|
I'm a few leagues to the right of Genghis Khan
when it comes to increased government regulation.
I believe that except in a very few cases, it
is counterproductive. The "law of unintended
consequences" so often cited by civil servants
and academics is a poor excuse for weak or bad
analysis. One of the my few pet exceptions is
data protection, where I believe that the spirit
and the letter of the law have both worked to
remedy an enormous slackness on the part of
most companies when it comes to the gathering,
maintenance and disposal of customer data.
However, there is still some way to go before we reach the
nirvana of customers routinely maintaining their own data for use or particular
companies where they have a strong interest in the world having an updated view
of who they are and what they want to do. I eagerly await the emergence of a world
in which this becomes the norm, using the Internet.
At the other extreme is the
paranoid lunacy of anti-money laundering regulation,
where it seems that one has to prove one's identity
to all parties in a transaction (e.g. a house
purchase), irrespective of whether they need
to know in order to protect their own interests,
or whether the sums and/or transactions concerned
are likely to be used for money-laundering.
The general climate of concern
about security and individual rights has also
had the effect of inducing fear and lack of
confidence in marketers. Afraid of being non-compliant,
they sometimes refuse to use data in ways in
which they are clearly entitled to do so, and
where customers would want to do so. In some
cases, this is caused because companies have
planned data collection badly. For example,
when opening an account, customers should be
asked to nominate a "significant other"
with the right to confirm transactions and terminate
accounts, because so often the failure to be
able to delegate causes customers problems,
except on the Internet where they can assume
the other's persona provided they have the codes.
Not a secure practice, but induced by failure
to anticipate requirements to access data.
Customers themselves seem
to becoming more aware of how they can prevent
misuse of their data - the high level of opt
outs and registering with preference services
indicates this. Media-fed paranoia about what
is done with, for example, credit card and loyalty
card data occasionally can cause slightly more
extreme behaviour, much to the delight of single-issue
privacy fanatics. The good news is that this
only has a marginal effect, and most customers
realise that if they want to do business with
a (usually) large organisation, they need to
give it some data - but they might also be advised
to check how well the organisation uses it,
whether in terms of protecting their privacy
or in terms of making more relevant and timely
offers.
About the author
Professor Merlin Stone FCIM FIDM is Business
Research Leader at IBM Business Consulting Services,
IBM UK Ltd. E-mail: merlin_stone@uk.ibm.com
|
