Category Archives: Design

Unwritten Rules: Teaching Brands Communality

This post is a summary of the presentation that my colleague Kate Canales and I gave at SXSW 2011. It was originally published in design mind on March 16, 2011.

It’s been said that good artists borrow, but great artists steal. We recently discovered a corollary to this statement: when presenting borrowed ideas at SXSW you should credit your source, because he might be sitting in the audience. In our case, that source was the behavioral economist Dan Ariely. When we flashed his book cover up on the projector to give him (and Steven Pinker) credit for inspiring our presentation, we heard a voice calling out “I’m here!” and there he sat in row two.

According to the logic of our presentation, this was all in the spirit of Communality. Communality is one of three relationship types that, according to the anthropologist Alan Fiske (cited by both Ariely and Pinker), characterize much of human social life. We also think Fiske’s framework helps explain why many brands have been baffled by social media.

Continue reading

Spending, Trading, or Something Else?

This post was originally published in design mind on February 2, 2011. It was republished by psfk.

In discussions of privacy and personal data, it’s becoming more common to say that people “trade” or “spend” information about themselves in exchange for online services. This metaphor implies that people are actually aware that an exchange is taking place. But are people making a conscious choice to share their information? Are they aware of how easily and often information about them is made available to marketers?

The sinister tone of The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of this issue would seem to indicate public awareness is low. I get a little shiver every time I see a new article in the “What They Know” series.Jeez, what do they know? Should I go all cash? Stop using Gmail? Cover my head in tin foil?

Perhaps a better way to understand awareness levels is to ask people what they think they are sharing. We did just that in our recent survey. Our hunch was that people were highly uninformed, and our results seem to confirm this hypothesis.

Question: “To the best of your knowledge, what personal information have you put online yourself, either directly or indirectly, by your use of online services?  Think about the information that you have had to enter because you registered for a site, signed up for a service like online banking, created a social network profile, used location services on a mobile phone, or submitted your financial information because you bought something.

What’s most interesting in this data is what people think they are not sharing.  Only about a third of users think they are sharing the “general location from which [they] are accessing the internet.” Furthermore, only about 20% of users think they are sharing their IP address, web searches, or browser history. Let’s take a look at each of these in turn.

General Location/IP address
In our survey, we asked about both IP address and location because we didn’t expect “IP address” to be a meaningful term to most people. In both cases, we were interested in location sharing. And while more people thought they were sharing “general location” (~30%) than IP address (~20%), the fact is that most are likely sharing both. An IP address contains location information provided by your Internet Service Provider. While it may not disclose your actual location in all situations (if you are using a VPN, for example), your IP address is visible to any web site you visit. This means that most Internet users are probably sharing their location.

Web Search History
Only about 20% of people think they are sharing their web searches. But I’m not sure how you couldn’t share these. Simply by entering in a search, you are at least sharing it with the search provider and possibly also your browser provider.

Browser History
Finally, we have browser history, which less than 20% of people think they are sharing. However, the aforementioned “What They Know” series tells us that many popular web sites install tracking cookies onto visitors’ computers that track browser history as well as “what people are doing on a web page.” These cookies are capable of assembling an individual profile that also includes data like income, shopping interests and even medical conditions. Even without cookies, web sites have ways of seeing what other sites you’ve visited.

With all of these data types, it is possible that some users might take advantage of private browsing to mitigate tracking, but there is some evidence that suggests usage of private browsing is quite low.

We can safely conclude that there is a very low awareness of passive data sharing. So perhaps the “spending” and “trading” metaphors are off base. It’s true that we get something valuable in return for our data, but we can’t be said to “spend” it if we aren’t consciously choosing to share it.

If there were a financial metaphor that describes the personal data economy, perhaps “pickpocketing” would be more accurate.

Image from flickr user dullhunk (cc)

When Sharing Personal Data, Context is King

This post was originally published in design mind on January 20, 2011.

Facebook made privacy headlines yet again last week when they made users’ contact information (phone number and address) available to developers. What can our study tell us about users’ reactions to such a change in policy?

As Tim wrote a few days ago, it seems that people actually aren’t willing to pay much to keep their contact information private. Does that mean that Facebook’s decision to share this data with developers was acceptable? Does the relatively low value of the revealed contact information mean that users expect their information to be widely shared?  In a word: no.

First of all, Tim’s analysis concerns only people’s relative willingness to give up their information in the first place. It says nothing of users’ expectations for stewardship of their information, which is the real issue in Facebook’s latest move.

Furthermore, Tim raises a compelling hypothesis around the importance of context. Essentially, if personal data is relevant to the service being offered, users are more likely to share the data. For instance, we don’t mind our doctor having a record of our prescriptions, but we wouldn’t share the same data with our employer.) This hypothesis would explain why users are so unwilling to share their social security number or credit card number in exchange for something like free email—the data has no apparent connection to the service being offered, which indicates a potential for misuse.

What’s troubling about Facebook’s decision to share contact information is that while the data was collected in a social context, it would have been exported to an entirely separate commercial context. Indeed, the ease with which data can transfer from one context to another is one of the reasons there is so much popular anxiety around this issue.

When users share their data with a service provider, they relinquish control. Furthermore, when it comes to stewardship of their information, they rely not on the policies laid out in arcane terms and conditions, but on a much simpler idea: trust.

In our survey, we asked people about what brands they trust with their personal data. We’ll reveal the results in a future post, but until then let us know what you think. What brands do you trust with your data? How do you make decisions about what to share with whom? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below or show us who you trust by uploading photos over at our frogMob.

The Hidden Cost of Free

This post was originally published in design mind on January 13, 2011. It was republished by Co.Design.

Problems With the Personal Data Economy

A few years ago, my friend Jeff was enjoying a celebratory dinner with his wife and parents at an Italian restaurant in Austin. The waiter stopped by to ask how everyone was enjoying their food.

“It’s fantastic,” Jeff reported. “These truffles? Seriously amazing.”

“Would you like a few more?” the waiter offered.

“Sure, why not?” he replied. A few moments later, the waiter brought back a few more truffles for the table. They were passed around the table and everyone agreed they were the highlight of the meal. Until the check arrived.

Truffles: $300.

Most people have been in situations like this before. Who is to blame? Jeff partially blames himself. He should have asked the waiter about the price. On the other hand, Jeff probably trusted the waiter to let him know about a charge of that magnitude.

This anecdote illuminates the essence of the problem with the personal data economy. Every day, hundreds of millions of Internet users take advantage of services that appear to be free: social networking sites, email, news sites, and even online dictionaries. But, of course, many of these services are not free at all. Users pay for them with their personal data, whether they know it or not. And at some point in time, the bill will come due. But, like Jeff’s truffles debacle, what remains unknown is the price.

Many people are not bothered by personal data tracking. After all, Internet users clearly benefit from free services like Gmail, Facebook, and Some argue that if the providers of these services take something in return, they are welcome to it. Moreover, if the result of this data sharing is targeted advertising, doesn’t everyone win? Isn’t relevant advertising better for both vendor and viewer? The certain honesty in this argument is appealing. What it ignores is the importance of transparent pricing.  Today’s economy of personal data is a priceless economy, which means that firms aren’t forced to compete based on the cost to users. How much of my data will you share and with how many parties? For how long will you share it? There are no market constraints on these matters, so there is no limit to what information is shared, stored and sold.

Continue reading

Why The Conversation Isn’t Necessarily A Conversation

This article was originally published in Interactions Magazine.

Most weekday mornings are fairly predictable: I make a pot of coffee; I walk the dogs with my wife, Eliza; I have a second cup of coffee while Eliza gets ready. This probably sounds familiar, as we all have our routines. But this is not where the predictability in my day ends.

I check email on my phone to find a daily handful of mass mail from various research firms and business publications. Many of the articles within these emails (especially those targeted toward marketers) will be on the topic of social media. Perhaps this, too, is a normal part of your morning. If that’s the case, perhaps you have noticed that the content of these emails is also a bit predictable.

You tend to see these words: engagement, metrics, conversation, ROI, community, sharing, measurement, dialogue. Ultimately, these emails regress toward some variation on “Social media is about engagement! Companies need to join the conversation!” Starting your day in this way can make you feel a little bit like Bill Murray in the movie “Groundhog Day.”

I suppose there’s good money to be made in periodically browbeating companies into “joining the conversation.” But there are problems with this advice (that go beyond the sheer banality of it all). The biggest problem with these discussions is that they tend to substitute peer pressure for insight. You need to do this because everyone else is. No wonder so many brands feel panicked about social media. They feel like they need to be there, but they don’t know what to do or why to do it. And if they dare to question any of the conventional wisdom on social media, they’re accused of “not getting it.”

The more significant problem I see is the tendency to lump all social networks into one. If any differences are discussed, the conversation tends to be framed as a horse race. “Twitter is hot!” “Is Facebook getting old?” “Does YouTube make money?” But these various networks have some important structural differences. The better we understand what these differences are and how they affect behavior, the better equipped we’ll be to use these networks, design for these networks, and advise clients what to do with these networks.

Architects have long understood that the structures we inhabit can influence not only the way we feel, but also the way we behave. This turns out to be true in digital environments like social networks, too. Subtle differences in the underlying structures of these networks give rise to distinct patterns of behavior.

Some of the ways in which social networks differ affect the central metaphor that we often use to describe them: “the conversation.” In fact, the more time I spend in the social web, the more I’m convinced that the conversation metaphor isn’t quite right. Just as one’s “friends” aren’t necessarily one’s actual friends, “the conversation” isn’t always a conversation.

Continue reading