Statistics reveal that Google runs 3.5 billion searches per day and occupies 90% of the web, mobile, and in-app searches (Desjardins, 2018). Google gained success from monitoring users' searches closely and using it to improve their search algorithm (Naughton, 2020). The more search performed, the more it progressed; eventually, data exhaust turned into behavior surplus. Then came along surveillance capitalism, defined as a market-driven process where the commodity for sale relies on data collected and produced from companies that offer us free online services in exchange to scrutinize our online activity and behaviors (Holloway, n.d).
Surveillance capitalists sell these data as a form of certainty to customers to improve the probability of business success; they also have many strategies to safeguard themselves from the law (Zuboff, 2019 as cited in Kavenna, 2019). Due to the lawless environment in this sector, personal experiences are secretly extracted and used to predict consumer behaviour for the past two decades. In 2018, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was enforced, although many debate that it is merely the beginning of data security and consumer privacy regulations. Three years into practice, the apparent progress is transparency on what data is kept and how information is used and shared with whom. Besides that, netizens also have the right to notification regarding data breaches within 72 hours (Palmer, 2019). Companies that do not comply with GDPR will face heavy penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of a firm's global turnover (Burgess, 2020). It is also convenient as the entire continent is governed by one law. However, some of the flaws include the lack of clarity behind the concept of legitimate interest (Madge, 2017) and the fact that it does not ban tracking.
GDPR implementations caused a massive spike in cookie notifications across the web. Researchers noticed an abundance of misleading banners with different mechanisms to deceive people into consenting despite the general lack of awareness of how it works (Burgess, 2020). Recently, Google announced plans to demolish third-party cookies in the upcoming year and encourage the usage of first-party cookies to accommodate the surge of demands for online privacy (Coffey, 2021). To prepare for the change in the marketing landscape, marketers should familiarize the distinction between both, identify which aspects of marketing currently use third-party, and start gathering first-party data from CRM or touchpoints to bridge the gap (Read, 2021). Whereas for advertising, the cost of CPC will likely increase, and advertisers will have limited measurement resources across sales channels (Edwards, 2021). Unfortunately, just as organizations found methods to manipulate consent, Adtech companies can still identify unique users 99% accurately without cookies through fingerprinting (Fou, 2020).
Some believe that to solve the privacy paradox; users should pay for internet services, therefore, not owing anything to developers and having control over their information. In 1contrast, others prefer a one-off data deletion to restore trust and allowing users to restart with current knowledge of data value to make informed choices online (Redhead, 2020). Nevertheless, some segments display laissez-faire attitudes towards data privacy matters. They believe it is a worthwhile exchange between personal data for the benefits of convenience, better service, and personalization (Williams, 2019). As Naughton (2020) believed, the passive acceptance some of us have towards intrusive surveillance technologies is because we value the services provided.
Commentaires