Big Data and You – Transparency or Fishing?

Last week, digital data broker Acxiom launched a new service called AbouttheData.com – it is supposed to show you what data is collected about you so you know what marketers see and how you are targeted, and it provides you an opportunity to ‘correct’ your data if any of it is incorrect – ostensibly so you will be targeted with advertising that is more of interest to you than that which is not. In their parlance “Make Data Work for You”.

When I learned of this service, I thought I might check it out to see how I’m profiled. That was until I started looking at the information I would have to give to them just to see what they have on me. Like my full date of birth (to the year), my physical address, my email address, and the last 4 digits of my social. There were red flags all over this which tempered my curiosity. I did not fill in their form, and their records on me remain a mystery.

From what I have read about people who did participate, including a friend of mine’s personal experience, considerable amounts of Acxiom’s data are inaccurate. So how many consumers will be inclined to update their records with correct information – essentially becoming Acxiom’s free and outsourced labor force, providing the cleanest data possible at virtually no cost to them? Such information is worth a fortune in the marketing world. The value proposition is  dubious and the revenue model is sneaky. Digitally savvy consumers may see through this, but there may be many people who won’t.

Perhaps most troubling to me is the ‘get over it’ undertone – they state clearly that your data is and will continually be collected and compiled, that you will be marketed to based on it, and that you have no choice in the matter: One excerpt: “Opting out of Acxiom’s online and/or offline marketing data will not prevent you from receiving marketing materials. Instead of receiving ads that are relevant to your interests, you will see more generic ads with no information to tailor content.” So, their pitch goes, isn’t it better to just give us the accurate information and get marketing messages of relevance to you?

 
There is something brazenly audacious about this to me, a threshold being crossed. The Acxiom site, with their soft colors and friendly font and cute avatars, looks so innocuous.  But in the digital fishbowl, we are giving away our personal information in volumes – so is it just better to know? Maybe some of us would rather give accurate information in hopes of stopping the flood of off-the-mark spam. Opt in or opt out? That will be captured as well, and the implications of either choice will surely further influence what shows up in your mailbox.

It’s Gotten Serious

Yesterday’s launch of the Internet Association marks a new era for the tech industry’s relationship to DC. This consortium of giants [and competitors] shows that the industry has gotten serious. While all of these companies have had their own government affairs presence, their banding together represents significant clout and deep pockets to act in the interest of keeping the internet “free and innovative”.  Undoubtedly the SOPA and PIPA legislation from earlier this year, which failed only because the tech industry woke up to it and reacted badly, has been the major catalyst behind this move, driven by a culture known for moving quickly – in a world known for moving at a dinosaur’s pace.

When I went to DC to study tech policy, I was looking for the intersection of the Silicon Valley and Washington.  Frankly, I didn’t find much of one. That appears to be changing, through not just this new group but a number of other smaller players who are advancing the discussion around what’s brewing in the Congress. The Internet is pivotal in enabling this discussion, of which it is also the subject. Congress is as dependent on it as any other user. [recalling Marshall Macluhan “The Medium is the Message” from my undergrad days] And of course there’s still the power struggle between the Valley, Hollywood and the music industry. This will get interesting.

Quick Left Hook

I came to DC in large part to explore the relationship between Silicon Valley and government and figure out how I could participate. What I’ve found over the course of my studies is a big disconnect between the two – a lack of understanding, a major cultural chasm, different realities and different world views. While Tech seems to ignore government as much as it can, the recent SOPA/PIPA confrontation brought these two domains to a face to face stare down, and Tech won in short order. One day of protest by such staples of modern life as Google, Wikepedia, Craigslist, and many more knocked Congress for a loop, backing away from legislation that had previously been pretty much assured passage.

With writing having been a big part of my career, I’m very sensitive to intellectual property rights. I am opposed to taking for-profit digital content for free. But in reality, we live in a radically different world where these practices are not only possible, they flourish – and it’s not just the Chinese or Russians doing it. Like the drug trade, illegal product is put where there is market demand – that includes the U.S. The demand must be stemmed – through education, through more realistic economic models (look what iTunes has done for 99 cents) as well as through technology. Young people in particular need to understand that illegally taking content costs jobs.

President Obama gave a nod to this issue in the SOTU address Tuesday night as he took on the issue of unfair trading practices. Policy approaches may be useful, but nothing hits home like real experience. When and if people in countries like China actually start to apply their own innovation and creativity, and then see their intellectual content stolen, they’ll get it.

But the internet cannot and should not be policed in the way SOPA was suggesting. Starting back with Napster [I know, dating myself], the world changed. Old laws no longer apply, and with technology moving so fast, there is no one who knows or even can know quite what to do about this problem. We are in uncharted territory. With one powerful jab last week, Internet content aggregators let it be known that they’re not going to take that responsibility- pushing Congress back to the ropes.

Advancing Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age

The internet and especially social media have had dramatic impact on diplomatic as well as state-internal communications and relations over the past many months.  The 2010 post-election Iranprotests were perhaps the first significant demonstration of the new power of social media used by a large populace. The Wikileaks release of reams of confidential U.S.diplomatic cables just barely preceded the Arab Spring ‘Facebook’ uprisings of early 2011. All of these events have significant ramifications for traditional diplomacy, mandating changes in practices, philosophies and norms that have existed for a very long time. This has left diplomatic organizations such as the U.S. State Department and others around the world in unfamiliar waters.  The implications of new media are broad for state and for non-state actors, as the effects of technology-enabled communications will almost certainly influence all diplomatic endeavors of consequence from here forward. How policies or government actions will play in the court of public opinion, how to (attempt to) control a message, and how to win hearts and minds in a chaotic media marketplace all require a very different approach.

Public diplomacy in and of itself is still a somewhat controversial practice. While funding is being cut for diplomatic efforts in general, the harder to measure, longer term and somewhat elusive practice of public diplomacy is even more vulnerable to scrutiny and cutbacks. Yet the option for governments to go light on public diplomacy is increasingly being taken away by the omnipresence of professional and amateur media, and an instantly connected populace who are taking more matters into their own hands. The power structure has simply shifted and a new reality must be faced. Today, public diplomacy takes many forms, one of the most significant of which is through new media because it enables many of these disruptive activities, because it underpins an increasing share of contemporary life (who is not tethered to their mobile device these days?), and because it has the potential to enhance or undermine a government’s efforts.

The rules of the new media environment are significantly different from the traditionally bureaucratic character of diplomatic organizations.  Credibility and influence require giving away some control of the message. The trick is balancing the right amount of give in order to sustain a higher overall level of control. The issue is not if but how, and how successfully, diplomatic ministries around the world will adapt their dogmas and practices in light of this new power shift. 

Reality Check

To test the impact of new media channels as tools of public diplomacy, I conducted a brief, unscientific, but none-the-less telling survey of young Saudis about their media consumption habits and the influence on their impressions of theUnited States. The survey results are slanted, since all 13 of my respondents had attended university, read and spoke English, were mostly current students or working in technical fields, and were between 20 and 30 years of age – a rather elite population, but a cream of the crop group that stands to have status in Saudi civil society, and who are reachable through multiple media channels.

All respondents use Facebook, almost all use Twitter and You Tube, and 63% seek news and information about countries other than their own on a daily basis. Seventy-seven percent watch Al Jazeera daily or several times per week, 78% consume Al Arabiya, and 50% consume BBC news daily or several times per week. Exactly 0% consume U.S.-sponsored Alhurra.com with that same frequency, although 75% said they do look at it ‘only occasionally’. State Department sponsored Radio Sawa fared just slightly better, with 22% saying they listened to it a few times a week. Of those who do consume the U.S. broadcasting channels, not one person said those channels have a positive impact on their impression of the U.S. When asked if other social media had that impact, 60% of the group said yes, but the impressions were unfavorable. When asked what makes news credible for them, they all (unaided) referenced trustworthiness of the source. 

Realistically, this survey reflects just a micro sample of just one target population in one country, but it raises some interesting considerations on where the State Department has its new media work to do. Other governments should only benefit by following suit.  In fairness, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are in uncharted waters here (as are many in the private sector), and are bound to suffer a few mis-steps in the learning curve. That they have undertaken a significant new media effort to date is laudable. But with some failures behind, they must now course correct, apply what has already been learned, keep an open mind, and seek more outside guidance in how to cultivate a better approach. This will require changing bureaucratic culture (a typically painful and slow process that in this circumstance cannot drag out), empowering more staff to publish according to guidelines but not always direct content review, staying on top of new media in other countries, and encouraging open discussion on issues of true import.

The Short and the Long Term

Noted internet expert Clay Shirky argues that the potential of social media lies mainly in its support of civil society and the public sphere, which will be measured in years and decades rather than weeks and months. He also advocates that the U.S.should “maintain internet freedom as a goal to pursue in a principled and regime-neutral fashion, not as a tool for effecting immediate policy aims country by country.” Well, sort of…

The reality is that new media need to be adeptly deployed for both short and long term situations, and regime-neutrality is a nice goal but not necessarily realistic for the United States. U.S. hesitance to call for Mubarak’s ouster did not stop young Egyptians from toppling their government – it just made us look unprepared and uncertain. The traditional State Department aim to promote civil society over the long run is and will remain a crucial objective. But today, civil societies and other actors are moving at their own speed, in timeframes than couldn’t have been imagined even a few years ago. If the U.S. wants to maintain its position of global prominence and influence, the realities imposed by new media and an interconnected world must be addressed head on. Can we muster the will and the agility to do it?

Please Regulate My Rival – Redux

Oh the irony of today’s headline news about Microsoft filing an antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission. Clash of the titans! Microsoft’s troubles with the EC have been notorious for years. Now, virtually shut out of the search market – and in my opinion this has something to do with Bing being a truly inferior product – Redmond is turning to these powerful regulators of a huge market segment for help.

Google has become something of a monster in the eCommerce world – basically wanting to own everything, and getting away with a lot of it. A March 21 release from Universum (a consulting firm) showed that a full 25% of recent college grads want to work for Google.  People just like them – because it’s a young company, because Sergey Brin and Larry Page seem like regular guys who hit it big with a big idea, because their playful logo is everywhere cool (except Facebook)… Microsoft and Mr. Gates just don’t give out the same hip vibe – they are past their pinnacle. In fact, they are symbolic of a highly structured, often drudgerous work environment.

I can’t help but wonder if the coolness factor has subliminally played on regulators – or is the market just moving so fast that their legal heads are spinning? In its day, Microsoft tried to do much of the same as Google is doing – albeit with different technologies. Where the U.S. failed to act, the EC put its foot down. Stung, they are now turning the tables. In truth, they are probably right – Google has pushed its empire to the extreme, with no end in sight. In such circumstances, it is interesting to see how those who would otherwise uphold ‘free markets’ think regulation might not be such a bad thing afterall.  This is going to be something to watch!

The Approach of Internet Regulation [and the End of the World as We Know It]

 

The March 2 Communications Summit, put on by the Institute for Policy Innovation, presented some diverse and compelling perspectives on key issues in the Communications industry, particularly relating to government regulation. While I’d expect an anti-regulation stance from the sponsor, they did a credible job of civilly presenting a variety of perspectives in a town known of late for less than civil discourse. 

‘Communications’ in this context means what most of the world now refers to as ‘ICT’ – Information and Communications Technology – but many in the US still think of as ‘telecomm’.  Communications includes the ecosystem of internet-centric businesses, hardware vendors, software vendors, networks, content providers, and the data-gathering and advertising machinery that pervades much of the online world.

Given the aggregation of mountains of personal data about all of us who dwell online, the implications of such data moving freely around the world in nanoseconds, and the increasing incidence of taking content without paying for it [music, movies, etc.], regulation is coming—soon.

Keynote speaker Rick Boucher, Former Chairman of the House Commerce Communications Subcommittee and co-author of draft legislation on internet regulation, prefaced his remarks by stating that net neutrality as an issue is dead. The Senate and President Obama are not going to allow any overturn or spend any more time on it. So, he advocates focusing on what’s feasible at this point.

He predicts real action by Congress, perhaps in as little as a year, on extending privacy rights to internet users. This could include mandating ‘do not track’ options on web sites, providing ‘opt in ‘or ‘opt out’ options for data collection, compelling full disclosure of how your gathered data is collected and used, and variations thereof for certain kinds of data—social security numbers, passport numbers, geo-location info, etc. Boucher likened this movement to other major privacy protection legislation of recent times such as HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

It’s a complex issue that’s going to require hard-wired technical adjustment as well as changes to business practices. The implications for advertisers and aggregators are obvious, but these changes will also extend to other aspects of marketing and communications. Lest corporations fear too much, Boucher also predicts that if/when this is legislated, grievance handling would be managed by the FCC and NOT by allowing individuals to sue companies for a potential breach of their privacy. I suppose I could live with that.

As another of the Summit’s speakers put it, transformational change is when the technology is so pervasive you no longer notice it [like fish not noticing the ocean]. The ever-connected Millenials are certainly there. If privacy concerns prove enough to get even this contentious Congress to agree and act, you can bet the times are a-changing.

Official US Policy on the Internet

I was privileged to be among a couple hundred students and press who attended Hillary Clinton’s on campus speech today about Internet Freedom. After the happenings in Egypt, the new protests in Iran, Yemin and elsewhere, and the whole Wikileaks broohaha, she came forward with a clear, firm policy position on keeping the Internet free. Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, it was very exciting to be in the room. She is totally in command of her space, polished, poised and on point. A heckler was tackled by police a few feet away from her, yet she never even glanced. In the wake of the Tuscon shootings, I was impressed [although security at today’s venue was tight!].

She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these.  With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.

Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.

Facebook and the Changing of the Middle East Order

I have heard the unprecedented uprising in Egypt described as the ‘facebook revolution’.  I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever envisioned his campus-related social experiment having this kind of impact.  What started in Tunisia, a much smaller and previously less significant [now a benchmark] country, took just a matter of weeks to alter the balance of the middle east, perhaps permanently.  

Younger generations have traditionally been the engines of revolution. This generation has radical new tools available to them in the form of internet-based communications that enable enormous change in a short amount of time. Dictators and secretive regimes around the world now have much to fear.  The thing they have forever tried most to control, information, is out there for anyone with a cell phone to engage in – and that is most of the modern world.

Mubarek tried unsuccessfully to cut off internet access – technically, it can be done, but culturally it can’t. The failed effort lasted a day before everyone was back online. Remarkable in itself that pressure to do this from inside Tahrir Square and around the globe actually paid off. Duplicity was called out for what it was, and it caved. Woo hoo!

This unprecedented communication movement throws more traditional comms theory in a tailspin. No one was in charge.  No one had a strong agenda they were promoting except ‘Mubarek has to go, and it must be done peacefully’.  There was no calculated influence campaign, no press releases, no strategy, no talking heads on TV. The power of this movement was emotion – hope, courage, determination – and the ability to communicate those needs and feelings in real time to a huge mass of people. Granted emotion of this depth is not easily aroused, but when it is genuine, it is unstoppable.

Many questions remain, as Egyptians, other Middle Eastern nations and the rest of the world wait to see how a new order unfolds. Already this morning, one day after Mubarek left, I saw a headline about anti-government protests in Yemen, although those were evoking an aggressive government response. Do Yemenis use Facebook?  What about China?  How and where will this form of instant, emotional and sustained communication be used for other issues – from politics to the workplace?  The potential is fascinating and unsettling.  Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the revolution.

examining social media beyond the hype

At Silicon Valley IABC, we had a great presentation today from two social media experts who shared insights into real world, practical uses for social media in companies’ externally-focused communication initiatives. I thought I’d share the highlights here.  These guys were top notch and had some great perspectives.

Chris Boudreaux of Accenture [and the founder of www.socialmediagovernance.com] discussed the newness of social media tools to marketers, who are valiantly seeking their footing with this innovative media that already reaches far and is growing fast and unpredictably. Likening the delight of bringing social media tools into the marketing toolkit to getting a new puppy [it’s so great and wonderful until your shoes get chewed and the rug gets soiled] Chris provided a framework for responsibly applying these tools in the corporate setting using ’empowerment with accountability.’   Companies should not over-control or strictly impose old rules that stifle the inherently creative and human characteristic of social media.  Governance policies need to go beyond reactive, risk containment issues like ethics and conduct to proactive uses that drive upside and strengthen a company’s brand while still ensuring consistency among all who speak to the outside world through these tools.

Krim then took up the brand issue, pointing out how yesterday’s branding practices no longer apply in today’s social media world. Whereas most large companies [and even some smaller ones] lean far toward the control side of branding policies, these have traditionally tended to let nothing ‘human’ in.  Yet brand truly consists of attributes far beyond brand elements (logo, look and feel) to very human experiences – culture, ideas, innovations, motivations, services, etc.  To make a brand strong in the social media environment, companies must get in the conversation in the first place, show some personality and humanity, and build trust through genuine interaction.

Clearly social media as a marketing tool is in its infancy. We really appreciate the insights from these two leading edge practitioners who are on the front lines of this new paradigm.