To what extent can an analysis of cookies, and the ongoing process of âcookificationâ of online advertising, shed light on the shaping and operation of digital markets? In this section, we present our theoretical framework, focused around the concept of market infrastructure. First, we provide a brief survey of the literature on the movement of âdatafication,â with a focus on works that are concerned with marketing and advertising. Then we are interested in the concept of market infrastructure. We recall the genealogy of the concept and specify how we contribute to its theoretical development.
2.1. Datafication and the marketing industry
Big data technologies, and especially those using personal data, have received growing academic attention in recent years. Many studies have investigated the social and economic consequences of digital knowledge infrastructures, tracking devices, and algorithms, using the term of âdatafication.â It is possible to identify two main perspectives inside this corpus.
A first set of works adopts a wide-angle lens and observes a largely coherent, intentional and convergent dynamic, towards the setting up of an infrastructure mainly dedicated to tracking and surveillance. Schneier (2015) points out that, âin the normal course of their operations, computers continuously document what theyâre doingâ (15); big data systematizes the apprehension of data and traces as a valuable resource requiring attention and investment. Kitchin (2014) describes how the manufacture of data is greatly linked to their use:
databases are designed and built to hold certain kinds of data and enable certain kinds of analysis, and how they are structured has profound consequences as to what queries and analysis can be performed; their formulation conditions the work that can be done through them. (âŚ) Data infrastructures host and link databases into a more complex sociotechnical structure. (21â23)
This sociotechnical structure is the subject of a vast body of research that shares a common description of datafication as a convergent process of constitution of a vast tracking and surveillance infrastructure (Lyon 2001; Zimmer 2008; Christl and Spiekermann 2016; Zuboff 2019). These works take a critical look at this movement and denounce the risks they pose to individual freedom and privacy. This dynamic, and the controversies and socio-economic struggles in opens, are of course central. But the focus chosen by these authors tends to leave aside the specific application fields and concrete uses of these tracking systems.
A second set of works on datafication is more focused on the multiples uses of data by businesses in the practical course of their activity, especially in the area of digital marketing. These studies elaborate a more disordered, and largely unintended narrative, which leads to the recognition of the omnipresence of data in the social and economic existence of the digital economy.
As markets are digitalized, data are a key element in the operation of markets in a variety of forms: consumer records, scoring and targeting instruments, customization engines, algorithmic pricing, vending and trading machines. Hence, data act as a versatile, yet vital, apparatus for markets, through the construction of data as a device, a valuation tool, a measure, an asset, or an infrastructure. Following this perspective, Cluley (2018) defines the process of datafication as the non-marketing activities needed to create a standard unit of data. From a case study on the implementation of a measure of the viewability of advertisements on the Internet, he describes a three steps process, âwhere an alignment of interests stabilizes an object of measurement which is then formalized in a standard method for measurement.â
Although data collection practices for marketing purposes are hard to investigate (see below our methodological framework), attempts to assess them, or to report on the data brokerage industry, have come to constitute a cumulative knowledge base on the sociotechnical market arrangements built upon personal data. Based on a self-ethnography, Ebelingâs work (2016) shows how ordinary life events become objects of capitalization by data brokers, private companies that manufacture and maintain databases of âdigital doublesâ of virtually each individual consumer. These data doubles exist without the knowledge of and away from their human alter egos, and come to haunt them, more and more frequently, like phantoms (or monsters!), in the form of hyper-targeted marketing. Data doubles are enrolled in a set of economic activities, and valued as commodities or assets (Bouk 2017; Neyland and Milyaeva 2016; Fourcade and Healy 2017), or exploited as segments and marketable groups (Turow 2012; Ariztia 2015; Cluley and Brown 2015).
This disparate body of research shows how data has become a central concern for people and organizations operating and acting on markets. Yet, these works have only paid oblique attention to the materiality of these data doubles, especially to their cookie-based natureâwith the notable exception of Turow (2012) and Cluley and Brown (2015). Turowâs work is focused on the advertising food chain and its successive evolutions guided towards more personalization and targeting. Cluley and Brown investigate the development of cookie-based market devices, and focus on how such technologies change the way consumers are represented, categorized and, finally, âdividualizedâ for marketing operations as fine-grained ad-hoc segments and specific properties.
Finally, the http cookie is also an object of interest in computer science, with works studying the mechanisms of production and management of cookies, and technical coordination between actors having use of cookies (Park and Sandhu 2000; Mayer and Mitchell 2012; Ghosh et al. 2015). Cookies have also been of interest to lawyers and privacy scholars because their legal status as personal information appears fluctuating and uncertain (Siebecker 2002; Mills 2008). In addition to this scientific literature, there are more personalized accounts of the invention and development of cookies, which place particular emphasis on the hesitations, decisions and remorse of their inventor (see in particular Schwartz 2001).
2.2. From market devices to market infrastructures
The study of market datafication can benefit from two neighboring fields which share a common affiliation with STS, but which have undergone separate developments: infrastructure studies, and âmarket studies.â Infrastructure studies were especially theorized as a research agenda by Star (Star and Ruhleder 1996; Star 1999), and Bowker et al. (2009). Following a socio-historical perspective, these authors set themselves the objective of putting into the foreground what, in general, is in the background, invisible and transparent. Infrastructures are described as a vast set of objects that are necessary for most human activities: material collective equipment, such as bridges, energy or communication networks, but also inscriptions such as protocols, standards and classifications. There is now a vast literature in infrastructure studies, from which there are several interesting observations for our purpose. Good and usable infrastructures tend to disappear, âby definitionâ (Bowker and Star 1999), which makes them particularly hard to see. Infrastructures are often in the making and expanding, and they rarely result in their actual form of a defined and centralized plan. Standards and classification are of crucial importance and they embed social and political arrangements and compromises.
The other approach has developed from the work of Callon (1998) in economic sociology and then expanded to related disciplines suc...