Now you see me...

So when you go to a doctor, they want to know everything about your health and lifestyle. Why? The argument goes like this -- it gives them the big picture and helps them make the right decisions. Though you may feel uncomfortable revealing details, you end up doing so more often than not....

Now, here is another situation. In any increasingly connected world, marketers want to know everything about you... everything. You. Your personality. Your Likes and Dislikes. Your Family and Friends. Everything. Why? The argument goes like this -- it gives them the big picture and helps them make the right decisions. Though you may feel uncomfortable revealing details, you end up doing so more often than not....

So what has changed? Most people would say that in the first case with doctors, the revelations are useful for your health and well-being. So they are perfectly acceptable. But, in the second case, most people would say that "knowing me" is exploitative and "commercial". Okay, so 'exploitative' may be a bit harsh. But the reality is, in most cases, information about you is being churned to sell you something -- that dress, that car, that house, that insurance policy, that job, and everything else that is so essential to realizing that wonderful American dream.

So what is the key issue here --
1. The act of data collection itself? 
2. The purpose of data collection?
3. Who is collecting the data? 
4. How the data is being used?

Before delving into the ethics debate, I want to understand the stigma associated with data collection. By now, pretty much everyone understands that some sort of data is being collected on them at every point in their life. Some of that data may be benign -- he or she brought a can of Coke or Pepsi at the store across the street, or it may be much more revealing -- he or she is suffering from mental illness based on prescription drugs they got. 

Without any supporting facts or research, I will go out on a limb here and make the following arguments --
1. "Not impressed" Most people are aware that data is collected. They may resent it, but are willing to live with it. It is definitely annoying just like the house fly buzzing around, but you are not going to run for your life because of it.
2. The purpose plays a major role. Most people are okay when data is being collected for medical or security purposes. But if it is to spy on you or track you, they want none of it.
3. If it is some legitimate institution such as hospitals, banks, insurance, government, census etc people are okay to varying extents. But when it comes to private businesses whose sole task is to make money by selling you "stuff", they are not happy.
4. Finally, the "how" -- strategies, actions, consequences, and perceptions. If the actions are very intrusive, then it is something that drives strong opposition. For example, Target discovered a girl's pregnancy before her family did. 

So we have four variables. For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that act of collecting data is perfectly legal and permissible under societal norms and that it is being done by an agency with valid credentials such as a recognized business or private entity. 

That leaves us with two variables now -- "the purpose" and "the how". Those in favor of the data collection may state that knowing more about the customer allows the business to make better recommendations, provide services at a fair and acceptable price, and eventually manifests itself into an effective marketplace. That it is a win-win for both the businesses and customers. 

Furthermore, they would state that most of the data out there is today supplied by customers themselves. Many teenagers have no qualms in signing up for discounts and services as long as their friends are with them, rarely giving a moment's thought that they are sharing their data. People complain about Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media and how they are collecting and sharing data. Well, to be fair to these businesses, they did not compel any of these people to join them in the first place. They made a perfectly valid value proposition -- ability to share and enjoy virtually -- and most people bought it. Yes, if it is proven beyond doubt that such businesses gave them assurances on what data is collected and how it being used only to unilaterally change these policies later, then that invalidates this argument of the supporters.

The other arguments that supporters may make is that such data is being used only for business and not for "spying on your life". This is the motive argument. Well, the question is who is validating this promise? When there were reports that Google was reading your emails, many people were angry. Even when the company assured its users that no human was reading them, people were not satisfied. Consumers wanted to know -- is reading my private email really necessary for Google to sell ads? Am I as a consumer going to really being immensely benefited by seeing those customized ads? Well this flies straight into the "win-win" situation theory. Google may sell more ads and make more money, but on average, it would not appear that consumers benefit from this. Does Google really need to read through those emails? Isn't everything else that we do on Google properties enough?

Now you see me. One of the fundamental premises of marketers' argument is that knowing more helps them make recommendations that will benefit the consumer. Question is, is that really the case? Does knowing more and more lead automatically to better products, services, prices, and business models? Do we know that for sure? In the movie Now You See Me, Jesse Eisenberg's character proclaims "The closer you look, the less you see." Interesting no? A few days back, I was joking with my friend. I asked him "define irony". He did not know what to say. So I joked that while interviewing candidates, businesses give you little data and expect you to answer. They expect to see how you deal with ambiguity. But once you join, all you get is lots and lots of data.... 

Let me introduce you here to Enliken. I do not have any interests in promoting it, but I find their business model fascinating. Enliken.com allows consumers to manage their online data rather than opt out of advertising.

So let's say you as a consumer decide what data may be used by marketers and how. So you as a consumer decide how much you need to be paid for marketers using your data..Now that is interesting isn't it? If consumers are getting paid for their data (which they release themselves), then where is the question of
exploitation? You as a consumer signed up for specific businesses, told them what data they can use, and how they can use it? If you feel so generous, direct that income towards charity. You feel good about controlling your data and its use. Marketers get valid, legal, and curated data that is trustworthy and now with the full assent of the consumers can go full-steam to generate that effective marketplace. This, I feel, is more like a win-win situation.

Closing thoughts..Going back to the case of "the purpose" and "the how". From an ethics perspective within the scope of business, these two are very important. The keen reader may see a vestige of "does the cause justify the means" at play here. Gandhi claimed that the means uplift and reinforce the cause, not the other way around. Modern day marketers could learn something from this. Just because you can collect a lot of data does not necessarily mean you should collect a lot of data. Businesses such as Enliken have demonstrated that you can collect data and use it to generate insight without being surreptitious about it in any way...