10 Apr Consumer Insights Blog #5: Online Privacy

People define privacy in many different ways. Some people do not mind sharing their lives with the public and even rely on their public image to make money and build careers, while others go to extremes to avoid revealing private information.

In my opinion, it is almost virtually impossible to make everyone happy, so the best solution is to have a very transparent option for people to opt out of sharing their information. The problem with the way Apple and Google collect data as mentioned in the “Apple, Google Collect User Data” article is that they operated as covertly and sneakily as possible. They used what I call the “ask for forgiveness instead of ask for permission” method of data collection.  We filmmakers are famous for this method.

Instead of having an obvious way for people to easily opt out of data sharing, they probably had some line of fine print somewhere in a giant “Accept these terms” agreement that no one in their right mind would bother to read, stating the ability to abstain from having personal information shared, knowing very well that no one would bother to read these contracts. Seriously though, if people were really that concerned about sharing their information, they would avoid all social networking sites. The entire point of Facebook is “sharing” information.

I personally do not mind if companies use my information to tailor ads. As a business owner, I know I would love to have information about my customers so that I too can customize products to their needs. Tailoring advertisements follows a similar concept.  I, however, am leery about certain information that is revealed. For example, full names, social security information, or specific location information that would enable tracking. When certain levels of information sharing could potentially affect someone’s safety, then this is beyond my tolerance level.

Linking back to my real name does not seem like a necessary bit of information for advertising. According to “A Web Pioneer Profiles Users by Name,” RapLeaf collects names and sells them to other companies. The problem with knowing the real name instead of maintaining a degree of anonymity is that the information can easily be traced and linked to information that could potentially be given to the wrong people, thus affecting safety.

I feel that the government will have to be involved in terms of making information that could affect personal safety illegal to distribute. I feel that marketers will always try to push the envelope in terms of what data can be obtained. Data can sometimes mean the difference between having a successful cash cow product versus a bust. With salaries, promotions, and company profits on the line, many companies will do whatever necessary to give themselves a marketing edge. As a result, a higher power will have to become involved to regulate everything.

Unfortunately, it seems that even government is buying into the idea of non-filtered information sharing, considering that some of the earliest adopters of RapLeaf are political campaigners.

I am perfectly fine if advertisers know my unique tastes, my preferences and hobbies; however, I am not okay if they know my phone number, my contact information, my personal physical address, and more. My thought process is that businesses will always invest in advertisements and in a capitalistic society, it is difficult to escape branding and advertising, so I might as well experience it in a personal and customized way involving products that I would be interested in.

So until there are better provisions for protecting consumers, we need to try and be smarter consumers. We have to take responsibility to read the fine print and to be aware of what personal information we choose to share. Apple, Google, and RapLeaf  just may be going about information distribution in not the most ideal way, but these are companies who are trying to innovatively provide useful information to marketers.