About me
Archive
About me

‘Selling’ RFID

close

Hold up! Before you read on, please read this...

This post was published more than 15 years ago

I keep old posts on the site because I often enjoy reading old content on other people's sites. It can be interesting to see how views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have, to put it mildly, mellowed.

I'm not a believer in brushing the past under the carpet. I've written some offensive rubbish on here in the past: deleting it and pretending it never happened doesn't change that. I hope that stumbling across something that's 15 years old won't offend anyone anew, because I hope that people can understand that what I thought and felt and wrote about then is probably very different to what I think and feel and write about now. It's a relic of an (albeit recent) bygone era.

So, given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views may well have changed in the last 15 years. I have written some very silly things over the years, many of which I find utterly cringeworthy today.
  • This post might use words or language in ways which I would now consider highly inappropriate, offensive, embarrassing, or all three.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken, and embedded material might not appear properly.

Okay. Consider yourself duly warned. Read on...

This silicon.com article is actually about the introduction of fingerpint technology for payment in a Washington supermarket, but it makes an interesting point about the controversial introduction of RFID tagging, the backlash against which I commented on last week.

John Davison, VP and research director at analyst house Gartner, said that customers were generally willing to accept technologies, such as RFID, that could infringe their privacy if the benefits of such technology could be ‘sold’ to them.

“Will customers object to RFID? Yes, if you don’t sell it to them,” he said. “Over two-thirds of customers will accept RFID if you sell them the basic utilities.”

However, he added that certain areas of retail were still technology sacred. “The nearer you get RFID to the payment process, consumers get less keen. When you start linking… to their personal information, they’re even less keen.”

This is something I strongly agree with. You cannot sell this kind of new technology to the public by trying to sell the technology to the public: You have to tell them about all the benefits. Telling customers that their shopping will be embedded with microchips (already dubbed ‘spy chips’ by the anti-RFID lobby groups) will be a big turn-off, but telling customers that they’ll save time at the checkout by not having to unload everything from their trolley will be a big turn-on.

Tesco are particularly good at marketing to the public, and I’m sure they’ll do this right, which is another reason why any attempted resistance against RFID by paranoid consumer groups will, surely, fail.

This 290th post was filed under: Technology.

Recently published posts




Random posts from the archive

Photo-a-day 162: DNA sculpture / 10 June 2012

False acronymic etymology / 18 May 2007

Second Anniversary / 07 May 2005

The public health rules / 23 February 2019

42 Days: The answer to everything / 06 December 2007

Bird ‘Flu: The Musical / 06 June 2006




Comments and responses

Comment from Robert


    16.23, 03/08/2007

Support the boycott against Tesco – http://www.boycotttesco.com and say NO to spychips.

We don’t want them. Stop lying to the customers there is no benefit to them whatsoever. The only benefits are for the retailers that can monitor items people buy.

Save an extra two minutes at the the check out? Big deal, a big price to pay for such a small saving.

Say NO!




Compose a new comment

I'm not taking comments on my blog any more, so I'm afraid the opportunity to add to this discussion has passed.


The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.