
expected
to
go
public
with
its
wearable
tech
smart
watch
concept
in
addition
to
a
revamped
iPhone
6
and
likely
(if
history
is
any
teacher)
iOS
updates.
The
anticipation
is
not
only
palpable,
but
it
is
provocative.
Competitors
such
as
Google
and
Samsung
have
already
moved
to
try
and
beat
Apple
to
market
or
at
the
very
least,
claim
the
high
ground
in
the
conversation.
Those
expecting
consumers
to
start
snatching
up
iWatch’s
(iWatch
is
the
placeholder
name)
and
ensuing
competitors/imitators
left
and
right
may
be
disappointed
at
initial
adoption.
2014
global
iPhone
sales
and
the
ubiquitous
iPhone
brand
obscure
the
relatively
meager
sales
performance
of
the
first
iPhone
in
2007.
Whereas
Apple
sold
almost
44
million
units
in
Q214
alone,
Q307
saw
iPhone
sales
of
just
270,000.
In
fact
iPhone
quarterly
sales
didn’t
break
the
ten
million
units
mark
until
Q410
–
more
than
three
years
after
its
introduction.
As
David
said
in
the
movie
Prometheus,
“big
things
have
small
beginnings…”
The
evolutionary
process
that
takes
place
between
introduction
and
market
absorption
lays
the
foundation
for
the
Individual
IPO
concept.
Before
we
can
understand
and
dimensionalize
this
opportunity,
it’s
important
to
visit
two
areas:
1. Patterns
of
adoptions
and
implementation
2. Analogs,
anitlogs
and
signals
Four
stages
of
acceptance:
Consumers
looking
for
a
rich
mobile
gaming
experience
prior
to
2007
had
few
real
options.
Monochromatic
screens
and
small
memory
footprints
allowed
for
one-­‐dimensional
games
such
as
snake.
Other
non-­‐telephony
functions
were
similarly
one-­‐dimensional.
Phones
were,
at
the
time,
well,
phones.
Conversely,
today,
telephony
is
likely
one
of
the
least
important
elements
of
a
mobile
device.
It
is
common
knowledge
that
the
iPhone
and
ensuing
Android
platform
radically
reshaped
non-­‐telephony
device
interaction
and
experience.
Many
credit
innovations
such
as
Gorilla
Glass,
multi-­‐touch
keyboards
and
enhanced
processors
with
driving
this
transformation.

4. While
it
is
true
these
aspects
enabled
the
mobile
device
revolution,
there
was
a
much
more
significant
force
at
play
–
one
that
will
need
to
take
place
for
wearable
technology
to
have
the
same
sort
of
success
that
mobile
devices
have
experienced.
Just
as
important
was
the
element
of
standardization.
Wearable
technology
will
need
to
traverse
four
specific
stages
before
it
has
the
opportunity
to
deliver
the
Individual
IPO
concept.
Stage
1:
Proliferation
Using
the
Rogers
model
as
a
starting
point,
we
can
assume
a
single
wearable
technology
platform
such
as
iWatch
will
need
to
reach
a
10%
to
15%
marketshare
before
it
can
begin
to
dictate
terms
of
engagement
to
the
eco-­‐system
of
third
party
investors
and
developers
that
will
want
to
begin
growing
the
system.
This
is
roughly
equivalent
to
absorption
of
“innovator”
consumers
and
significant
market
penetration
into
“early
adopter”
consumers.
This
is
when
the
early
majority
will
be
inspecting
its
more
intrepid
counterparts
when
deciding
whether
to
get
in
or
stay
out.
There
are
numerous
sources
tracking
smart
phone
penetration
as
part
of
the
mobile
market
with
a
consensus
range
of
between
62%
and
69%.
While
on
the
high
end
of
that
range,
comScore
was
the
only
available
resource
to
offer
an
actual
enumeration.
Using
comScore’s
hard
projections
for
mobile
device
users
we
see
a
total
universe
of
239.5
million
mobile
users
and
159.8
million
smart
device
users.
Using
these
numbers
it
is
possible
to
estimate
proliferation
to
occur
once
a
single
wearable
technology
platform
has
between
16
million
and
24
million
users
(in
today’s
mobile
penetration
environment
–
projections
should
index
for
increased
smart
device
penetration
over
time
relative
to
speed
to
market).
These
aren’t
just
any
16
million
users
though.
The
race
will
be
on
to
find
16
to
24
million
differentiated
users
–
those
not
merely
replicating
existing
usage
and
habits
that
already
exist
on
their
smart
device.
Stage
2:
Adoption
A
key
determinant
of
wearable
technology
success
will
be
its
functional
differentiation
from
smart
devices
already
in
market.
The
inevitable
question
all
consumers
will
ask
themselves
is
why
they
should
pay
hundreds
of
dollars
for
a
watch
if
it
only
replicates
the
functionality
their
existing
smart
device.
Network
data
providers
who
have
traditionally
subsidized
the
smart
device
market
will
likely
ask
the
same
question.
“Don’t
we
already
subsidize
the
handheld
version?”
With
smart
device
penetration
at
68%,
it
is
safe
to
say
the
vast
majority
of
consumers
have
at
least
an
intermediate
familiarity
with
device
function
and
potential,
making
ongoing
platform
innovation
incremental.
The
larger
leaps
are
now
the
domain
of
the
third
party
market
makers/developers
such
as
MonkeyParking.
While
it
might
make
marketing
sense
to
attach
wearable
technology
as
part
of
a
larger
eco-­‐
system,
those
16
to
24
million
differentiated
users
will
not
go
to
the
brand
that
shows
how
their
wearable
technology
is
like
their
smart
device.
Rather,
the
race
will
go
the
brand
that
shows
how
their
wearable
technology
is
not
like
their
smart
device.
Interoperability
with
other
smart
components
will
be
convenient
and
in
the
long
run
may
be
pre-­‐requisite.
It
will
not
however
be
determinant
at
the
beginning.

5.
This
is
not
to
say
that
traditional
apps
should
not
or
will
not
exist
on
next-­‐gen
wearable
technology.
That
is
likely
desirable.
However,
their
presence
will
not
be
the
key
differentiator
and
those
who
pursue
a
strategy
of
enhancing
an
already
existing
customer
experience
such
as
smart
phone
apps
ignore
a
fundamental
reality.
Adoption
and
the
race
to
proliferation
will
go
to
the
provider
who
understands
the
difference
between
wearable
technology
and
smart
phones/devices.
Whereas
smart
devices
offer
users
a
whole
new
level
of
technology
utility,
wearable
technology
will
offer
a
whole
new
level
of
physical
interaction
between
the
user
and
the
technology.
Similar
to
apps,
heightened
levels
of
utility
are
achievable
on
wearable
technology.
The
fact
that
heightened
utility
already
exists
elsewhere
excludes
it
from
the
ability
to
determine
differentiation
among
users
as
brands
race
towards
market
dominance.
In
short,
replicating
utility
will
likely
only
inhibit
adoption
or
potentially
fracture
the
existing
smart
device
market.
Embracing
the
concept
of
heightened
interoperability
between
user
and
technology
will
allow
wearable
technology
to
either
stand
on
its
own
or
justify
existing
as
a
part
of
a
consumer
eco
system.
Stage
3:
Standardization
While
we
celebrate
Steve
Jobs’
memory
and
lionize
his
vision,
we
overlook
the
fact
that
he
originally
tried
to
keep
the
app
store
off
the
iPhone.
Yet
apps
are
easily
the
defining
element
of
all
current
smart
devices.
They
offer
users
the
ability
to
conform
their
device
in
an
ever-­‐
changing
way
and
scale
it
accordingly.
Apps,
for
the
user,
are
the
difference
between
a
cell
phone
and
a
smart
phone.
Apps,
for
the
market,
create
standardization
–
a
critical
initial
element
for
technology
success
in
this
category.
Prior
to
the
iPhone,
mobile
developers
faced
a
daunting
array
of
proprietary
operating
systems
on
meager
platforms
with
no
discernable
point
of
distribution.
The
iPhone
with
its
App
store
gave
developers
something
to
rally
around
as
did
Android
much
later
in
the
game.
They
knew
what
they
were
programming
for
and
how
they
could
get
their
idea
to
market.
Standardization
could
also
be
seen
as
consolidation
as
it
likely
means
less
demand
for
proprietary,
limited
functionality
devices.
More
and
more,
brands
such
as
Jawbone,
Pebble
and
Fitbit
will
be
forced
to
answer
the
question
of
what
their
devices
provide
that
isn’t
already
provided
by
the
more
open,
customizable
platform.
While
proprietary
systems
may
look
to
create
interoperability
and
offer
improved
product
performance,
that
increased
performance
likely
will
not
be
enough
to
counter
the
exponentially
greater
functionality
of
the
open,
customizable
platform.
We
must
also
take
into
account
the
trade
off
that
exists
between
modular
flexibility
and
single
function
performance
devices.
Even
though
proprietary
closed
system
devices
may
initially
offer
a
greater
singular
point
of
performance,
they
remain
vulnerable
to
the
expectation
that
the
flexible
platform
will
improve
over
time.
As
Fast
Company
noted
in
its
3.29.14
article,
“Why
Nike
Is
(Probably)
Killing
the
Fuelband”:
“If
you're
surprised,
you
shouldn't
be.
Wearable
fitness
trackers
like
the
Nike
FuelBand
are
about
to
go
the
way
of
the
dodo.
“

6. Once
the
industry
rallies
around
two
to
three
core
platform
providers,
developers
will
have
a
stationary
target
by
which
to
plan,
develop
and
monetize
a
new
slate
of
business
ideas
paving
the
way
for
Commercialization.
Stage
4:
Commercialization
Once
standardization
has
taken
place,
the
market
will
then
turn
towards
driving
newer
and
more
innovative
business
models.
It
wasn’t
until
the
launch
of
iPhone
4
I
June
2010
that
iPhone
sales
broke
out
paving
the
way
for
robust
app
development
and
app
store
growth.
Since
the
introduction
of
iPhone
4
the
market
has
seen
(through
Q214):
88%
of
global
iPhone
sales
92%
of
apps
introduced
to
the
App
Store
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
transformation
from
a
smaller
part
of
the
consumer
market
playing
with
and
auditing
the
product
(iPhones
2,
3G,
3Gs)
to
the
bulk
of
the
market
accepting
the
product
(4,
4s,
5,
5s,
5c)
paves
the
way
for
larger
market
commercialization
through
fast
followers
such
as
Google
and
its
Android
platform.
2009
represents
the
beginning
of
global
Android
sales.
Predictably,
2009
and
2010
saw
Android
sales
at
69,000,000
or
4.6%
of
global
sales
through
2013.
2011,
2012
and
2013
represented
95.4%
of
Android
sales
over
that
same

7. period
repeating
the
trend
line
showing
the
progression
from
a
small
handful
of
adventurous
consumers
playing
with
the
product
so
the
broader
market
can
peer
over
their
shoulders
and
see
if
the
product
lives
up
to
its
hype.
If
the
iWatch
and
its
fast
follower
competitors
is
a
truly
distinct
product
in
the
marketplace,
it
stands
to
reason
the
wearable
technology
category
will
follow
this
same
path.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Android
iOS

8. The
Individual
IPO
At
the
heart
of
the
wearable
technology
phenomenon
is
the
idea
of
the
quantified
self.
This
is
the
key
differentiator
mentioned
above.
Most
of
the
current
chatter
revolves
around
the
notion
of
health.
Health
and
the
ability
to
track
one’s
physical
movement
is
a
sensible
first
approach.
But
it
is
only
one
of
many
potential
opportunities
wearable
technology
will
likely
offer.
The
concept
of
the
individual
IPO
is
the
extreme
logical
end
of
the
notion
that
individual
consumers’
data
(via
the
quantified
self
principle)
has
value
much
in
the
same
way
a
company’s
products
or
services
have
value.
Your
personal
data
can
be
merchandised
on
a
broader
marketplace
for
payment,
discount
or
barter/trade.
At
a
given
point
a
person
who
has
aggregated
a
significant
amount
of
data
can
package
himself
or
herself
for
an
initial
public
offering
allowing
brands
and
marketers
to
bid
on
their
information
in
its
various
forms.
Your
data
value
would
rise
and
flow
over
time
based
on
how
your
actions
affect
your
perceived
value.
This
is
in
contrast
to
today’s
device/online
driven
world
whereby
user-­‐generated
data
is
generally
owned
and
merchandised
by
third
parties
via
free
services
such
as
Facebook.
The
discussion
of
the
Health
App
offers
hints
as
to
how
this
may
begin.
When
you
match
the
dynamic
aspects
of
wearable
technology
against
the
dynamics
of
the
healthcare
vertical
certain
opportunities
begin
to
take
shape.
More
and
more,
healthcare
providers
in
managed
practices
have
been
looking
for
ways
to
provide
more
consistent
care
with
greater
convenience
and
at
a
lower
cost.
It’s
easy
to
conceive
of
a
business
model
whereby,
for
a
nominal
regular
fee,
a
nurse
practitioner
will
review
your
data,
make
any
notations
and
store
it
in
your
file
as
well
as
flagging
any
irregularities.
This
is
in
addition
to
the
routine
doctor’s
visit.
Health
insurance
providers
could
potentially
pay
the
fee
making
it
free
of
charge
to
the
individual.
Taking
it
a
step
further,
we
can
also
see
the
value
of
an
independent
business
model
whereby
a
health
insurance
provider
offers
a
policy
holder
potential
discounts
on
the
grounds
he
stream
his
health
information
to
the
provider
(including
GPS
data
as
well
as
biometric
quantification).
This
would
work
as
a
two
way
street
behavioral
management
tool
for
a
provider
looking
to
reduce
payments
and
encourage
healthier
living.
A
month
of
nothing
but
strong
data
points
could
reduce
a
premium
payment
in
the
form
of
rebate
at
the
end
of
the
year.
Conversely,
a
month
of
bad
data
in
the
form
of
stops
at
various
fast
food
restaurants,
reduced
sleep
levels,
higher
blood
pressure,
etc.
could
result
in
an
increased
premium
that
would
be
due
at
the
end
of
the
year.
The
policyholder’s
actions
would
dictate
whether
he
would
receive
a
sizable
policy
refund
at
the
end
of
the
year
or
a
massive
balloon
payment
based
on
a
series
of
very
unhealthy
indulgences.
The
individual’s
daily
life
and

9. subsequent
rewards
or
penalties
in
effect
transforms
him
from
a
consumer
to
a
market.
Wearable
technology
has
the
potential
to
enable
this
sort
of
a
business
model.
Retail
fashion
is
one
of
many
vertical
markets
that
could
vie
for
your
information.
Imagine
the
ability
to
make
wardrobe
suggestions
based
on
the
analysis
of
a
person’s
daily
life.
Heading
out
to
dinner
at
certain
restaurant
followed
by
drinks
at
a
specific
bar?
The
retail
brand
could
recommend
combinations
based
on
your
personal
lifestyle
as
well
as
accessing
data
from
others
who
have
frequented
the
same
locations
–
but
only
if
you
grant
it
access
to
your
information.
As
these
personal
data
markets
begin
to
add
up,
the
individual
transforms
once
again
into
a
singular
economy.
It
will
be
the
various
elements
within
the
economy
that
drive
the
value
of
the
Individual
IPO.
The
fixation
on
the
third
party
platform
value
generator
model
makes
it
easy
to
either
overlook
or
misconstrue
consumer
awareness
of
the
value
of
the
data
they
create.
It
is
not
uncommon
to
hear
about
how
consumers
either
don’t
understand
or
don’t
care
about
their
own
data.
This
couldn’t
be
further
from
the
truth.
In
fact
a
recent
study
by
SAS
shows
that
consumer
clearly
understand
some
relative
value
for
the
data
they
create.
Four
data
points
from
the
study
show
an
intersection
of
considerations:
• 71%
said
recent
news
reports
have
increased
concerns
over
data
privacy
• 60%
said
they
expect
companies
to
expect
their
preferences
and
needs
• 38%
reported
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
irrelevant
messages
they
received
• 59%
said
that
businesses
were
getting
better
at
personalizing
messages
for
them
It’s
clear
that
consumers
are
at
some
level
aware
their
information
has
value
and
they
understand
they
are
trading
the
data
in
return
for
more
personalization.
While
personalization
is
important
in
daily
life,
it
is,
at
best,
a
secondary
benefit
and
not
always
guaranteed.
While
there
is
no
publicly
available
research
to
substantiate
the
claim,
it
is
safe
to
assume
that,
given
the
choice
between
trading
data
for
personalization
and
trading
data
for
financial
compensation,
consumers
would
overwhelmingly
choose
the
compensation.
This
is
the
reality
that
portends
to
upend
the
current
data
value
exchange
in
favor
of
the
consumer
should
commercialization
of
open-­‐source
wearable
platforms
enable
the
opportunity.
Data
privacy
is
a
core
element
of
understanding
this
opportunity.
In
the
context
of
data,
privacy
is
synonymous
with
control
or
ownership.
Despite
a
seemingly
endless
stream
of
headlines
like,
“Report:
NSA
Used
Heartbleed
to
Spy
on
People
for
Years”
and
“Some
Shrug
at
NSA
Snooping,
Privacy
is
Dead…”
there’s
been
little
public
outcry.
Every
subsequent
release
by
Eric
Snowden
is
met
with
a
counterweight
of
public
silence.
Why
is
that?
Is
it
because
individuals
don’t
care?
Is
it
because
the
technological
nature
of
data
privacy
makes
the
issue
“out
of
sight,
out
of
mind?”
Both
of
these
explanations
may
play
a
smaller
role.
However,
the
larger
truth
is
that
many
individuals
understand
they
are
making
a
trade,
that
they
are
in
a
market-­‐based
situation
whereby
they
are
trading
their
data
privacy
for
perceived
security
against
some
form
of
attack.
The
common
refrain
when
consumers
are
asked
about
snooping
or
eavesdropping
seems
to
be,
“I’m
not
doing
anything
wrong
so
why
should
I
be
worried?”
This
attitude
is
in
and
of
itself
a
classic
first
move
in
the
context
of
the
Nash
Equilibrium
whereby
two
parties
with
equal
amounts
of
information
attempt
to
move
towards
the
middle
in
a
mutually
beneficial
exchange.
For
many
who
grew
up
pre
9-­‐11,
a
sense
of
helping
avert
another
catastrophic
attach
is
likely
more
tangible
and
more
valuable
than
holding
onto
their
data
which
would
otherwise
have
little
value
if
left
sitting
in
private.

10.
Given
the
fact
data
has
an
established
value
in
the
mind
of
the
consumer,
it
is
important
to
look
for
three
key
factors
to
help
substantiate
the
Individual
IPO
proposition:
1. Analogs:
Are
there
already
business
models
or
products/services
that
have
a
discernable
relationship
to
the
idea?
2. Antilogs:
Are
there
current
business
models
that
sit
in
opposition
to
the
idea
and
how
has
their
relative
success
or
failure
help
us
understand
the
opportunity?
3. Signals:
Are
there
blips
or
potential
proof
points
on
the
radar
that
hint
at
what’s
to
come?

11. Analogs:
Progressive
Insurance
Snapshot
program:
Progressive
has
already
successfully
launched
a
program
whereby
policy
holders
trade
data
aggregated
through
a
device
placed
inside
the
car
for
savings
and
discounts.
Credit
Scores:
FICO
scores
as
tracked
by
the
“Big
3”
credit
reporting
groups
already
represent
an
exchange,
albeit
involuntary,
of
data
for
financial
benefit.
While
the
FICO
scoring
system
is
at
best
opaque
and
indecipherable,
its
bottom
line
is
clear
–
the
more
responsible
actions
that
can
be
tracked
via
a
person’s
financial
data,
the
more
financial
benefits
they
are
likely
to
reap
as
a
result.
The
Startup
of
You:
LinkedIn
founder
Reid
Hoffman’s
book
extols
the
notion
of
self
as
profit
center
whether
that
be
in
your
career
or
as
an
entrepreneur.
While
not
wholly
analogous,
the
concept
of
self
as
value
element
has
deep
ties
to
the
Individual
IPO
concept.

12. Antilogs:
Klout:
The
Individual
IPO
is
on
its
face
the
antithesis
of
the
current
third
party
data
aggregator
platform
(i.e.
Facebook,
Twitter,
Instagram,
etc.).
However,
Klout
stands
out
as
a
unique
case
study
because
it
speaks
directly
to
the
data
evaluation
proposition
and
monetizes
it
via
a
supposed
user-­‐centric
platform.
But
it
gives
itself
away
as
being
avidly
pro-­‐vendor
with
its
tagline
“be
known
for
what
you
love.”
Future
Foundation’s
Hyperpersonalization:
Melanie
Howard
of
The
Future’s
Foundation
(a
recognized
voice
in
this
discussion,)
recently
published
a
piece
that
also
attempted
to
extrapolate
the
potential
of
quantified
self
data.
The
introduction
was
as
follows:
“In
the
age
of
the
'quantified
self',
in
which
it
is
possible
to
integrate
the
manifold
data
produced
by
our
Facebook
posts,
emails,
GPS
and
fitness
logs,
purchases,
preferences
and
so
on,
we're
beginning
to
get
used
to
the
idea
that
our
data
can
be
useful
to
us.
Consumers
are
being
persuaded
that
collecting
and
studying
the
hundreds
of
data
points
that
trail
behind
us
will
help
us
to
make
personal
changes
to
lead
longer,
healthier,
perhaps
happier
lives.
And
companies
are
clearly
convinced,
too:
Eli
Lilly
now
claims
this
is
its
central
scenario
for
pharmaceutical
innovation
over
the
coming
decade.
Biometric
media
means
this
benign
fusion
of
person
and
machine
will
be
moving
to
a
new
level
–
going
beyond
the
useful
to
create
new
reflections
of
ourselves
in
the
media
we
consume.”
Ms.
Howard
touches
upon
the
fact
this
data
has
a
greater
potential
purpose,
but
falls
short
of
offering
a
vision
other
than
greater
personalization.
Wearable
technology
must
offer
more
than
personalization
if
it
is
to
distinguish
itself
in
the
mobile
device
market.

13. Signals:
The
Incorporated
Woman:
The
most
tangible
market
signal
hinting
at
the
potential
of
the
Individual
IPO
came
on
June
27,
2014
in
the
Economist
article,
“The
Incorporated
Woman.”
The
overarching
question
was,
“who
owns
your
data?”
An
excerpt
from
the
article
illustrates
the
potential
transition
quantified
data
could
usher
in:
“FACEBOOK,
Amazon,
Twitter
and
a
host
of
other
big
companies
in
today’s
“data-­‐driven
economy”
share
one
thing
in
common:
they
make
a
living
from
harvesting
personal
data.
Some
of
this
data
is
freely
given,
perhaps
too
freely.
Such
issues
have
long
troubled
Jennifer
Lyn
Morone,
an
American
living
in
London
(pictured).
So
to
regain
some
ownership
and
control
of
her
data
(and
other
assets
related
to
her
existence)
she
decided
to
become
Jennifer
Lyn
Morone™
Inc
(JLM),
registered
like
all
savvy
corporations
in
Delaware.
And
what
started
out
as
an
art
project—her
brief
as
part
of
a
master’s
degree
at
London’s
Royal
College
of
Art
was
to
“design
a
protest”—is
now
transforming
her
into
a
humanoid/corporate
hybrid.

14. JLM
is
an
intriguing
attempt
to
establish
the
value
of
an
individual
in
a
data-­‐driven
economy.
As
Ms
Morone’s
business
plan
describes
it,
JLM
“derives
value
from
three
sources,
and
legally
protects
and
bestows
rights
upon
the
total
output
of
Jennifer
Lyn
Morone.””
Millenials
and
Privacy:
While
the
broader
consumer
audience
is
ok
with
trading
privacy
for
personalization
or
privacy
for
security,
Millenials,
the
largest
consumer
group
in
the
US
and
the
fastest
growing
source
of
spending
for
brands,
begs
to
differ.
In
separate
studies
by
TIME
Magazine
and
the
ACLU,
researchers
saw
a
significant
divergence
in
the
privacy
tradeoff
among
Millenials
vs
Gen
X
and
Boomers.
“Fifty-­‐four
percent
of
respondents
said
the
leaker,
Edward
Snowden,
29,
did
a
“good
thing”
in
releasing
information
about
the
government
programs,
which
collect
phone,
email,
and
Internet
search
records
in
an
effort,
officials
say,
to
prevent
terrorist
attacks.
Just
30
percent
disagreed.
But
an
almost
identical
number
of
Americans
—
53
percent
—
still
said
he
should
be
prosecuted
for
the
leak,
compared
to
28%
who
said
he
should
not.

15. Americans
aged
18
to
34
break
from
older
generations
in
showing
far
more
support
for
Snowden’s
actions.
Just
41
percent
of
that
cohort
say
he
should
face
charges,
while
43
percent
say
he
should
not.
Just
19
percent
of
that
age
group
say
the
leak
was
a
“bad
thing.”
There
are
early
indications
that
Millenial
consumers,
those
who
are
generating
the
most
data
and
are
most
active
on
the
current
third-­‐party
data
value
platforms
such
as
Facebook,
Twitter,
Instagram
and
Klout
are
the
most
likely
to
desire
greater
control
of
their
data.
It
is
safe
to
assume
that
the
idea
of
monetizing
data
as
a
means
of
control
may
make
more
sense
than
arbitrarily
trusting
brands
to
“do
the
right
thing”
with
their
electronic
trail.
The
Pivot
to
Passive:
J
Walter
Smith,
Executive
Chairman
of
The
Futures
Company
(formerly
Yankelovich)
makes
a
case
that
by
all
rights
should
be
placed
in
the
Anitlogs
category.
Except
that
in
the
midst
of
arguing
that
most
consumers
are
becoming
more
passive
due
to
the
proliferation
of
sensor-­‐based
technology
(which
is
inherently
antithetical
to
the
Individual
IPO
idea)
he
makes
a
very
important
point.
In
a
smartly-­‐worded
opinion
piece
Smith
argues
for
a
return
to
a
time
before
the
Internet
based
on
passive
sensor
data
collection
and
the
advent
of
novel
technologies
such
as
the
self-­‐driving
Google
car.
In
Smith’s
future
only
“hyper-­‐
compulsive,
technologically
obsessed
men
–
who
are
willing
and
able
to
volunteer
their
time
to
an
open
source
project”
will
exert
any
real
control
on
what
goes
on
with
their
data.
He
supports
this
hypothesis
with
some
very
hard
to
dispute
observations:
-­‐ Better
tailoring
experiences
means
relinquishing
control
to
marketers
-­‐ Average
consumers
have
become
bored
with
most
data
generating
platforms
-­‐ The
proliferation
of
sensor
based
technologies
will
pacify
consumers
But
Smith
supports
his
theory
by
fighting
one
anachronism
with
another:
“Soon,
little
will
go
unrecorded
by
the
'internet
of
things',
a
network
far
larger
and
much
faster-­‐growing
than
the
'internet
of
people',
encompassing
not
just
data
flows
among
objects,
but
those
between
people
and
objects
or
sensors
Contrast
this
with
the
classic
advertising
world
remembered
in
AMC's
hit
show,
Mad
Men.
In
episode
after
episode,
creative
director
Don
Draper
sits
alone
in
his
office,
whiskey
in
hand,
inventing
from
whole
cloth
the
marketplace
in
which
consumers
will
live.
It's
fiction
embellished
for
dramatic
effect,
but
as
a
picture
of
the
days
of
yore,
when
marketers
were
in
control,
it
provides
a
realistic
point
of
contrast.

16. Ye
t
this
contrast
is
outdated.
What's
germane
for
tomorrow's
marketplace
was
foreshadowed
unintentionally
by
Time
when
it
placed
'You'
on
its
cover
against
a
background
image
of
a
desktop
screen.
Passive
digital
engages
consumers
very
differently
from
active
digital.
A
screen
demands
active
engagement.
Consumers
must
touch
it,
key
information
into
it,
and
be
involved
with
it
in
many
ways.
Sensors
perform
passive
monitoring.
Consumers
do
little,
often
nothing.
Sensors
detect,
report
and
trigger.
What
digital
technologies
can
do
now
to
capture
the
moment
was
impractical
and
unaffordable
in
years
past.
Soon,
though,
little
will
go
unrecorded
by
the
'internet
of
things',
a
network
far
larger
and
much
faster-­‐growing
than
the
'internet
of
people',
encompassing
not
just
data
flows
among
objects,
but
those
between
people
and
objects,
or
sensors,
too.”
Smith’s
logic,
which
is
not
uncommon
in
the
marketplace,
assumes
consumers
are
passive
participants
in
the
marketplace
when
in
reality
they
have
clearly
demonstrated
not
only
an
clear
knowledge
of
some
tangible
value
for
their
data,
but
also
a
generational
shift
in
attitudes
towards
greater
emphasis
on
protecting
that
value.
Contrary
to
Smith’s
cynical
dystopian
future,
consumer
signals
tell
us
that
they
will
likely
be
less
inclined
to
freely
hand
over
their
information
rather
than
letting
it
be
passively
collected.
Smith
as
archetype
for
a
more
cynical
view
on
the
future
of
data
collection
not
only
undercuts
the
collective
hope
for
quantified
self,
it
signals
a
reversion
in
the
face
of
greater
human-­‐machine
interface.
The
commonality
of
this
perspective
can,
in
a
way,
be
seen
as
a
confirmation
of
the
opportunity.
Smith
is
likely
correct
in
his
view
about
the
ubiquity
of
sensor
technology
in
the
not
too
distant
future.
And
this
bodes
well
for
the
Individual
IPO
concept
as
they
will
act
as
data
collection
points
throughout
the
larger
physical
network.
Consumers
already
live
with
a
bevvy
of
sensors
in
their
daily
life
such
as
video
cameras,
store
theft
detectors
and
the
like.
F

17. Shawn
Buckles
&
The
World
Economic
Forum:
In
a
2011
report
the
World
Economic
Forum
postulated
in
its
report,
“Personal
Data:
the
Emergence
of
a
New
Asset
Class”
how
ever
escalating
data
profiles
may
become
“the
new
oil”
for
individuals.
“This
personal
data
–
digital
data
created
by
and
about
people
–
is
generating
a
new
wave
of
opportunity
for
economic
and
societal
value
creation.
The
types,
quantity
and
value
of
personal
data
being
collected
are
vast:
our
profiles
and
demographic
data
from
bank
accounts
to
medical
records
to
employment
data.
Our
Web
searches
and
sites
visited,
including
our
likes
and
dislikes
and
purchase
histories.
Our
tweets,
texts,
emails,
phone
calls,
photos
and
videos
as
well
as
the
coordinates
of
our
real-­‐world
locations.
The
list
continues
to
grow.
Firms
collect
and
use
this
data
to
support
individualised
service-­‐delivery
business
models
that
can
be
monetised.
Governments
employ
personal
data
to
provide
critical
public
services
more
efficiently
and
effectively.
Researchers
accelerate
the
development
of
new
drugs
and
treatment
protocols.
End
users
benefit
from
free,
personalized
consumer
experiences
such
as
Internet
search,
social
networking
or
buying
recommendations.
And
that
is
just
the
beginning.
Increasing
the
control
that
individuals
have
over
the
manner
in
which
their
personal
data
is
collected,
managed
and
shared
will
spur
a
host
of
new
services
and
applications.
As
some
put
it,
personal
data
will
be
the
new
“oil”
–
a
valuable
resource
of
the
21st
century.
It
will
emerge
as
a
new
asset
class
touching
all
aspects
of
society.”

18. With
this
in
mind
the
British
paper
The
Guardian
reported
on
how
a
Dutch
student
decided
to
get
out
ahead
of
his
data
being
sold
in
bulk
on
the
cheap
and
instead
sold
his
“digital
soul”
for
a
greater
amount.
“Dutch
student Shawn Buckles has
tackled
the
issue
head
on
with
his
decision
to sell his
data soul at
auction.
He
received
£288
from
website
The
Next
Web.
He
says
that
the
website
will
use
his
data
to
highlight
privacy
issues
at
their
next
conference.
Buckles'
data
bundle
included
all
sorts
of
private
information
-­‐
everything
from
browsing
data
to
email
conversations.
A
sum
like
£288
is
obviously
not
to
be
sniffed
at,
but
can
anyone
receive
such
a
payoff?
Buckles
told
us:
I’ve
read
that
a
persons’
data
goes
for
under
50
cents
at
the
moment,
so
I
reckon
I’ve
added
lots
of
value
to
my
data.
On
the
other
hand,
I’ve
sold
my
most
intimate
information.
I
don’t
know
if
there’s
any
fair
amount
for
that.
Buckles
is
right:
when
your
data
is
sold,
no
one
receives
that
kind
of
money
for
it.
This
is
because
brands
don’t
buy
individual
data,
they
buy
individuals’
data
in
bundles
and
that
makes
it
very
cheap.”
When
one
considers
the
massive
leap
forward
quantified
data
will
likely
make,
it
stands
to
reason
that
one
has
the
ability
to
not
only
gain
greater
control
over
his
or
her
data,
but
potentially
turn
the
tables
on
the
current
third-­‐party
aggregation/monetization
scheme.

19. Assumptions:
It
is
important
to
visit
critical
assumptions
that
lay
the
groundwork
for
this
idea.
1. The
quantified
self/wearable
technology
application
will
look,
act
and
feel
distinct
from
current
smart
devices.
This
is
as
opposed
to
Samsung’s
earlier
attempt
to
market
a
smart
watch,
which
has
little
functionality
let
alone
little
differentiating
customization.
If
the
iWatch
is
merely
a
portal
to
stream
texts,
IM,
Bluetooth
and
other
pre-­‐existing
applications,
wearable
technology
will
become
an
add
on
versus
a
commercial
platform.
2. The
form
factor
develops
to
accommodate
intense,
multi-­‐application
functionality
like
current
smart
devices.
3. Developers
see
the
same
monetization
opportunity
they
saw
in
iPhone
and
Android.
4. The
data
being
captured
can
be
monetized
at
a
level
that
entices
consumers
into
participating.
5. Interaction
with
external
sensor-­‐based
technology
such
as
iBeacon
will
become
natural
and
not
creepy
or
invasive.

20. Recommendation:
In
as
much
as
timing
is
everything,
it
would
appear
developers
and
brands
looking
to
engage
this
opportunity
will
have
at
least
a
brief
window
during
proliferation
and
adoption
to
engage
in
research
and
development.
The
time
horizon
could
possible
extend
further
out
given
the
radical
change
this
could
represent
and
the
time
it
would
take
for
most
consumers
to
adapt
to
and
engage
with
this
way
of
life.
With
this
in
mind,
it
would
be
prudent
for
brands
to
begin
auditing
its
data
exchange
compensation
model
it
currently
shares
with
consumers
and
test
alternate
models
that
more
closely
align
with
this
direction
so
they
are
prepared
to
go
to
market
when
this
shift
begins
to
take
place.
Additional
next
steps:
-­‐ Business
category
evaluation
to
identify
those
most
likely
to
benefit
from
this
direct
payment
method
in
the
near
term.
-­‐ Hypothesize
and
articulate
additional
business
model
concepts
outside
those
listed
in
this
document.
-­‐ Model
the
physical/technological
transaction
on
a
per
brand
basis
as
a
first
step
prototype.