Do the privacy advocates really make a difference? Permission marketing experts Rosemary Smith and Jenny Moseley investigate.

Whenever there’s a public debate about personal data, you can be sure that a self-appointed privacy advocate is not far away. But do the activities of these data vigilantes really have any impact on regulators or relevance to the world of direct marketing?

In his book, ‘The Privacy Advocates’, Colin Bennett, an academic and expert in privacy issues, describes an international network of self-identified privacy advocates who have emerged without official sanction and with few resources, but who have become surprisingly influential. Their main weapon, it seems, is the naming and shaming of government departments and corporations who cross the line and invade the privacy of citizens. While Bennett shows that most of their activity is concerned with the ‘heavier’ issues of intrusive surveillance and ID tagging, he also explains how they have influenced the debate about behavioural targeting and cookie use. He warns that the loose coalition of the current privacy network could develop into a much more cohesive international social movement. After all, access to their arguments is just a mouse-click away.

Climate of fear
Still, it would be easy to dismiss the activities of these groups as irrelevant to the day-to-day business of direct marketing. We can argue that our use of data is positively benign compared to the worst cases of government intrusiveness into the private lives of individuals. But the climate of fear about data use fuels a reticence to part with personal information. Often with the help of the privacy pressure groups, individuals are now letting us know exactly what is – and what is not – acceptable marketing.

Take the whole area of behavioural advertising. Despite burning through an alleged development budget of $1.8m per month, Phorm has now put its deployment in the UK on hold after a consumer backlash; last year, US company NebuAd was sued by web users, who argued that the company violated privacy rights by purchasing information about their web activity from ISPs. The company has since closed down. More evidence of discontent was demonstrated when Facebook settled a $9.5m class action and shut down its controversial Beacon marketing programme after a concerted consumer campaign.

The publicity from these events has definitely affected consumer opinion and a recent US survey showed that two thirds of individuals (including the very young) do not want their data used to deliver tailored advertising.
In a potential regulatory knock-on, there are now two consultations covering behavioural advertising under way in the UK and the US and European authorities have come out strongly against using the technique without explicit consent.

So, it seems when privacy advocates and ordinary consumers speak with one voice, the regulators listen.