If I offered you a chance to join a community with the following stated aims, would you?
“… a growing but personalized online community consisting of vibrant individuals interested in sharing their opinions about shopping” with the brand in question indicating that it “relies upon its membership to gain valuable insights into the browsing and buying behaviors, as well as the offers and experiences that are most important to you”.
So, you feel OK about that?
What would you say if I asked you to agree to provide the following information in order to join:
- a copy of all Internet traffic going from and coming to your computer
- information on your secure sessions (websites beginning with ‘https’), which may include shopping or banking sites.
- a record of “the pace and style with which you enter information online…”
- information in the header section of your personal emails.
Still OK? Feeling any different about the opportunity?
Now, let’s assume you join the community and - without being explicitly warned of the data capture indicated above - ’spyware’ able to run undetected on your system and capable of recording, monitoring and transferring the above usage information was actually installed. How would you feel?
Still want to join?
This is the issue at the heart of a recent disagreement between the Computer Associates (CA) Security Advisor Research group and Sears about the retailers use of personal data tracking, the permissions given and its new online community initiative: My SH Community. I’d encourage you to read the full exchange from the first blog post, through a response from Sears, to CA’s second response to details of a proposed class action lawsuit.
In short, CA believes Sears is not being clear, transparent or explicit in communicating to potential users that a) software will be downloaded and installed b) that it will automatically monitor and track their internet usage and that c) the information will be passed to a third party. Sears disagrees.
Now, the issue of explicit permission underpins this whole dialogue but there’s also an implicit difference in the perceived value of the community: CA (on behalf of the user) sees the aim of securing transactional data as diminishing its value and compromising the users online integrity while, Sears, seems to believe it’s offering a reasonable trade-off (even if its actions could be viewed as not making the conditions explicit), that is, the users data for exclusivity; special content and advance offers.
So, what is the value of online community: to create user benefit, extend brand equity or secure transactional data? A combination? Something different? Can a valid answer be established without the actual input and position of the community members themselves? How do you accommodate or support ongoing variance and change in a community’s perception of its value? And - just as important - are you being explicit in the ’social media bargain’ you’re seeking to strike with your audience / customers / potential advocates?
Finally, I don’t see much understanding from the brand here as to how its actions could be more widely perceived and interpreted, indeed, Mr Rob Harles VP SCH Community (let’s repeat that, VP of community) was quoted as saying “I don’t usually respond to blogs …”. Er?
So, this leaves me with a key point of confusion. In talking about community and the “vibrant individuals” who support your brand, why wouldn’t you want to go out of your way to communicate the openness and integrity of your actions? After all, as Ian McKee has so eloquently put it “If what you do causes your customers to get a law passed to stop you – HOW CAN IT BE THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR BRAND?”
Share this article from St. Paul's Reach