Privacy: It's overrated

One of the classic and oft-repeated scenes in the hit series "Cheers" centered around the character Norm walking into the bar. When he entered, everyone in the bar would call out, "Norm!" With a wave of the hand, he would acknowledge them and retreat to his usual place at the bar, his beer usually poured and ready for him. Norm didn't find it creepy that everyone knew his name. Nor did he find it creepy that Sam and Coach knew exactly what he wanted before he asked. In fact, he probably would have found it quite odd if people didn't greet him and Coach didn't have his beer waiting.

In a sense, Cheers was a perfect example of customer recognition and the ability to anticipate that customer's needs at the exact right time. And as a result, Norm was a very valuable repeat customer.

When Norm finally got home from the bar at night -- if we fast-forwarded the show's backdrop to within the last several years -- he would have found numerous credit card solicitations in his mailbox addressed to him, Norm Peterson, at his home address. Now Norm would have been a little foggy from the numerous beers, so he probably didn't take at face value comments like, "Due to your superior credit history, we are able to offer you... " Little did he know that the card issuer actually did know his complete credit history and score and did make that offer specifically to him (and people like him). That might have creeped him out a little. But the fact that the sender knew that Norm Peterson lived at that exact address wouldn't even cross Norm's mind as an issue of concern.

And if the phone then rang (because Norm was not on the do-not-call registry yet), and the same company made him an offer, he would not have thought twice about the fact that the company had his phone number as well as his address -- though he might have been irked by the intrusion. Norm expected to be recognized in places where he was a customer, and wasn't bothered by the fact that companies with whom he didn't do business knew who he was, his phone number and where he lived.

So why all the angst today around using customer recognition tools to welcome returnees to your site? Why are people concerned that companies are using data gathered from how they got there, what they did with you previously and personal data that you've been able to append to their other data?

The key difference lies in the internet itself. From its infancy, the internet has sat at a nexus of anonymity and vulnerability. The web in particular allowed people to investigate all kinds of things without letting other people know, from porn to new jobs. But at the same time, the internet brought with it a sense that nefarious types could take advantage of anonymity to rip people off. Countless scams, phishing and security breaches have taught consumers fear.

This situation will not persist forever, though. For a glimpse of the future, take a look at how young adults use Facebook. These users spend hours customizing their Facebook pages, writing on friends' walls and adding status updates. They post photos and videos. Why? Because sharing all of this personal information leads to a better Facebook experience. It helps them connect better with friends and be the life of the party.

As these adults get older (and as more old fogies invade Facebook), users will demand the opportunity to trade personal information for a more involving experience from brands they like and trust. A childless user will become frustrated when, for instance, a retailer shows her baby clothing on the site homepage. A mom with three kids will roll her eyes when an auto manufacturer's site puts a sports car on the homepage.

The transition will not happen overnight, nor will marketers find it an easy task at first. Facebook succeeds because it asks for information in an incremental way -- members can give as much information as they wish. Marketers will need to find relevant ways to address the situation.

For instance, a marketer could start by establishing a baseline of personalization behavior. Using cookies, the marketer could simply greet identified users with a personal note at the top of the homepage ("Welcome back, Norm"). Many sites already take this step. However, the marketer should also give the user the opportunity to browse anonymously by providing an appropriate link next to the greeting ("Let me browse anonymously").

For visitors who do not reject the greeting, take the next step. When the identified user visits the next time, place a banner or link that invites him or her to see a personalized version of the site. Clicking on the link reveals a version of the same page personalized according to one or two basic variables, such as gender or purchase history. This page should also explain why the page is different and give the user the option to see personalized versions of the site from then on.

As the users become more accustomed to the personalized site, the site owner can add increasingly sophisticated takes on personalization. But to be successful, personalization has to start basic and with user consent. While consumers will someday expect this kind of treatment, they do not expect it yet. But the key is to not let your fear of the issue of consumer privacy keep you from actually doing things that Norm (or your customers) would appreciate, now and in the future.

Marketers who don't make efforts to recognize their best customers in all channels may meet with a fate best described by Norm himself: "It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm wearing Milk-Bone underwear."

Chris Marriott is vice president and global managing director for Acxiom Digital.

 

Comments

Tim Trent
Tim Trent December 11, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Feel free! I'm old enough and ugly enough to take it!

Much better new headline, by the way. Our job is to get marketing and privacy right, not to over nor under react. Privacy is a valuable weapon in deploying marketing well. Make a virtue of protecting my privacy and you might get my business. Ride roughshod over it and there's not a hope in hell.

And that's the point.

Chris Marriott
Chris Marriott December 9, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Hey Tim! Your comment on the headline got me to thinking that maybe it should have been "Privacy: Are We (marketers) Overreacting?" Because THAT'S the real point I was trying to make. Legitimate issues of privacy always need to be respected, but we shouldn't turn every instance of personalization and targeting into a privacy debate. Because that will only keep us from developing better marketing programs!

I'll re-visit your blog and make some snarky comments about your next post!

Chris

Tim Trent
Tim Trent December 9, 2008 at 7:36 AM

Oh it was a friendly savaging :) We each do argue the same side of the coin. I was just so surprised by the headline.

I think the challenge was that the headline achieved making me miss the point. Does that make sense to you?

Do feel 100% free to come back either here or on my blog with a comment. I never censor. Well except the weird person who is using my blog as a link farm at present. That will go!

Chris Marriott
Chris Marriott December 8, 2008 at 4:18 PM

Tim,

I read your blog response to this article. I think you missed the point I was making--which means perhaps I didn't make it well enough. The central premise of my article is that marketers should not be leery of using the same data in the online world that the have been using in offline channels for years. Consumers don't consider direct mail an invasion of privacy (even if they do consider it a bother). Why shouldn't a company's web site--or even its disply advertising--leverage same same knowledge and, in combination with customer recognition tools, provide a more personalized web experience.

I'm all for permission-based marketing in push channels. My article is about pull channels. Anyway, thanks for your feedback. I've never been "savaged" on a blog before!

Chris

Tim Trent
Tim Trent December 8, 2008 at 8:23 AM

I read your headline, Chris. My jaw dropped.

Is Privacy Overrated?

Your whole article argues pro privacy, yet the words you use are against it. So I'm lost. I've penned a reply on my blog. In reality I think we argue the same thing, I'd just like to see much more of the "get permission first" part in your article.