#consumer control

When it comes to consumer data, we strongly believe that there is only one true owner - the consumer - and that's why we're actively building technology that allows consumers to control their data, in exchange for personalised and rewarding content.

But for every company like us, that strives for good practice, there are a handful skipping straight to fourth base with their consumers by collecting highly sensitive information such as personal identification and demographic data, causing major upset and promoting a sense of intrusion and mistrust along the way.

This is the underlying anxiety that fuels the ongoing privacy debate, but why does the mobile industry need to be concerned about the issue of privacy? It turns out there are much less intrusive ways to get the information a company needs on its users.

A 2011 survey by the GSM Association found that a massive 81 per cent of mobile users regarded safeguarding their personal information as very important, while 76 per cent stated that they were selective about who they gave their personal information to. The Pew Research Centre also found that over half of mobile users decided against installing an app when they realised how much personal information was required to run it. Put simply, consumers care about who they give their personal information to and what it’s used for.    Personalised service

Yet gathering personal information from consumers can be incredibly important for mobile companies, especially those hoping to create apps that provide a personalised service, or those looking to implement targeted adverts for marketers. It can also be beneficial for the consumer, with a recent study by Ctrl-Shift, an independent research agency, finding that consumers were actually excited by the idea of being able to get rid of noise and remove irrelevant marketing messages.

But companies can’t just go gathering this personal information without consent. If they want to earn the trust of their consumers, they need to let them know exactly what they’re going to do with their personal information and the reasons behind collecting it – many simply aren’t proactively doing this.

One of the biggest problems arises when companies pass on this information to third parties, usually without the consent of the consumer, and they subsequently get bombarded by unsolicited calls, texts or ads for products or services they have no interest in.

If consumers aren’t sure what a service or app is going to do with their personal information then they won’t be confident in using it, let alone spending money with it. In a 2011 global survey conducted by the trade body, MEF, 27 per cent of respondents cited security as the main reason they don’t transact more on their smartphones, while a survey conducted by TRUSTe found that one in three consumers rated privacy as their main concern when using smartphone apps. Companies clearly need to build trust with their consumers, and the key to this is transparency and control.

The best services ensure that their consumers know exactly how their information is being collected and used, and provide them with access and control over it.  We believe our iOS app, dealBoard, is a good example of how this can be implemented well, having received exemplary Control and Transparency ratings in Ctrl-Shift’s research. In dealBoard we actually gather no personal information from the consumer, and with the data we do request, we are explicit and transparent about how it will be used. We also let our consumers see all the information that we hold on them in the form of a word cloud, and allow them to edit it whenever they want.

One of the best ways to gather information from consumers is to just ask them. What may be surprising to some people is that consumers are not actually averse to giving out personal information about themselves; they just need to know what it’s going to be used for and how it’s going to benefit them.  Accurate information Ctrl Shift found that consumers are realistic about privacy, and will happily share a great deal of accurate information about themselves, especially if it’s non-personal information such as the brands they like or the things that interest them. What Ctrl-Shift found to be important is to provide consumers with some form of immediate gratification, be that through gamified mechanics and/or some sort of reward for their efforts.

Even better, if you can be completely transparent with the consumer and demonstrate that there is a clear benefit in providing you with the information, i.e. you provide us with ‘X’ information about yourself and we’ll help you save money on ‘X’ product, then they’ll be more than happy to help.

In dealBoard, for example, our consumers get to enjoy a gamified brand-sorting task, and for providing us with this information on the brands they like and dislike, we subsequently reward them by showing deals that are relevant to them. Companies from all industries are gradually beginning to catch sight of the benefits this more transparent approach has, with Tesco’s Clubcard Play being one of many. Tesco is hoping to make its Clubcard scheme more transparent and encourage higher levels of engagement from its consumers by developing a range of products and games that provide them with access to their own data and shopping habits.

We’ve moved into an age where more and more business is conducted in the digital domain, and technology is becoming increasingly advanced. The use of smartphones in our everyday lives will only continue to rise, whether it’s using an NFC-enabled handset to buy lunch, Barclays’ Pingit app to transfer funds, or completing micro-transactions in a game. 

In a world that has become increasingly concerned with privacy and oversharing of personal data, ill-prepared mobile companies are bound to be left behind as users learn to guard their information.

Most companies' CRM, loyalty and other systems are a 'corporate data asset' that, in most cases, combine the data that consumers are happy for the company to hold, with potentially 'toxic' data, that has often been inferred over many years from multiple sources, with some sniffed from the consumer's ‘data exhaust’. Profiles are inferred, often incorrectly, from that data trail.  This 'soup' of data carries a huge risk and, like trying to ‘unmix’ an omelette, cannot be easily segregated. The end result is potentially explosive, and can even become potentially illegal under EU privacy laws, as seen recently with the furore over Google’s change in privacy policy,  and the unification of 60 services and their user data under one agreement. Corporate data assets can be de-risked by developing mobile solutions that give consumers control of their data, and providing a framework in which they feel a sense of ownership.

Microsoft's recent decision to make "Do Not Track" the default privacy setting in Internet Explorer 10 has met with predictable dismay in the digital-marketing industry.

Marketers, publishers and technology suppliers who have built their careers building consumer profiles from online data trails see their livelihood threatened, their primary source of information potentially drying up.

Worse for these people, Microsoft has moved only a little ahead of the rising tide of consumer and legal sentiment to one day make tracking unacceptable or even illegal. In Washington, London and Brussels, legislators are moving to create internet bills of rights and cookie directives that threaten to render obsolete the tracking technology that has become de rigeur in the last decade.

The latest infuriating case in point was the revelation that Orbitz was experimenting with offering Mac users a choice of more expensive hotels than it would show to PC users, based on data showing that Apple consumers spend more per night on hotels.

And the fastest-growing subset of digital marketing, mobile, isn't immune from the Do-Not-Track furor. It's the one medium that accompanies a consumer into the store and can reveal his or her location in real time. Many location-enabled applications, such as Foursquare and Glympse, have demonstrated that if consumers see a benefit, they are happy to share their location. However, a recent study by Cross-Tab Marketing Services and Telecommunications Research Group showed that 70% of U.S. consumers are concerned about their privacy in sharing location.

Microsoft understands this. "In a world where consumers live a large part of their lives online, it is critical that we build trust that their personal information will be treated with respect, and that they will be given a choice to have their information used for unexpected purposes," wrote Microsoft's chief privacy officer, Brendon Lynch on a company blog,

The heart of the problem is that, as click-through rates have declined, the ad industry has done nothing to eliminate messages that target uninterested or even downright opposed consumers. Between 249 and 999 ads have to be served to the disinterested to garner a single response, according to research by WordStream. In the case of Facebook ads, the company reports that it's one response per 1960 ads.

That's a lot of wasted advertising, but it has cost the industry little as it has focused on delivering as many ads as possible that work for the marketer. But the waste, which is really an unwanted intrusion at the receiving end, has now caught the eye of consumers and regulators, who are reacting in ways that can ultimately damage the industry.

So what is the poor marketer to do? Ask the consumer.

Many of the largest companies, including Google and Facebook, purport to allow consumer editing of their own profile, but then bury the option behind several screens, and in Facebook's case just download to the consumer the unadulterated raw information. The message to consumers is clear: we don't want you to play with this.

What consumers might prefer, if one were to actually ask them, is the ability to build, manage and get useful things from their own profile and data. Let consumers remain entirely anonymous and in control. Examples are companies like Allow in the UK and Connect.me in the United States, which allow consumers to opt out of marketing lists and then reengage on their own terms.

Our company has tried allowing consumers to own their profiles, controlling what they reveal about themselves and what they would like to receive: everything from movie recommendations to filtering daily deals, from what to watch on TV tonight to what unpublished artist track to listen to.

The effects are remarkable, as consumers go from a creepy world of retargeting, spied-on emails and black boxes following them to one where they see what comes, express their opinion on the recommendation and change their profile at will. Marketers can target audiences on a level more personal and more capable than years of third-party data-sniffing can generate -– and do it all with consumer consent.

No matter how foolproof your methods, not every ad/offer/piece of content that you send to a consumer will be of 100% interest to them, but there are ways to improve the odds and, more importantly, let uninterested consumers influence their profile to reduce the chances of similar ads/offers/content being sent again. We have found that privacy is, in itself, not uppermost in consumers' considerations, but the effect of having no control over spam e-mail, intrusive text messages and all forms of digital advertising most certainly is.

In this digital, data-driven world privacy is more of a concern than ever. Yet people are willing to share their info with marketers. All marketers need to do is ask, explains nFluence Media’s Henry Lawson.

Amazon is a heck of a place to get my shopping done, I’ll give them that. With a few clicks, I can instantly pick up the new season of my favourite show on Blu-ray or a 36-pack of pudding. Unfortunately, Amazon uses these purchases to build the mistaken assumption that it knows something about me.

I once bought my wife a set of pink-coloured tools for our home and the next time I was browsing Amazon, I was recommended a long series of literature on LGBT themes. I am sure Sarah Waters and Katherine Forrest are great authors, but Amazon may have gotten the wrong picture of me.

The issue is that the store makes its suggestions and inferences based on my past purchases and in-store browsing, and makes no apparent effort to discern between one-time whims and actual habits.

The problem isn’t unique to Amazon, either, according to a recent study by independent consumer research firm Ctrl-Shift.

In the study, a panel of consumers rated several online advertisers, merchants, and marketers based on levels of Transparency, Access to data, Control over information, and Trustworthiness (spelling out the companies’ “TACT”).

The findings were encouraging for both customers and advertisers. It turns out that consumers are willing to volunteer all sorts of information if marketers are simply willing to ask nicely.

Just ask (nicely)

What the study shows us is that marketers have to ask for – and not just take – data from customers.

At worst, advertisers that rely on under-the-radar data collection are doing so in a haphazard fashion, using out-of-date info, or clumsily aggregating habits from multiple users on a single computer. This leads to ads that consumers find irrelevant or baffling.

Even when the data is accurate, consumers find it creepy. Take someone unfamiliar with internet cookies to their Google Ads Preferences for the first time and let them see what their browsing history has generated – the astonished look on their face can be a lot of fun.

But consumers will happily volunteer a great deal of helpful and accurateinformation if you just let them know you’re gathering it and tell them what you’re doing with it.

Asking nicely does not mean crafting a better, sneakier message to trick people out of their personal details like a 419 scammer. It’s a matter of being straightforward with the information you’re after, and offering a solid quid pro quo.

Serving up a tailored set of ads and offers is an easy place to start – nobody likes being pushed on purchases that are completely outside of their interests. Promise to eliminate the clutter and offer your users stuff they might actually want and they’ll be more than happy to help you do it.

Better still, give them a demonstrable benefit to working with you, like saving money. “Oh, you like Brand X? Well, how about if we can point you directly to a 2-for-1 sale specifically on Brand X?” Seems like a no-brainer.

Transparency is good for the bottom line

People prefer to be asked to provide data rather than have it taken from them without permission. Image by The Bees via Flickr.

If making life better for the browsing public weren’t incentive enough, volunteered profiles are also far more cost-effective for vendors.

Buying a Facebook ad may get you in front of the world’s largest user base, but chances are most of that user base doesn’t care about your specific product. Save your money and focus on consumers who have indicated they’re ready to do business with you.

Most importantly, it’s not just the end results that need to be rewarding, but also the process itself. When was the last time you slowed down to talk to a survey-taker with a clipboard on the sidewalk?

Find a way to make the questions enjoyable for the consumer: employ gamification or other immediate rewards. Ask them about activities they’re inclined to discuss, like what they think about recent movies or TV shows.

Offer them amusing data like, “Only 13 percent of users said they liked Brand Xand Brand Y… aren’t you interesting!”

The results speak for themselves. At the conclusion of the study, it’s noted that advertisers who request data, rather than those who collect it under the table or make assumptions, got the highest marks from participants.

Undoubtedly for me one of the best things about the web is being able to discover new content and experiences.  Increasingly a huge majority of this is done via the sharing and liking of content, with nearly every article or video surrounded by a myriad of buttons for the various social platforms out there.

There is one thing that frustrates me though.  Not everything on the web is great and something that I'd want to share, like or +1. In fact in many cases I wish I could dislike something.  As people we are defined as much by what we don't like as by what we do. In many cases defining what we don't like actually creates a stronger profile of who we are. 

This is an interesting concept and something I think that is missing from how we interact and experience content on the web.  This is becoming increasingly relevant as there are so many algorithms out there constantly trying personalise content for us. 

One website that makes good use of the 'dislike' is Youtube.  Generally the ratings reflect the quality of the video incredibly well especially when the title of the video bears no resemblance to the content of the video itself.  When viewing YouTube I now look for the amount of red in the dislike bar rather than the green in the like bar, here's a good YouTube example.  Another good example is Rotten Tomatoes, the movie review site, as it allows you to quickly and visually reference aggregated opinion.

Most negativity around the quality of web content is expressed in a qualitative nature via the comments section. This is very useful but by the time you get to the comments you have generally engaged with the content already even if it's good or not. I think when casually glancing at a webpage a more consistent visual cue would be more helpful in determining the content quality . Something along the lines of the ratio of green (likes) to red (dislikes). There is definitely some similarity with the concept of the Net Promoter Score (NPS).

As the advertising universe puts the squeeze on consumers' data the likely backlash around privacy and control seems to be gathering pace, to a point.  The number of articles appearing in the industry press (see link below for latest from NMA) seems to be increasing, generally to a positive response. But in my opinion the ad universe, while nodding in approval, doesn't seem to be necessarily doing anything about it  

I completely agree with the points made by NMA's Gina Lovett and the idea around data exchanges is quite scary.  The thought that you and I are being traded around some exchange like a faceless commodity is difficult to comprehend but is very real. As always the term 'anonymous' is used as the first line of defence against the growing data profiles being built on each individual. However whilst it may be anonymous what about the resulting experience? Just because you don't know me doesn't stop you from 'personlising' and targeting me with adverts and content that you assume I will want.  I think that 'anonymous' actually becomes a weak justification for the aggregation of data to further eek a little more out of each advertising pound.  Every large ad network etc claims they respect privacy but it always seems to be at a minimum.  Giving consumers some useful level of voice in the advertising ecosystem cold actually result in a better experience for all!

Anyway...

When will the rebel uprising gather pace? When will the Data Wars truly start?