The prospect of privacy legislation and oversight looms ever larger in the world of digital media. While the form this takes has yet to be determined, the reality is that people and politicians are
becoming more aware of widespread prospects for data harvesting.
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.