It’s Decision Time for Data Privacy (or Will Be Soon)

Chet Dalzell’s recent thoughtful piece on “Our Digital Selves” came along at the same time I (and probably a gazillion others) were pondering the increasingly pressing question of data privacy in the digital age.

Chet Dalzell’s recent thoughtful piece on “Our Digital Selves” came along at the same time I (and probably a gazillion others) were pondering the increasingly pressing question of data privacy in the digital age.

It’s a much bigger question than what data can be used to target potential customers for the latest widget or widget club or to stop you in your tracks at the supermarket in front of the pet food shelves to tell you that Fido, your beloved Fido, seen in the picture on your cell phone, absolutely must have the new, nutritious and tasty Dogbit,s or he may bite your fingers off if you try to give him anything else.

The data question goes to the heart of how we see ourselves in the digital world. And how we see ourselves is in no way clear — even to ourselves.

“Bottom line: If Facebook’s users in the United States are similar to most Americans (and studies suggest they are), large majorities don’t want personalized ads — and when they learn how companies find out information about them, even greater percentages don’t want them.”

That’s what Joseph Turow, a professor of communications and Chris Jay Hoofnagle, an adjunct professor of law, say in The New York Times using various research to support their thesis. The problem is what people tell researchers is not always what they do. Facebook’s quarterly earnings statement showed these enlightening KPIs.

  • Monthly active users (MAUs) — MAUs were 2.32 billion as of Dec. 31, 2018, an increase of 9%, year-over-year.
  • We estimate that around 2.7 billion people now use Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Messenger (our “Family” of services) each month, and more than 2 billion people use at least one of our Family of services every day, on average.

It has been said over and over again that everything has its price. Assuming that this is largely true, how much value or benefit should the consumer expect in return for how much and which data? As I wrote in a comment to Chet’s article, this is sure to be the data-use question we’ll all be turning in our minds as the algorithms get smarter and the temptations greater.

Imagine that you could put a value on each element of your personal, demographic, psychographic and behavioral data, and anyone wanting to use that data would have to pay your price, whether or not you ended up making a purchase or taking a desired action? Imagine further that a data user wanted to use $20 worth of your data to try to sell you a product you wanted, priced at $100? It would be an easy transaction, if the seller were willing to offer you a 20% or even a greater discount for the specific permission to use the data. You would have the product, the seller would have the sale and everyone would be happy.

However fanciful that scenario, it is not nearly as crazy as it sounds. In fact, in one form or another, that is exactly what is happening in the real marketplace; although without your specific permission. As a marketer, I have to spend money to acquire your data and, by making an attractive offer (say a 20% discount), I am offering to compensate you for your data, which allows me to talk to you.

Of course, I have over-simplified the argument. As stated earlier: How much value or benefit should the consumer expect in return for how much and which data?

I think we would all agree that this determination is much too complicated, so we let the “invisible hand of the market” do its magic. Which reduces the decision to a very simple one: Do we perceive that we get enough value from having our data out there in the marketplace to be manipulated however the marketers wish to and simply lie back and enjoy all the offers and benefits? Or should we bite the bullet, give our cell phones to a needy child, do without Waze and get lost again and again, be prepared to stand in the endless line at the bank, throw the “delete everything” switch and effectively remove ourselves from the digital economy? It is getting near decision time for all of us.

I remember many years ago in London, as “one of those Americans,” being lectured over lunch by a very traditional British publisher about the horrors of books being sold by mail order and direct mail and assuring me that the British wouldn’t have anything to do with book clubs or the like. Just when the bill had been paid and we were preparing to depart, she reached into her handbag and pulled out an all singing and all dancing mailing piece from the Readers Digest, offering a very handsome discount on their superb motorist bible, the “Book of the Road.”

She was going to order it right away.

 

Money Loves Speed

“Money loves speed.” This phrase has been quoted so often that it’s difficult to know who should be credited for coining it. In an “always-on” digital world, it’s a saying that reminds us that we need to encourage fast action to make a sale, and to act fast when a customer needs help. Today, I contrast the customer service of two digital companies—both household names and both who serve direct marketers—and suggest four money-attracting recommendations

“Money loves speed.” This phrase has been quoted so often that it’s difficult to know who should be credited for coining it. In an “always-on” digital world, it’s a saying that reminds us that we need to encourage fast action to make a sale, and to act fast when a customer needs help. Today, I contrast the customer service of two digital companies—both household names and both who serve direct marketers—and suggest four money-attracting recommendations.

One of the many aggravations for any customer is the inability to get fast answers from a company when help is needed. It’s especially a problem with online merchants. In the digital age, it’s too easy to hide behind an online form.

The contrast of service and responsiveness from Facebook and Google, in my experience, is significant. Both are digital mega-corporations, both provide advertising platforms for marketers, and both are tremendous resources of online metrics for direct marketers.

Facebook is a content marketer’s dream. Gain a fan following at little or no cost, share news, videos, how-to information and much more to your audience. In social media, your audience does your work of sharing and evangelizing for you. Facebook has evolved and requires “pay-to-play” if you want your fans to see your posts. In my view, it’s completely acceptable for Facebook to say that if you want your post to float toward the top of a newsfeed for a day that you’ll need to spend a few bucks.

I pay for posts often for an organization with a vibrant social media presence. The Facebook promoted post budget isn’t huge, but over a year’s time it runs into the thousands of dollars.

The rules for including an image with a promoted post allows up to 20 percent of the image to contain text. Recently, one of my promoted posts was rejected because Facebook technology image scanners thought there was more than the 20 percent amount allowed. But with the human eye, it was apparent looking at the photo and text that we were not over the allowed amount of text. Surely Facebook would reconsider, I thought. My credit card was ready to be charged.

The only way I’ve found to contact Facebook is via an online form. So I filled one out, asking them to reconsider the image for my promoted post expecting a quick response. After all, it took them only about 15 minutes to reject the ad, so surely as an “always-on” social media platform with thousands of employees, someone will respond quickly. Well, it took nearly 24 hours to get a reply to my request. They agreed with me and approved it. But by that point, the timeliness of the news item had passed and myself, and our followers, had moved on.

But then another rejection happened a few days ago. This time, a photo of sheet music didn’t fly. The culprit? Apparently treble clefs, staffs and rests. Once again the rejection was in minutes. I immediately asked Facebook to reevaluate it, thinking that my prior experience of 24 hours for a reply may have been a fluke. It wasn’t. The reply to this second request came in at 1:51 AM the next day, more than 24 hours later, with an approval. But again, the news cycle for this event had ended.

Bottom line: Facebook customer service is pokey. They are leaving advertising money on the table with an apparently cumbersome internal review process.

Contrast Facebook with Google. I manage Google Adwords for another client with a respectable budget. Google has assigned a representative to me. We talk. They rotate representatives every few months so I get different points of view and ideas. And if I need to contact Google, they offer a phone number for me to call where I can actually talk with someone in just minutes, enabling the ads to continue without delay.

Facebook repels money. Google attracts money.

Bottom line points for marketers:

  1. Give the customer options, such as phone, online forms, chat and more to contact you.
  2. Don’t hide behind an online form. Sure, a call center may be more expensive to operate, but it’s surely less expensive than losing sales.
  3. Be responsive. If you decide an online form is less expensive than a call center, fine. But then make sure you have a customer service representative available 24/7 who can quickly answer customer questions.
  4. Remove internal bureaucracy. Sometimes movement is brought to a halt because the internal process is too cumbersome.

In an “always-on” digital age, customers can be impatient. And for goodness sakes, if your business is in technology, act fast! It’s expected.

Money loves speed.