NEWS
MY DATA MY GAIN
News 11
Does Data Fragmentation chain us to the Tech Giants?
The legal debate is stuck in the question to whom the ownership right on data should be given (see previous entry).
Meanwhile, economics sees Data just as something that can be traded to produce benefits.
“it does not matter which party receives the initial allocation of property rights. The rights will end up in the hands of the party that attaches the highest value to these resources, provided that transaction costs remain relatively low compared to the value of the right”. (Coarse, 1960)
It is difficult to find a better description of the current situation on data than the one summarized in the previous citation.
The above conclusion led the OECD to argue in favour of open data that are widely accessible by everybody, without restrictions that might hinder access. But Open access does not necessarily mean free access at a zero price. Wide access is ensured when all users can pay their use value to the data owner, provided that there is no possibility for arbitrage and re-sale or re-use between lower and higher-paying users. Since the latter is not true, wide access to data is not possible.
Then we have also the problem of the asymmetry. When consumer trades his/her personal data for information from a service supplier, the opportunity cost of not receiving the information is likely much higher for the consumer than the opportunity cost of not receiving personal data from one additional person for the service provider. As a result, digital platforms or multi-sided markets use their bargaining power to gather and aggregate our data, maximizing their profits from economies scale.
To summarise the current situation:
While this may solve the mechanics of access to data, it does not solve the bargaining mechanics. Data Users may approach the PIMS with a certain offer that may differ for different user segments and these offers may vary in time.
This would result in the need for constant communication between PIMS and each of its members, increasing transaction costs and imposing an obligation on data subjects to review updates, which would soon discourage people from staying on the platform.
The other solution is the one promoted by "My Data My Gain” , based on taking advantage of the interaction between the Data Subjects and the Data User to facilitate the exchange of Personal Data for a certain price during a certain period of time.
Many may say that this approach will not be able to compete, as data only become relevant when it is gathered and aggregated on a large scale and only then generates the cash flow to invest in platforms and algorithms.
But there is a new kid in town. Customer Data Platforms have revolutionised the MarkTech and are now able to provide Personal Data insight and analysis at prices that are affordable even for small businesses.
And this new technology is benefiting from the other question that many companies are asking themselves: What is the point of spending so much in data to access potential customers instead of directly obtaining data of our existing customers?
Or in marketing language: What is the point in further increasing Customer Acquisition Cost rather than investing in extending Lifetime Value of the Customer?
If the cost of managing customer data is now reasonable and companies can further develop their relationship with customers by getting to know them better, then why not go down that path? Also, if data can be obtained directly from customers resulting in a picture much more closer to their 360º profile, then why continue to rely on expensive partial data from 3rd parties and/or biased analytics?
The two points above raise an interesting question: If segmentation is the goose that lays the golden eggs, is the fragmentation of data subjects really an obstacle?
"My Data My Gain” initiative aims to close this gap by empowering individuals to directly manage and monetise their Personal Data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share on ‘standard data sharing terms’ under GDPR, enabling companies to access 1st party data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time, for a certain price.
"My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
(image courtesy of CharmLab)
The legal debate is stuck in the question to whom the ownership right on data should be given (see previous entry).
Meanwhile, economics sees Data just as something that can be traded to produce benefits.
“it does not matter which party receives the initial allocation of property rights. The rights will end up in the hands of the party that attaches the highest value to these resources, provided that transaction costs remain relatively low compared to the value of the right”. (Coarse, 1960)
It is difficult to find a better description of the current situation on data than the one summarized in the previous citation.
The above conclusion led the OECD to argue in favour of open data that are widely accessible by everybody, without restrictions that might hinder access. But Open access does not necessarily mean free access at a zero price. Wide access is ensured when all users can pay their use value to the data owner, provided that there is no possibility for arbitrage and re-sale or re-use between lower and higher-paying users. Since the latter is not true, wide access to data is not possible.
Then we have also the problem of the asymmetry. When consumer trades his/her personal data for information from a service supplier, the opportunity cost of not receiving the information is likely much higher for the consumer than the opportunity cost of not receiving personal data from one additional person for the service provider. As a result, digital platforms or multi-sided markets use their bargaining power to gather and aggregate our data, maximizing their profits from economies scale.
To summarise the current situation:
- The Tech Giants benefit from the fragmentation of the data subjects to set very low cost transactions that are tiny when compared to the value of the right to use the data.
- Large firms have the possibility to arbitrate and re-sale data, limiting wide access to it.
- Tech Giants have a de facto monopoly in the sale of data since they leverage on economies of scale to deliver the segmentation analysis sought after by Data Users.
While this may solve the mechanics of access to data, it does not solve the bargaining mechanics. Data Users may approach the PIMS with a certain offer that may differ for different user segments and these offers may vary in time.
This would result in the need for constant communication between PIMS and each of its members, increasing transaction costs and imposing an obligation on data subjects to review updates, which would soon discourage people from staying on the platform.
The other solution is the one promoted by "My Data My Gain” , based on taking advantage of the interaction between the Data Subjects and the Data User to facilitate the exchange of Personal Data for a certain price during a certain period of time.
Many may say that this approach will not be able to compete, as data only become relevant when it is gathered and aggregated on a large scale and only then generates the cash flow to invest in platforms and algorithms.
But there is a new kid in town. Customer Data Platforms have revolutionised the MarkTech and are now able to provide Personal Data insight and analysis at prices that are affordable even for small businesses.
And this new technology is benefiting from the other question that many companies are asking themselves: What is the point of spending so much in data to access potential customers instead of directly obtaining data of our existing customers?
Or in marketing language: What is the point in further increasing Customer Acquisition Cost rather than investing in extending Lifetime Value of the Customer?
If the cost of managing customer data is now reasonable and companies can further develop their relationship with customers by getting to know them better, then why not go down that path? Also, if data can be obtained directly from customers resulting in a picture much more closer to their 360º profile, then why continue to rely on expensive partial data from 3rd parties and/or biased analytics?
The two points above raise an interesting question: If segmentation is the goose that lays the golden eggs, is the fragmentation of data subjects really an obstacle?
"My Data My Gain” initiative aims to close this gap by empowering individuals to directly manage and monetise their Personal Data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share on ‘standard data sharing terms’ under GDPR, enabling companies to access 1st party data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time, for a certain price.
"My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
(image courtesy of CharmLab)
News 10
"My Data My Gain”, another form of #MyData
A new white paper from #MyData has been issued, addressing both the current state of personal data uses and their management and the proposed model to deal with the two opposite forces that rule it: Data utilisation vs Data privacy.
#MyData proposed model “strikes a balance between these two forces by bringing the two perspectives on an equal footing”.
"This is achieved by providing people with opportunities to utilise the data collected about them by companies as well as the ways and means to control how data is collected, processed, utilised and further shared."
The #MyData approach "is a way to address this imbalance of power by placing people in the centre of the data about themselves and thus shift the current paradigm, and the organisations operating within it, to better serve people and societies."
The paper includes a very good answer to one fundamental question: "Can data be owned? As a general rule, information or data are not subject to exclusive rights, no one owns data.” However, there are other data rights that “are usually negative rights, i.e., they oblige inaction on the part of others. Through the exercise of such rights, the availability of and control over data can be limited so that, practically, only few parties have the opportunity to utilise it.”
The core of the discussion is that “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her” as it is set forth in article 8 of the Charter Of Fundamental Rights of The European Union (interestingly, it goes before freedom of marriage -art 9- , freedom of thought or religion -art 10- , or freedom of expression and information. -art 11).
Thus “exercising control over the data collected about oneself starts with being made aware of the nature and extent to which personal data about them is being collected”. Specifically, “A person can benefit from this data by using it flexibly for purposes they themselves define. In practice, this can be done by permission the re-use of personal data and sharing data between services according to a person’s own needs and wishes”
The "My Data My Gain” initiative fully concurs with all the principles and objectives described above and which are discussed in depth in the #MyData report (See link). It only differs in the path to implement and achieve those objectives.
Whilst #MyData advocates the promotion of API, Platforms and Operators Models, we at "My Data My Gain” believe that individuals should be able to control and manage their personal data in a simple way that does not require a complete transformation of the ecosystem.
By making their personal data available to data subjects, and by implementing a clear, user-friendly and straightforward data monetisation system, individuals will be prompted to appreciate the value of their data, and will get used to managing it on a regular basis (as we regularly manage our bank accounts).
Summarizing our views:
The "My Data My Gain” initiative aims to close this gap implementing direct monetization of personal data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share certain data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time.
With standard data sharing terms that enable individuals to monetise personal data for a specific use over a given time, the initiative achieves the following goals:
a) It shows individuals the value of their data and makes it a habit to manage it, monetizing it when convenient and keeping it safe altogether.
b) It breaks the dependency of businesses from the Tech Giants to obtain their customers' personal data, enabling businesses to obtain data directly (1st party data).
Businesses could build their own analysis with this data, and although they cannot resell individual personal data to third parties, they would still have room to increase productivity and sales based on first-hand customer data.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, leading to a more competitive, efficient and secure online environment.
"My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
A new white paper from #MyData has been issued, addressing both the current state of personal data uses and their management and the proposed model to deal with the two opposite forces that rule it: Data utilisation vs Data privacy.
#MyData proposed model “strikes a balance between these two forces by bringing the two perspectives on an equal footing”.
"This is achieved by providing people with opportunities to utilise the data collected about them by companies as well as the ways and means to control how data is collected, processed, utilised and further shared."
The #MyData approach "is a way to address this imbalance of power by placing people in the centre of the data about themselves and thus shift the current paradigm, and the organisations operating within it, to better serve people and societies."
The paper includes a very good answer to one fundamental question: "Can data be owned? As a general rule, information or data are not subject to exclusive rights, no one owns data.” However, there are other data rights that “are usually negative rights, i.e., they oblige inaction on the part of others. Through the exercise of such rights, the availability of and control over data can be limited so that, practically, only few parties have the opportunity to utilise it.”
The core of the discussion is that “Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her” as it is set forth in article 8 of the Charter Of Fundamental Rights of The European Union (interestingly, it goes before freedom of marriage -art 9- , freedom of thought or religion -art 10- , or freedom of expression and information. -art 11).
Thus “exercising control over the data collected about oneself starts with being made aware of the nature and extent to which personal data about them is being collected”. Specifically, “A person can benefit from this data by using it flexibly for purposes they themselves define. In practice, this can be done by permission the re-use of personal data and sharing data between services according to a person’s own needs and wishes”
The "My Data My Gain” initiative fully concurs with all the principles and objectives described above and which are discussed in depth in the #MyData report (See link). It only differs in the path to implement and achieve those objectives.
Whilst #MyData advocates the promotion of API, Platforms and Operators Models, we at "My Data My Gain” believe that individuals should be able to control and manage their personal data in a simple way that does not require a complete transformation of the ecosystem.
By making their personal data available to data subjects, and by implementing a clear, user-friendly and straightforward data monetisation system, individuals will be prompted to appreciate the value of their data, and will get used to managing it on a regular basis (as we regularly manage our bank accounts).
Summarizing our views:
The "My Data My Gain” initiative aims to close this gap implementing direct monetization of personal data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share certain data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time.
With standard data sharing terms that enable individuals to monetise personal data for a specific use over a given time, the initiative achieves the following goals:
a) It shows individuals the value of their data and makes it a habit to manage it, monetizing it when convenient and keeping it safe altogether.
b) It breaks the dependency of businesses from the Tech Giants to obtain their customers' personal data, enabling businesses to obtain data directly (1st party data).
Businesses could build their own analysis with this data, and although they cannot resell individual personal data to third parties, they would still have room to increase productivity and sales based on first-hand customer data.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, leading to a more competitive, efficient and secure online environment.
"My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
News 09
They'll spy on you whenever they can.
Several European countries are developing government-sponsored COVID19 tracking apps to enable close monitoring of patient contacts and people who test positive.
The WSJ article "European Contact-Tracing Apps Stumble on Privacy Concerns Glitches" reviews the privacy issues that have been identified in the implementation of such apps, and how the process has been frozen in several countries due to privacy concerns.
These concerns range, among others, from the lack of definition of who is in charge and responsible for the data collected and the management of the tool, to operational issues such as the App sharing the positive status of COVID19 with all contacts - rather than just those who were physically close.
As a result, the apps have not been fully implemented in most countries, leading to a wave of criticism of organizations that point to these privacy concerns as "privacy talibans" that subordinate people's well-being to privacy.
But then, the news came out: "Researchers at Trinity College Dublin say Google-Apple's widely used technology may be problematic for privacy. For example, software developed by the tech giants often sends personal data (email address, etc.) of apps users and information about their device to Google Play Services (See Dr. Leith full report).
Hence, even under the pressure of the urgent need for measures to contain a disease that has already infected 21.8 million people, the institutions of the European Union have taken the time to explore the privacy implications of these much-needed government-sponsored apps and have identified their shortcomings in the protection of individuals.
So what about the rest of the regular apps? Who's going to monitor their privacy implications? Of course, there are the EU Data Protection Supervisor and the national Data Protection Authorities. But these institutions, in most cases, will only be able to act "ex-post", when the violation of privacy has already occurred.
The key point, then, is how to prompt and motivate individuals to take care of their privacy ex-ante, and to avoid the privacy traps and tricks to which we are exposed on a daily basis.
We know that this is a difficult issue because we know that no one reads privacy notices, terms of use, etc.
Likewise, no one is considering carefully what they are giving when they consent, as required by GDPR, to a certain use of their data. And no one is doing so because it is almost impossible to assess the value of our own personal data.
The "My Data My Gain" initiative aims to close this gap by means of direct monetization of personal data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share certain data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time.
With standard data sharing terms that enable individuals to monetise personal data for a specific use over a given time, the initiative achieves the following goals:
a) It shows individuals the value of their data and makes it a habit to manage it, monetizing it when convenient and keeping it safe altogether.
b) It breaks the dependency of businesses from the Tech Giants to obtain their customers' personal data, enabling businesses to obtain data directly (1st party data).
Businesses could build their own analysis with this data, and although they cannot resell individual personal data to third parties, they would still have room to increase productivity and sales based on first-hand customer data.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, leading to a more competitive, efficient and secure online environment.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
Several European countries are developing government-sponsored COVID19 tracking apps to enable close monitoring of patient contacts and people who test positive.
The WSJ article "European Contact-Tracing Apps Stumble on Privacy Concerns Glitches" reviews the privacy issues that have been identified in the implementation of such apps, and how the process has been frozen in several countries due to privacy concerns.
These concerns range, among others, from the lack of definition of who is in charge and responsible for the data collected and the management of the tool, to operational issues such as the App sharing the positive status of COVID19 with all contacts - rather than just those who were physically close.
As a result, the apps have not been fully implemented in most countries, leading to a wave of criticism of organizations that point to these privacy concerns as "privacy talibans" that subordinate people's well-being to privacy.
But then, the news came out: "Researchers at Trinity College Dublin say Google-Apple's widely used technology may be problematic for privacy. For example, software developed by the tech giants often sends personal data (email address, etc.) of apps users and information about their device to Google Play Services (See Dr. Leith full report).
Hence, even under the pressure of the urgent need for measures to contain a disease that has already infected 21.8 million people, the institutions of the European Union have taken the time to explore the privacy implications of these much-needed government-sponsored apps and have identified their shortcomings in the protection of individuals.
So what about the rest of the regular apps? Who's going to monitor their privacy implications? Of course, there are the EU Data Protection Supervisor and the national Data Protection Authorities. But these institutions, in most cases, will only be able to act "ex-post", when the violation of privacy has already occurred.
The key point, then, is how to prompt and motivate individuals to take care of their privacy ex-ante, and to avoid the privacy traps and tricks to which we are exposed on a daily basis.
We know that this is a difficult issue because we know that no one reads privacy notices, terms of use, etc.
Likewise, no one is considering carefully what they are giving when they consent, as required by GDPR, to a certain use of their data. And no one is doing so because it is almost impossible to assess the value of our own personal data.
The "My Data My Gain" initiative aims to close this gap by means of direct monetization of personal data based on GDPR Purpose Limitation, whereby customers can share certain data for a certain purpose over a certain period of time.
With standard data sharing terms that enable individuals to monetise personal data for a specific use over a given time, the initiative achieves the following goals:
a) It shows individuals the value of their data and makes it a habit to manage it, monetizing it when convenient and keeping it safe altogether.
b) It breaks the dependency of businesses from the Tech Giants to obtain their customers' personal data, enabling businesses to obtain data directly (1st party data).
Businesses could build their own analysis with this data, and although they cannot resell individual personal data to third parties, they would still have room to increase productivity and sales based on first-hand customer data.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, leading to a more competitive, efficient and secure online environment.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
News 08
With GDPR, data monetisation is good for individuals and companies.
A fantastic online conversation with Harvard Scholar Shoshana Zuboff and Centre for Digital Rights founder Jim Balsillie summarizes the current state of our societies regarding Personal Data, where we are now and how we got here.
Prof. Shoshana Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as a new economic logic where the “unilateral claiming of private human experience could be identified and claimed as zero cost asset that could then then taken into the market dynamic and translated into behavioural data. Those behavioural data are immediately labelled as proprietary”.
It is an extraction operation, and “they have perfected their rhetorical strategy in the last two decades and this can be summarized as the art and science of gaslighting. They are continuously having ways to persuade us that they are innovative but in fact they have essentially snuffed out innovation in the internet and the overall economy.”
Because in the end, as Professor Zuboff says, “tech giants are not innovators... They are not generators", they are just extractors", as all middlemen are.
Professor Zuboff then addresses the concept of Data Ownership, a topic that lies at the core of the "My Data My Gain" initiative.
She claims that Data Ownership is another form of gaslighting, as the technology giants anticipate that "promoting some sort of regulation that allows for Data Monetization" will enable them to distribute micropayments for the data we share, knowing that the data we share is a tiny part of the data they take.
From our point of view, it is a logical claim in the US but it does not reflect European reality.
To begin with, GDPR states that the protection of ALL personal information is a fundamental right. Therefore, it is not about "some kind of data regulation" to give the Tech Giants a chance to get their way. It is a law that places the protection of the individual front and centre.
The main problem for GDPR implementation is that the decision to share or not the data requires a specific consent. But as we know, consent management is a barrier, as it is often difficult for individuals to fully understand it and is a burden for companies to process and manage. However, GDPR has many built-in instruments that are ready to be developed and implemented, such as purpose limitation, the "right to be forgotten" and the right to object automated decisions, including profiling.
These are precisely the kind of comprehensive laws and ad-hoc enforcement tools that Prof. Zuboff advocates; the "protective cloth that will shield us from the violent winds of this digital 21st century".
The ideal advocated by Prof. Zuboff, that anyone should be able to decide when and what to share with whom, requires a learning process. To this end, individuals must learn to use these and other GDPR tools and move beyond their current "learning helplessness" described by Jim Balsillie in the same video. Therefore, there should be a motivation for this learning process and something to drive it. We believe that people are more likely to use these tools as long as there is something clear, material and immediate to be gained on the spot.
And once individuals learn to manage their data on a regular basis, they will better understand why and how to restrict some of it, moving it from the "zero cost assets" status described in the video to valuable assets. It is a process that can only go in this direction.
But if one side of the coin represents the protection of individuals, the other side refers to the protection of businesses.
As Prof. Zuboff states, the chase and hunt for data is "now travelling to the normal economy, there is no sector that is not chasing the surveillance dividend".
The normal economy is fed mainly -if not only- by the behavioural data managed and supplied by the Tech Giant oligopoly. So one way to break that oligopoly and reduce its power is to allow the mainstream business to manage and access customer data directly. Customer Data Platforms make this possible at a very reasonable cost, but currently companies seldom have a way to get enough of their customers' data to feed these platforms and they are left with no choice but to deal with the Tech Giants to get them.
Direct monetization of personal data based on the GDPR Purpose Limitation solves this problem. Customers can share certain data, for a certain purpose only, for a certain period of time. While companies could build their own analysis with this data, they could not resell individual personal data to third parties. The aforementioned right to object profiling is a major safeguard to protect individuals, but still leaves room for companies to increase productivity and sales based on first-party personal data.
This is the "My Data My Gain" model. It shows individuals the value on their personal data by enabling them to use and monetise it within the limits they choose... ...and enables companies to interact directly with their customers without relying on the intermediation of the Tech Giants.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, resulting in more competitive, efficient and safe online landscape.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
(image courtesy of HowMuch.net)
A fantastic online conversation with Harvard Scholar Shoshana Zuboff and Centre for Digital Rights founder Jim Balsillie summarizes the current state of our societies regarding Personal Data, where we are now and how we got here.
Prof. Shoshana Zuboff defines surveillance capitalism as a new economic logic where the “unilateral claiming of private human experience could be identified and claimed as zero cost asset that could then then taken into the market dynamic and translated into behavioural data. Those behavioural data are immediately labelled as proprietary”.
It is an extraction operation, and “they have perfected their rhetorical strategy in the last two decades and this can be summarized as the art and science of gaslighting. They are continuously having ways to persuade us that they are innovative but in fact they have essentially snuffed out innovation in the internet and the overall economy.”
Because in the end, as Professor Zuboff says, “tech giants are not innovators... They are not generators", they are just extractors", as all middlemen are.
Professor Zuboff then addresses the concept of Data Ownership, a topic that lies at the core of the "My Data My Gain" initiative.
She claims that Data Ownership is another form of gaslighting, as the technology giants anticipate that "promoting some sort of regulation that allows for Data Monetization" will enable them to distribute micropayments for the data we share, knowing that the data we share is a tiny part of the data they take.
From our point of view, it is a logical claim in the US but it does not reflect European reality.
To begin with, GDPR states that the protection of ALL personal information is a fundamental right. Therefore, it is not about "some kind of data regulation" to give the Tech Giants a chance to get their way. It is a law that places the protection of the individual front and centre.
The main problem for GDPR implementation is that the decision to share or not the data requires a specific consent. But as we know, consent management is a barrier, as it is often difficult for individuals to fully understand it and is a burden for companies to process and manage. However, GDPR has many built-in instruments that are ready to be developed and implemented, such as purpose limitation, the "right to be forgotten" and the right to object automated decisions, including profiling.
These are precisely the kind of comprehensive laws and ad-hoc enforcement tools that Prof. Zuboff advocates; the "protective cloth that will shield us from the violent winds of this digital 21st century".
The ideal advocated by Prof. Zuboff, that anyone should be able to decide when and what to share with whom, requires a learning process. To this end, individuals must learn to use these and other GDPR tools and move beyond their current "learning helplessness" described by Jim Balsillie in the same video. Therefore, there should be a motivation for this learning process and something to drive it. We believe that people are more likely to use these tools as long as there is something clear, material and immediate to be gained on the spot.
And once individuals learn to manage their data on a regular basis, they will better understand why and how to restrict some of it, moving it from the "zero cost assets" status described in the video to valuable assets. It is a process that can only go in this direction.
But if one side of the coin represents the protection of individuals, the other side refers to the protection of businesses.
As Prof. Zuboff states, the chase and hunt for data is "now travelling to the normal economy, there is no sector that is not chasing the surveillance dividend".
The normal economy is fed mainly -if not only- by the behavioural data managed and supplied by the Tech Giant oligopoly. So one way to break that oligopoly and reduce its power is to allow the mainstream business to manage and access customer data directly. Customer Data Platforms make this possible at a very reasonable cost, but currently companies seldom have a way to get enough of their customers' data to feed these platforms and they are left with no choice but to deal with the Tech Giants to get them.
Direct monetization of personal data based on the GDPR Purpose Limitation solves this problem. Customers can share certain data, for a certain purpose only, for a certain period of time. While companies could build their own analysis with this data, they could not resell individual personal data to third parties. The aforementioned right to object profiling is a major safeguard to protect individuals, but still leaves room for companies to increase productivity and sales based on first-party personal data.
This is the "My Data My Gain" model. It shows individuals the value on their personal data by enabling them to use and monetise it within the limits they choose... ...and enables companies to interact directly with their customers without relying on the intermediation of the Tech Giants.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a sound regulatory framework, will not only achieve the protection of individuals and the development of a European data ecosystem, but will also cut the dependence on technology giants, resulting in more competitive, efficient and safe online landscape.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
(image courtesy of HowMuch.net)
News 07
Looked after or come after?
Anyone interested in finding out the extent to which our personal information remains "personal or private" should read Patrick Berlinquette's great 5-part series on "How Google Tracks Your Personal Information”.
Yes, in case you had any doubts, Google not only knows our age, location, average income, property status, but it also knows every search you did, every email you sent, every image you saved, every ad you clicked on, every place you've been in the last year... and even more if you use Google Docs. In addition, Patrick points out that Google gets from others what they can't access directly, and so they paid MasterCard for their credit card database that contains 70% of US credit and debit card transactions.
All that effort in capturing, storing and processing your personal data leads to the click you will make on a certain ad. Marketers will pay increasing amounts of money for that ad that prompts you to click and leads to a purchase. And as explained in the 2nd entry in the series, they will maximize their profits by exploiting your discomfort (those ads you watch when you really need something).
But note that individuals are not the only ones being "hijacked". Businesses that are paying for these ads based on the targeting of Google variables have little real information about what data is behind those variables and what they are ultimately paying for.
In fact, it is increasingly difficult to assess ROI for these ads, as whether or not a purchase is made depends on multiple reasons.
To begin with, there is the overall marketing strategy of the business: Is a click on a particular ad triggered only by the ad itself, or is it the result of the overall marketing strategy applied at multiple touchpoints? If the latter, what is the actual cost of the ad compared to the rest of Customer Acquisition and Retention actions?
Then, there are reasons related to the online store website and transactions, such as when a product/service is perceived as different from the ad once further details are available on the seller's website, when the layout of the page attracts the potential customer to other products, unexpected time and/or cost delivery conditions, etc. These reasons, among others, cause the dreaded shopping cart abandonment syndrome. And if cart abandonment follows a click on an ad, shouldn't the ad be considered to have prompted a failed response that interrupted what was so far a steady path through the "marketing funnel"?
And finally, the process that led us to click on an ad may be based on reasons completely unrelated to a purchase. Simply because Google knows us and is able to prompt us to go to an online store it does not mean that we will buy the advertised item.
Cart abandonment has been steadily increasing over the past 5 years; it was around 70% before the COVID 19 crisis and has only worsened during the pandemic... The average rate in April 2020 was 88%.
This rising figure will progressively lead to the question that many previous online business models have succumbed to: it's great to have traffic, but how do we monetise it?
Online retailers are slowly but steadily shifting towards a re-evaluation: What is the point of spending more and more money on advertising, SEO, etc., to increase traffic and cart filling if it does not increase sales? And if cost of ads is considered, what is the point of reducing gross margins if sales will not increase?
An alternative is to enable retailers to access actual first-party data, i.e. personal data directly from the customer. In the end, no matter how many "potential customers" are pushed towards a store, only those who find what they are looking for will buy. And you can only know what customers are looking for if you engage with them.
In fact, enticing potential customers by offering some sort of benefit for sharing some data for a specific purpose over a period of time is certainly a more transparent way to attract them.
Some may say that we cannot implement a system that leads to the sale of an individual's personal information. As the late Giovanni Buttarelli (former European Data Protection Supervisor) said, "The right to human dignity demands limits to the degree to which an individual can be scanned, monitored and monetised".
But, like it or not, we're already way beyond that point. We are constantly being scanned and our data is captured, sold and resold many times a day because it has a value that can be collected on the spot (if anyone still has doubts, reading the full series mentioned above is a must).
Moreover, the current battle is not limited to companies but also involves governments, and the case of Tik-Tok is proof of this. As Scott Rosemberg states in his article "The US is now playing by China's internet rules": “Today's global internet has split into three zones, the EU's privacy-focused network; China's government-dominated network; and the US-led network dominated by a handful of American companies. TikTok's fate suggests China's model has US fans as well.”
So, rather than fighting reality, we need to shape it to achieve both the protection of individuals and the benefit of our businesses. And there is no better protection than providing individuals with tools to manage and monetise their personal data at will. This approach was addressed in a previous article in this series: "The value of data vs. privacy ... but why not both?"
European data subjects are protected by the GDPR. Yes, it is not perfect; and yes, it is based on consent, which for individuals is often difficult to fully understand and for companies burdensome to process and manage. Still, GDPR has many built-in tools that are ready to be developed and implemented, starting with a real gem like Purpose Limitation. It also includes enhanced tools to protect individuals, such as the “right to be forgotten” and the right to object automated decisions, including profiling.
Individuals will only be willing to learn how to use these and all other GDPR tools as long as there is something clear, material and immediate to gain on the spot.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a strong regulatory framework, will make it possible to achieve not only the protection of individuals and the development of a European ecosystem for data, but also a more competitive and efficient online commerce.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
Anyone interested in finding out the extent to which our personal information remains "personal or private" should read Patrick Berlinquette's great 5-part series on "How Google Tracks Your Personal Information”.
Yes, in case you had any doubts, Google not only knows our age, location, average income, property status, but it also knows every search you did, every email you sent, every image you saved, every ad you clicked on, every place you've been in the last year... and even more if you use Google Docs. In addition, Patrick points out that Google gets from others what they can't access directly, and so they paid MasterCard for their credit card database that contains 70% of US credit and debit card transactions.
All that effort in capturing, storing and processing your personal data leads to the click you will make on a certain ad. Marketers will pay increasing amounts of money for that ad that prompts you to click and leads to a purchase. And as explained in the 2nd entry in the series, they will maximize their profits by exploiting your discomfort (those ads you watch when you really need something).
But note that individuals are not the only ones being "hijacked". Businesses that are paying for these ads based on the targeting of Google variables have little real information about what data is behind those variables and what they are ultimately paying for.
In fact, it is increasingly difficult to assess ROI for these ads, as whether or not a purchase is made depends on multiple reasons.
To begin with, there is the overall marketing strategy of the business: Is a click on a particular ad triggered only by the ad itself, or is it the result of the overall marketing strategy applied at multiple touchpoints? If the latter, what is the actual cost of the ad compared to the rest of Customer Acquisition and Retention actions?
Then, there are reasons related to the online store website and transactions, such as when a product/service is perceived as different from the ad once further details are available on the seller's website, when the layout of the page attracts the potential customer to other products, unexpected time and/or cost delivery conditions, etc. These reasons, among others, cause the dreaded shopping cart abandonment syndrome. And if cart abandonment follows a click on an ad, shouldn't the ad be considered to have prompted a failed response that interrupted what was so far a steady path through the "marketing funnel"?
And finally, the process that led us to click on an ad may be based on reasons completely unrelated to a purchase. Simply because Google knows us and is able to prompt us to go to an online store it does not mean that we will buy the advertised item.
Cart abandonment has been steadily increasing over the past 5 years; it was around 70% before the COVID 19 crisis and has only worsened during the pandemic... The average rate in April 2020 was 88%.
This rising figure will progressively lead to the question that many previous online business models have succumbed to: it's great to have traffic, but how do we monetise it?
Online retailers are slowly but steadily shifting towards a re-evaluation: What is the point of spending more and more money on advertising, SEO, etc., to increase traffic and cart filling if it does not increase sales? And if cost of ads is considered, what is the point of reducing gross margins if sales will not increase?
An alternative is to enable retailers to access actual first-party data, i.e. personal data directly from the customer. In the end, no matter how many "potential customers" are pushed towards a store, only those who find what they are looking for will buy. And you can only know what customers are looking for if you engage with them.
In fact, enticing potential customers by offering some sort of benefit for sharing some data for a specific purpose over a period of time is certainly a more transparent way to attract them.
Some may say that we cannot implement a system that leads to the sale of an individual's personal information. As the late Giovanni Buttarelli (former European Data Protection Supervisor) said, "The right to human dignity demands limits to the degree to which an individual can be scanned, monitored and monetised".
But, like it or not, we're already way beyond that point. We are constantly being scanned and our data is captured, sold and resold many times a day because it has a value that can be collected on the spot (if anyone still has doubts, reading the full series mentioned above is a must).
Moreover, the current battle is not limited to companies but also involves governments, and the case of Tik-Tok is proof of this. As Scott Rosemberg states in his article "The US is now playing by China's internet rules": “Today's global internet has split into three zones, the EU's privacy-focused network; China's government-dominated network; and the US-led network dominated by a handful of American companies. TikTok's fate suggests China's model has US fans as well.”
So, rather than fighting reality, we need to shape it to achieve both the protection of individuals and the benefit of our businesses. And there is no better protection than providing individuals with tools to manage and monetise their personal data at will. This approach was addressed in a previous article in this series: "The value of data vs. privacy ... but why not both?"
European data subjects are protected by the GDPR. Yes, it is not perfect; and yes, it is based on consent, which for individuals is often difficult to fully understand and for companies burdensome to process and manage. Still, GDPR has many built-in tools that are ready to be developed and implemented, starting with a real gem like Purpose Limitation. It also includes enhanced tools to protect individuals, such as the “right to be forgotten” and the right to object automated decisions, including profiling.
Individuals will only be willing to learn how to use these and all other GDPR tools as long as there is something clear, material and immediate to gain on the spot.
The monetisation of personal data, subject to a strong regulatory framework, will make it possible to achieve not only the protection of individuals and the development of a European ecosystem for data, but also a more competitive and efficient online commerce.
“My Data My Gain” will provide tools to pursue these goals. Soon.
News 06
Useless, Worthless or Priceless?
The enormous amount of information thrown around every day exposes us to the relentless battle for our attention. IT giants, the media and many others are pouring increasing amounts of money into taking a beat out of our time, designing tools and systems to keep us hooked on our screens.
To such an extent that the expression "you can't see the wood for the trees" is our daily reality, requiring our personal effort and discipline to avoid distractions and get to see the big picture.
So what is the reality? The reality is that last year, 85% of Google's US$136 bn revenue and 98.5% of Facebook's US$55.8 bn came from advertising. Not from the classic advertising approach like a billboard in a stadium or in a trade magazine or a standard TV ad. No, it came from ads targeting increasingly narrow market niches, based on the thorough capture of users’ personal and behavioural data.
In short, we - the users - were the product for sale.
Let's take Facebook. The average revenue per user is estimated at US$35. But if we consider a geographical breakdown by users and income, we'll see that each American user generates US$160 per year and each European user US$30. Or take Tinder, whose 59 million users generated US$2.1 billion, an additional US$35 per user per year.
If we add the income per user of all the platforms we use "for free", we would be surprised to know that the sum is not counted in hundreds but in thousands. And it will only grow!
This is why we now have more than one battle front in the field of personal data.
The first is related to third party cookies. These allow cross-site tracking that captures users' personal information to optimize targeted advertising. After Firefox began banning cookies to protect users' privacy, Safari and now Google are taking steps to follow suit. It is said, though, that Safari and Google's motives are not so much to enhance user privacy as to close down third-party access to their users, or if you wish, to protect their turf.
The second relates to data sovereignty. GDPR's main objective was to set the protection of each individual's personal data as a fundamental right. But, by setting that fundamental right to privacy, GDPR also sets an economic right that enables individuals to capture and manage the value of their data in the same way as they would do with any other asset.
The European Court of Justice's "Schrems II" ruling, which last week cancelled the Privacy Shield Agreement allowing the export of data from the EU to the US, is based on the right to privacy and the protection of individual rights. But it will also have huge economic implications.
On the one hand, it affects 5300 large companies that base a significant part of their business on data going to and from the EU to the US. (For those interested in the general implications, there are many webinars. Those of FPF and/or IAPP are particularly good).
But on the other hand, it strengthens the right of EU data subjects to decide what to do with their personal data, including how to monetise them.
All the above and what is to come will allow us to manage our personal data properly. Indeed, just as we manage our credit cards and bank accounts, taking care of our balance and trying to make the best use of our money, we will soon manage our data as well, keeping it safe, monetizing it when convenient and, above all, making far better use of our personal information.
And “My Data My Gain” will make it easy for you. Soon.
The enormous amount of information thrown around every day exposes us to the relentless battle for our attention. IT giants, the media and many others are pouring increasing amounts of money into taking a beat out of our time, designing tools and systems to keep us hooked on our screens.
To such an extent that the expression "you can't see the wood for the trees" is our daily reality, requiring our personal effort and discipline to avoid distractions and get to see the big picture.
So what is the reality? The reality is that last year, 85% of Google's US$136 bn revenue and 98.5% of Facebook's US$55.8 bn came from advertising. Not from the classic advertising approach like a billboard in a stadium or in a trade magazine or a standard TV ad. No, it came from ads targeting increasingly narrow market niches, based on the thorough capture of users’ personal and behavioural data.
In short, we - the users - were the product for sale.
Let's take Facebook. The average revenue per user is estimated at US$35. But if we consider a geographical breakdown by users and income, we'll see that each American user generates US$160 per year and each European user US$30. Or take Tinder, whose 59 million users generated US$2.1 billion, an additional US$35 per user per year.
If we add the income per user of all the platforms we use "for free", we would be surprised to know that the sum is not counted in hundreds but in thousands. And it will only grow!
This is why we now have more than one battle front in the field of personal data.
The first is related to third party cookies. These allow cross-site tracking that captures users' personal information to optimize targeted advertising. After Firefox began banning cookies to protect users' privacy, Safari and now Google are taking steps to follow suit. It is said, though, that Safari and Google's motives are not so much to enhance user privacy as to close down third-party access to their users, or if you wish, to protect their turf.
The second relates to data sovereignty. GDPR's main objective was to set the protection of each individual's personal data as a fundamental right. But, by setting that fundamental right to privacy, GDPR also sets an economic right that enables individuals to capture and manage the value of their data in the same way as they would do with any other asset.
The European Court of Justice's "Schrems II" ruling, which last week cancelled the Privacy Shield Agreement allowing the export of data from the EU to the US, is based on the right to privacy and the protection of individual rights. But it will also have huge economic implications.
On the one hand, it affects 5300 large companies that base a significant part of their business on data going to and from the EU to the US. (For those interested in the general implications, there are many webinars. Those of FPF and/or IAPP are particularly good).
But on the other hand, it strengthens the right of EU data subjects to decide what to do with their personal data, including how to monetise them.
All the above and what is to come will allow us to manage our personal data properly. Indeed, just as we manage our credit cards and bank accounts, taking care of our balance and trying to make the best use of our money, we will soon manage our data as well, keeping it safe, monetizing it when convenient and, above all, making far better use of our personal information.
And “My Data My Gain” will make it easy for you. Soon.
News 05
Your data: Do not forget the basics
It is worth revisiting well-known topics and issues to shed light on matters we should never forget.
When social media platforms invest in marketing to better sell to businesses, the obvious question is what are they selling? And the obvious answer is that we, the users, are the product. And it's important to understand how this approach completely flips the business model.
In any other sector, whether they sell bicycles or software, cars or advertising space, companies invest in finding out what the public wants, designing and developing a solution for a particular demand, producing and delivering that solution, creating awareness and boosting sales through advertising. Regardless of the sector or activity, companies incur the risks of investing in Design and Development; Production and Logistics; Marketing and Sales.
All activities are necessary and all actors get their cut.
Now take the IT giants. Yes, they invested in platforms, they offer services that we all want (web searches, contacts and so on) and they find ways to sell advertising space to many companies that want to sell us stuff.
But they are not only selling advertising space. They are also selling our data (originally a by-product, now the core-product), acquired at no cost. In other words, we are working for them in exchange for crumbs, those small services that we believe we cannot live without.
Don't mistake this for a manifesto or whatever ideological approach. On the contrary, it's just to remind you of the basics:
Your data are yours. You are giving your data out for free. By all means, you can enjoy the services AND get your cut. No more, no less.
And "My Data, My Gain" initiative is working to make that happen. Soon.
PS: This week, a European Court of Justice ruling has cancelled the Privacy Shield agreement that allowed the transit of data between the EU and the US.
In a nutshell, it requires that the GDPR be fully applied to any export of data with the instruments that the GDPR sets: Standard Contractual Clauses (subject to the verification of their validity); Binding Corporate Rules and Codes of Conduct. No more shortcuts, no more wildcards.
EU Court is protecting us and the value of our data. It is about time each of us follow suit.
It is worth revisiting well-known topics and issues to shed light on matters we should never forget.
When social media platforms invest in marketing to better sell to businesses, the obvious question is what are they selling? And the obvious answer is that we, the users, are the product. And it's important to understand how this approach completely flips the business model.
In any other sector, whether they sell bicycles or software, cars or advertising space, companies invest in finding out what the public wants, designing and developing a solution for a particular demand, producing and delivering that solution, creating awareness and boosting sales through advertising. Regardless of the sector or activity, companies incur the risks of investing in Design and Development; Production and Logistics; Marketing and Sales.
All activities are necessary and all actors get their cut.
Now take the IT giants. Yes, they invested in platforms, they offer services that we all want (web searches, contacts and so on) and they find ways to sell advertising space to many companies that want to sell us stuff.
But they are not only selling advertising space. They are also selling our data (originally a by-product, now the core-product), acquired at no cost. In other words, we are working for them in exchange for crumbs, those small services that we believe we cannot live without.
Don't mistake this for a manifesto or whatever ideological approach. On the contrary, it's just to remind you of the basics:
Your data are yours. You are giving your data out for free. By all means, you can enjoy the services AND get your cut. No more, no less.
And "My Data, My Gain" initiative is working to make that happen. Soon.
PS: This week, a European Court of Justice ruling has cancelled the Privacy Shield agreement that allowed the transit of data between the EU and the US.
In a nutshell, it requires that the GDPR be fully applied to any export of data with the instruments that the GDPR sets: Standard Contractual Clauses (subject to the verification of their validity); Binding Corporate Rules and Codes of Conduct. No more shortcuts, no more wildcards.
EU Court is protecting us and the value of our data. It is about time each of us follow suit.
News 04
Value of Data vs Privacy…. But, why not both?
The big question is whether individuals can assess how their personal data will be used. In fact, it is very difficult for any non-specialist to understand present and future uses of certain data.
Therefore, without a clear definition of the future use of the data, how can one know: a) its monetary value and b) how its future use will affect privacy.
In response to the latter, the GDPR came into force two years ago. Although with certain shortcomings, in particular its application based on "consent": the user can click on "accept" and continue without reading the privacy notice (see mechanical proceduralism, a term that defines what we all do every day). As a result, consent works on paper but shows practical limitations.
Still, the GDPR is a game changer that benefits our lives, establishing that personal data is a fundamental right of individuals that must be protected. This principle is being incorporated into legislation around the world. Even the U.S. is reconsidering its view of data and we are evolving from a law to protect consumers (such as the CCPA) to the draft of new civil rights-based Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020.
And then there is the other angle: If data has value, how can the person who originates this value benefit from it? Or better yet, why not sell our data?
Many have reservations about this approach: Not knowing the value of data, the asymmetry of the market (few buyers imposing unfair terms). There are scaremongers who say that if data is to be paid for, the services offered free of charge will have a cost that users will have to pay for and only recover later. Others say that the value of one's personal data is negligible (if so, why do we get expensive "free" services?). Finally, there are those who point out the social implications of privacy being a luxury only available to the affluent.
As for implementation, some contemplate collective solutions such as the "data dividend", which can be applied as a consumption tax or even the incorporation of organizations that negotiate data on behalf of clients (!?), rather than empowering individuals.
Finally, some are radically opposed on the basis that “adopting a commercial trade approach to privacy protection will ultimately undermine rather than protect consumer privacy” .
One fact rules out all of the above considerations: If information means power, data is now a very valuable asset and many resources are allocated to capture its value.
And like any other asset, it will always have a price that, when traded in transparent markets, reflects its value to all stakeholders. Therefore, no arguments can be made against trading data based on imperfect markets. If the market is not transparent, let us put in place legislation to ensure that it is. Similar laws apply everywhere in most markets.
So this solves the pricing and transaction issues, but the most important question remains: Will buying and selling data affect our privacy and undermine individuals' rights and opportunities?
In Europe, we are used to regulations that limit the scope of property rights and the use of assets in order to protect individuals. As the owner of a building is limited by regulations on size, habitability, etc. and its uses are subject to additional regulations, we can also establish limitations for the transactions and use of Personal Data.
Purpose limitation is a very powerful tool to use and develop.
It is for these reasons that Europe promoted GDPR and is developing the right instruments to ensure that a) the rights of individuals are protected and b) the value of their assets is maximized - and no one now doubts that data are valuable assets.
As the late Giovanni Buttarelli warned in his final vision statement, "Notions of 'data ownership' and legitimization of a market for data risks a further commoditization of the self and atomization of society…. The right to human dignity demands limits to the degree to which an individual can be scanned, monitored and monetized.”
I believe that the EU is setting the pace to achieve these goals.
Note: Many of the points made in this entry are comments on and direct quotes from the excellent article Commoditization of Data is the Problem, Not the Solution published in by the Future of Privacy Forum, which addresses how data should be valued and managed by organizations and individuals.
The big question is whether individuals can assess how their personal data will be used. In fact, it is very difficult for any non-specialist to understand present and future uses of certain data.
Therefore, without a clear definition of the future use of the data, how can one know: a) its monetary value and b) how its future use will affect privacy.
In response to the latter, the GDPR came into force two years ago. Although with certain shortcomings, in particular its application based on "consent": the user can click on "accept" and continue without reading the privacy notice (see mechanical proceduralism, a term that defines what we all do every day). As a result, consent works on paper but shows practical limitations.
Still, the GDPR is a game changer that benefits our lives, establishing that personal data is a fundamental right of individuals that must be protected. This principle is being incorporated into legislation around the world. Even the U.S. is reconsidering its view of data and we are evolving from a law to protect consumers (such as the CCPA) to the draft of new civil rights-based Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2020.
And then there is the other angle: If data has value, how can the person who originates this value benefit from it? Or better yet, why not sell our data?
Many have reservations about this approach: Not knowing the value of data, the asymmetry of the market (few buyers imposing unfair terms). There are scaremongers who say that if data is to be paid for, the services offered free of charge will have a cost that users will have to pay for and only recover later. Others say that the value of one's personal data is negligible (if so, why do we get expensive "free" services?). Finally, there are those who point out the social implications of privacy being a luxury only available to the affluent.
As for implementation, some contemplate collective solutions such as the "data dividend", which can be applied as a consumption tax or even the incorporation of organizations that negotiate data on behalf of clients (!?), rather than empowering individuals.
Finally, some are radically opposed on the basis that “adopting a commercial trade approach to privacy protection will ultimately undermine rather than protect consumer privacy” .
One fact rules out all of the above considerations: If information means power, data is now a very valuable asset and many resources are allocated to capture its value.
And like any other asset, it will always have a price that, when traded in transparent markets, reflects its value to all stakeholders. Therefore, no arguments can be made against trading data based on imperfect markets. If the market is not transparent, let us put in place legislation to ensure that it is. Similar laws apply everywhere in most markets.
So this solves the pricing and transaction issues, but the most important question remains: Will buying and selling data affect our privacy and undermine individuals' rights and opportunities?
In Europe, we are used to regulations that limit the scope of property rights and the use of assets in order to protect individuals. As the owner of a building is limited by regulations on size, habitability, etc. and its uses are subject to additional regulations, we can also establish limitations for the transactions and use of Personal Data.
Purpose limitation is a very powerful tool to use and develop.
It is for these reasons that Europe promoted GDPR and is developing the right instruments to ensure that a) the rights of individuals are protected and b) the value of their assets is maximized - and no one now doubts that data are valuable assets.
As the late Giovanni Buttarelli warned in his final vision statement, "Notions of 'data ownership' and legitimization of a market for data risks a further commoditization of the self and atomization of society…. The right to human dignity demands limits to the degree to which an individual can be scanned, monitored and monetized.”
I believe that the EU is setting the pace to achieve these goals.
Note: Many of the points made in this entry are comments on and direct quotes from the excellent article Commoditization of Data is the Problem, Not the Solution published in by the Future of Privacy Forum, which addresses how data should be valued and managed by organizations and individuals.
News 03
If everyone is investing in how to get and use your data, why not you?
IT & Marketers are taking advantage of the new gold-rush: Customer Data Platforms.
A Customer Data Platform (CDP) is a kind of database that creates persistent and unified records of all customers, their attributes and their data. A good CDP easily integrates existing or collected data and allows for easy retrieval.
CDP builds a complete picture of individual customers. They allow you to gather information from many different channels, platforms and devices in one place to create a complete and up-to-date picture of your customer. It collects customer data (transactional, behavioural and demographic) and links that information to the customer who generated it. This creates a 360-degree customer profile, also called a single-customer view, which can be used to execute marketing activities and analyse their performance.
And why is this important to you?
The sector is fed by the gathering and processing of personal data. Since 2016, the number of CDP vendors, employees and investments has increased fivefold reaching a total of US$2Bn investment in 2019.
There are not so many activities (if any) with this growth rate that, again, is fed by the monetisation of YOUR personal data. And if companies are investing money and making money from your data, isn't it time for each of us to get a fair share of the value of our data?
IT & Marketers are taking advantage of the new gold-rush: Customer Data Platforms.
A Customer Data Platform (CDP) is a kind of database that creates persistent and unified records of all customers, their attributes and their data. A good CDP easily integrates existing or collected data and allows for easy retrieval.
CDP builds a complete picture of individual customers. They allow you to gather information from many different channels, platforms and devices in one place to create a complete and up-to-date picture of your customer. It collects customer data (transactional, behavioural and demographic) and links that information to the customer who generated it. This creates a 360-degree customer profile, also called a single-customer view, which can be used to execute marketing activities and analyse their performance.
And why is this important to you?
The sector is fed by the gathering and processing of personal data. Since 2016, the number of CDP vendors, employees and investments has increased fivefold reaching a total of US$2Bn investment in 2019.
There are not so many activities (if any) with this growth rate that, again, is fed by the monetisation of YOUR personal data. And if companies are investing money and making money from your data, isn't it time for each of us to get a fair share of the value of our data?
News 02
Is it possible to sell and also safeguard your data?
One of the next big questions for Jones and Tonetti (Stanford Graduate School of Business) is how to actually design a marketplace through which individual consumers are able to safeguard and sell their data. Though nothing like this yet exists, “people are thinking about it and working on it,” says Jones. “There are ways to use blockchain with other novel technologies so that consumers own their data and the scenario we laid out could be a reality.”
In the meantime, the companies that control most of this imperishable private data continue to send mixed messages about whether they or consumers should own it — and thus profit from it.
For instance, during Zuckerberg’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was asked whether he would be comfortable going public with the name of the hotel where he was staying or the people he’d messaged that week. “No,” he said. “I think everyone should have control over how their information is used.” Jones and Tonetti say their research shows why Zuckerberg was right in more ways than one: Personal control of information is paramount not just to bolster personal privacy, but, importantly, to make the best use of “nonrival” data to increase productivity and overall economic well-being.
(Extract from Stanford Business - Dylan Walsh) Based on Paper "Nonrivalry and the Economics of Data" by Charles I. Jones, Christopher Tonetti, Aug 2019
One of the next big questions for Jones and Tonetti (Stanford Graduate School of Business) is how to actually design a marketplace through which individual consumers are able to safeguard and sell their data. Though nothing like this yet exists, “people are thinking about it and working on it,” says Jones. “There are ways to use blockchain with other novel technologies so that consumers own their data and the scenario we laid out could be a reality.”
In the meantime, the companies that control most of this imperishable private data continue to send mixed messages about whether they or consumers should own it — and thus profit from it.
For instance, during Zuckerberg’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was asked whether he would be comfortable going public with the name of the hotel where he was staying or the people he’d messaged that week. “No,” he said. “I think everyone should have control over how their information is used.” Jones and Tonetti say their research shows why Zuckerberg was right in more ways than one: Personal control of information is paramount not just to bolster personal privacy, but, importantly, to make the best use of “nonrival” data to increase productivity and overall economic well-being.
(Extract from Stanford Business - Dylan Walsh) Based on Paper "Nonrivalry and the Economics of Data" by Charles I. Jones, Christopher Tonetti, Aug 2019
News 01
How much is your data worth?
One proposal is a simple tax solution, as Chris Hughes, the co-founder of Facebook and newfound critic of the company outlined last year. He argued that a 5% tax on companies that use consumer data—whether they’re a Silicon Valley giant, a bank, or a retailer—could generate at least $100 billion per year. Using the tax to fund a data dividend, every American adult would receive a check for about $400 per year. He compared his idea to the way revenue from oil extracted in Alaska is distributed to the state’s citizens, amounting to about $1,500 per person per year. “Unlike oil, this data is not an exhaustible resource, enabling the fund to disburse the total revenues each year,” Hughes wrote, noting that the check amount could increase over time.
Another idea is to base the data calculation on the metrics that the companies themselves provide, like taking a share of the average revenue per user (ARPU), which for US Facebook users, was $30 in the last quarter, or about $7.50 per month. Recode recently calculated that if you simply divide all digital advertising revenue in the US by the adult population, an ad-free internet would cost every US adult about $35 per month. That’s less than the cost of many live TV streaming services.
(by Courtesy of QUARTZ, - Hanna Kozlowska- July 2019)
One proposal is a simple tax solution, as Chris Hughes, the co-founder of Facebook and newfound critic of the company outlined last year. He argued that a 5% tax on companies that use consumer data—whether they’re a Silicon Valley giant, a bank, or a retailer—could generate at least $100 billion per year. Using the tax to fund a data dividend, every American adult would receive a check for about $400 per year. He compared his idea to the way revenue from oil extracted in Alaska is distributed to the state’s citizens, amounting to about $1,500 per person per year. “Unlike oil, this data is not an exhaustible resource, enabling the fund to disburse the total revenues each year,” Hughes wrote, noting that the check amount could increase over time.
Another idea is to base the data calculation on the metrics that the companies themselves provide, like taking a share of the average revenue per user (ARPU), which for US Facebook users, was $30 in the last quarter, or about $7.50 per month. Recode recently calculated that if you simply divide all digital advertising revenue in the US by the adult population, an ad-free internet would cost every US adult about $35 per month. That’s less than the cost of many live TV streaming services.
(by Courtesy of QUARTZ, - Hanna Kozlowska- July 2019)
