Commentary
Transparency Is The New Green
- by Mike Bloxham , Op-Ed Contributor, May 16, 2011
Self-regulation is all very well, but at a time when all electronic media are becoming more and more data-centric (even TV), the protestations of digital marketers and service-providers will likely become over-shadowed by the looming political football.
Wherever you sit on the subject it seems a pretty safe bet that privacy
*is an issue that's here to stay *becoming a bigger factor in how we do business online *some degree of legislation is going to get passed
Would legislation be the end of the world? The short answer is no. Businesses would adapt, not to could politely be described as a failure of imagination. Adaptation may not -- by its very definition -- fit with the original game plan, but it's how species and businesses alike have managed to thrive over the long term. And the privacy issue is no different.
But can we adapt in such a way as to stay ahead of the pack and the issue of privacy and personal information?
I believe there is an opportunity for companies that address the issue head-on with customers to differentiate themselves in a manner that reinforces a position of customer-centricity and openness. Call it customer service if you will.
When I spoke at Mediapost's Email Insider Summit last December, I referenced some work that I and my then-colleagues at Ball State were doing on perceptions of what constitutes personal information; how and what information is collected online; how it is used, what (if any) concerns they have and; how they claimed these influenced their resulting attitudes and behaviors online. We spoke to students -- those conventionally regarded as the most digitally savvy and liberal with their notions of privacy. Although not intended to be projectable, the findings provide an interesting insight to the complexity of the privacy issue and the difficulty of either legislating for it or developing business strategies.
One thing is clear from the research: Those who claim young people don't care about privacy are woefully wide of the mark.
Are they about to abandon the Web as a means of addressing their concerns? No. Is there an opportunity to be among the small number of companies that are seen to acknowledge and engage them about their concerns? Yes. And this is where there is competitive advantage to be had.
Transparency can be the new green.
In the same way that green and environmental issues were consigned to the sidelines decades ago, at best a disposable nice-to-have, they have now moved center-stage for many companies. Not only are substantive green credentials good for marketing, they are good for internal communications, recruitment, government relations and the bottom line. Simply re-tooling internal processes from manufacturing to admin has saved businesses millions every year. And that's before you get to how it helps in the consumer marketplace.
The same is true of privacy and concerns around the collection and use of personal information. Just as any business has an environmental footprint, so any entity doing business online collects information. The questions and concerns that exist among consumers -- however ill-defined and understood they may be -- relate to the type of information that's collected, and the uses to which it is put. And this is where the transparency card comes into play.
Many consumers seem to accept that data harvesting is going to happen to some extent, but concern is often rooted in uncertainty and ambiguity. The company that makes a point of clarifying what data is collected, how it is (and is not) used, who will and won't have access to it and what degree of control the consumer has will set itself apart as being uniquely consumer-oriented.
Much of this lies in how a company communicates. Although we often talk of giving more control to the consumer, how many times does it actually happen? Why isn't it standard practice to allow consumers to have more input to the content and frequency of our communications with them? After all, it will surely lessen the instance of contact-fatigue.
The principal of providing a means for the consumer to opt-down instead of opting-out of email programs is a good example of this, but it still needs to become more commonplace.
So what does a company do?
*Make it clear what it does in terms of data collection and why. *Explain the benefits to the customer clearly and without hype. *Provide a clear and easy means of enabling users to opt out of some data collection but not others -- illustrating what consequences there are in terms of service or even pricing. *Provide a concise summary of the main points in the Terms of Use that are necessary for so many sites.
Although such clarification is counter-cultural to the agenda of many, that's precisely why there's advantage to be had in translating it (not replacing it, just augmenting it with something "real").
As for how you do it -- use the language and communication conventions of the Web -- infographics, video, rollovers etc. It's not difficult to do from anything but a cultural perspective; it requires a change of mind-set. But these steps to a more transparent relationship with your online customers follow a path begun when the Web gave two-way communication a massive boost all those years ago. And those that take the step will be ahead of the looming grip of legislation and the rest of the pack.
It will require planning, research and testing to get it right. After all, communication and change around such potentially sensitive areas needs to be approached carefully. But this is going to be one of the biggest issues that companies face in the coming years online, and marketers will be right in the thick of it. There will be road kill along the way, but there will success stories, too.
It's far better to be pro-active than re-active.
I agree Paula, the rules of self control are firmly in place in a small town where no one has to lock their doors. Unfortunately, we don't live in a small, online world and what is told over the fence in confidence is extracted, blabbed, or sold to the highest bidder.
In the green world, we can rely on sustainable standards to set the limits. Perhaps what Mike is proposing is the beginning of that process for communications.
Over the years, self-regulation has worked well for a single reason: people have reacted poorly to firms which misused data and the government has supported their desires to limit the use of the information they've collected. Do Not Call lists, spam blockers, and various other organizations, groups or firms have developed over the years, some with government support, many without.
The problem, however, hasn't been the size of the market or the limitations of self-regulation. It's been the steady degradation of individual limitations on "how much is too much" information to share. Facebook is a good example of how people willingly share information that 5 years ago they'd never have posted online. Once they've crossed that bridge, going back becomes difficult - with or without protections.
I have related a story time and again about my wife visiting a site to choose a color for our house. When she finished, she noticed ads for paint firms (Benjamin Moore, Sherwin Williams, etc.) began to appear with regularity. She asked me, since I worked in the space, if this was coincidental. I said probably not - but that many companies I've worked with shun that kind of approach to advertising because it's too noticeably intrusive and people react poorly to it.
The assumption is the ads are "related" to something you're interested in, therefore of higher value to you. Somehow this means they are "better" ads. I disagree. My wife and I call it the "creepy" factor. There is no lawa against someone following you around a mall to see what stores you visit, then going to your car and leaving fliers promoting similar stores you'd be interested in. Creepy? Yes. Illegal? No. But it's easy to do this online, and lots of firms are taking advantage of it.
Still others are taking it further than this...
But, by and large, many reputable sites recognize the dangers inherent in collecting, sharing or otherwise utilizing information in this fashion. As a result, the rules for using this information are strict and limiting.
So, self-regulation does work, and the question then becomes how much are consumers willing to share about themselves if they know how that information is going to be used? Or will they even bother to read how that information is going to be used?
I opt for the "they won't read the 3 pages of documentation on usage, so make sure you protect their rights" approach. Because the last thing you want is somebody who is angry about not having read the rules about how you intend to use data you've collected on them.
I don't see that the government can add anything but confusion to this discussion until publishers and vendors themselves come to terms with what they intend on doing and how they intend on policing it.
I certainly agree with and appreciate your perspective that a commitment to transparency by businesses, particiarly those in the online advertising, marketing and social networking sectors, offers tremendous business opportunities, not to mention the positive reputational and goodwill impact it will have on the business. This is something we at the Public Relations Society of America have been advocating for quite some time, and set out in comments to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association in December 2010 regarding digital disclosure in social media (http://ow.ly/4WmWc).
It's interesting that your research has found that the younger generation of Internet users are actually concerned about their online privacy, contrary to what many in the media would have us believe, and certainly contrary to what Mark Zuckerberg and others who run social networks would like us to believe.
I'm curious: Do you foresee a point in which the younger generation, being so fluent in digital media and accustomed to digital advertising, will begin to set the tone for digital disclosure? In other words, if they truly do care about their online privacy, more so than we currently understand, then will the younger generation start to lead a greater push toward more stringent and transparent digital disclosure by companies marketing them?
Keith Trivitt
Associate Director of Public Relations
Public Relations Society of America
Keith,
A great question. I certainly feel that consumers will increasingly respond to companies that take a transparent and open approach to this area. That doesn't just mean companies that behave well, but companies that make a point to communicate just what that means.
Whether this will be directly driven by consumers themselves is another matter. I suspect it is likely to be driven indirectly by them as companies that adopt this approach over time are seen to succeed. Of course, the less optimal scenario is one in which transparency is compelled by legislation, which I feel is less likely to result in a situation that benefits consumers and companies to the fullest extent.
Sooner or later I believe that we will see clear declarations of company practice in this field being communicated in much the same way as product return policies are. After all, surely this is just another area of customer service or customer relations isn't it? Yes, the lawyers need to be involved, but the communication shouldn't be framed solely in their terms.