We wanted to better understand the problems that right to object [to processing data for direct marketing] might help solve for people. We heard that:
- People’s frustrations (and wishes) tend to anchor on what they see and understand.
- On the whole there is poor comprehension of problems with the wider system, and the implications it has for them and for others.
- People’s decisions about data processing for direct marketing are based on a perceived value exchange with organisations.
- There are instances where some advertising is deemed reasonable - or even desirable.
- Companies demonstrating care and respect by default would stand out amongst the noise.
People’s frustrations (and wishes) tend to anchor on what they see and understand
“Bombarded” was a word we heard again and again in this research. People’s online experience is saturated with companies fighting for their attention - which is steadily narrowing.
“It's just clogging up my inbox [...] it becomes white noise after some time”- P7
People’s concerns often centre on the tangible: adverts, whether they arrive by email, post, or online. Their experience is predominantly shaped by elements of the complex, opaque system that they can see or understand.
“A lot of the times when I'm doing car searches […] I get a lot of cars on Facebook: lease a car, rent a car, that kind of stuff. So I know that that's coming up because of the searches that I've been doing.”- P7
Similarly, their hopes for change focus on the adverts themselves.
"Getting less emails every day would be fantastic. That’d be jolly good. Life would be less irritating if I got less banner ads and things popping up in Facebook and stuff like that.”- P3
On the whole there is poor comprehension of problems with the wider system and its implications on them and others
This bias towards the visible correlated with inaccurate mental models about what parts of their experience stem from what data processing.
“There’s not enough transparency to understand stuff like this [whether a company still processes data about you for direct marketing]. I don’t even know how they get it in the first place. The organisations that are using it… I don’t even know that. My only ability is trying to stop seeing them [using ‘Stop seeing this ad’] and it’s not working very efficiently.” - P9
This was reflected in varied understanding levels as to what objecting to a company processing personal data for direct marketing would do. Most people assumed it would be like a hard-unsubscribe, terminating the relationship between them and that company.
“It's basically stop contacting me and delete my details.” - P2
Only some people were aware of how objecting to data processing for direct marketing might impact data sharing with third parties and change their experience elsewhere- for example, showing less relevant ads.
“I have a feeling that direct ads and messages would still be there but they’d be less tailored to what I care about.”- P16
People’s decisions about data processing for direct marketing are based on the perceived value exchange with organisations
Access to information is granted in exchange for some form of benefit. People (sometimes, but not always) revoke this access once the cost outweighs the benefits.
If it's constant, just the same stuff from a place, it's just trying to sell stuff- I'll just go nah, that's not any benefit to me. I'll just unsubscribe from that.” - P2
Since they have no relationship with (and receive no tangible benefit from) unknown organisations, most people reported being uncomfortable with companies sharing data about them with third parties.
"I like to know when they have the 20% off school uniform so I'd be happy to get that email. But I wouldn't want them to be giving my data to every other organisation.” - P3
There were many instances where people wanted to stop a company from processing data about them for direct marketing altogether. This was most common for one-time purchases or companies who kept their details but whose services they no longer use.
"If it was something I knew I was only gonna buy one of [...] I wouldn't want advertising on that because I'd only buy it when I specifically need it.” - P2
In these instances, utilising their right to object would provide extra reassurance that the company is respecting that choice. This ties to a general lack of trust that companies will support people’s best interests.
“When I unsubscribe - or even click it's 'spam' or 'I don't want to hear' - you still have a worry that they're still going to have my details […] This [using your right to object] would be… you know that all your details are taken off, they’ve got to be taken off. Or maybe this company- if they’ve not followed procedure- then they’ll be the ones that’ll get in trouble.” - P1
There are instances where some advertising is reasonable - or even desirable
We did hear of instances where advertising is accepted because it’s useful. A common example was receiving product recommendations towards an active search goal. Another use case was receiving timely discounts for necessary purchases, such as groceries.
“Any supermarkets I'll not opt out of because if it's a supermarket I go to then I like to see what discounts they've got that week, or any deals that they've got that week.” - P1
The research also highlighted that people’s needs and relationships to companies are dynamic. Decisions about allowing direct marketing can shift with them.
“I'd want personalised offers and I'd be willing to share my data once I’ve established- after buying stuff off them- that I could trust them. That the items were good quality, the prices were right. I’d want to know that.” - P17
Companies demonstrating care and respect by default would stand out amongst the noise
This backdrop has, sadly, set low expectations for company behaviour in this space. However our research signalled that any company demonstrating different behaviours - ones that signal care and respect for customer data by default - would go well beyond anything people might typically imagine and ask for.
“In this day and age where privacy comes at a premium, to actually offer somebody a bit more control over their own privacy… it's game changing.” - P7
“Just that they're giving you the option… a lot of places will hide it away in the bottom of the terms and conditions somewhere and it'll be pre-selected. If they had this very open and in an accessible place, that makes you trust them a bit more. That they’re not trying to market on the sly.” - P2