Research News Live

Who owns the data?

With data collection increasingly in the hands of marketing professionals, a study from Esomar and Kadence International explored their attitudes towards consumer data, uncovering some worrying trends. By Finn Raben.

The overlap of the Venn diagram between insights and technology enlarges at a pace. Two different cultures, both using data to drive growth for businesses, and working with similar analytical models, but fundamentally approaching it with different mindsets.

This culture clash was never more apparent as when the news broke about the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica – or indeed the latest Google/Android development. Much has been put forward about ethical data collection from a research industry perspective, but as consumer data collection increasingly happens in-house, it’s the marketing and advertising professionals who have a huge influence on the future of data use and storage, especially public perceptions of our due diligence in those activities.

As part of our effort to lobby and fight for improved co-regulation and self-regulation of research across the globe, Esomar, along with our research partners Kadence International, set out to better understand how marketing and advertising managers and directors view the consumer data they collect in their organisations – who’s responsible, how it’s stored, and how well it’s protected.

The study found some significant positives around attitudes toward data in business, but it also found much to be concerned about. 77% of respondents in the UK and 93% in the US agreed that consumer data is very important to the growth of their business. And two-thirds globally agree that a critical component of determining competitive advantage is the analysis of as much data as possible. The MRS, Esomar and many other associations have campaigned tirelessly for decades to promote the value of research, so it’s heartening to see the value of data is generally understood.

Interestingly, the study also found that a third of managers globally stated the head of IT is responsible for data within their organisation, while four out of 10 managers and director also identified the head of IT as the person authorised to select the technology platforms used to collect data. This has a number of implications for the industry, not least of which is the potential tension between system requirements and information ‘ethics’. It also indicates why many systems suppliers that once considered themselves suppliers to the research industry have pivoted now to being ‘tech companies’ and claim an insight generation capability.

For agencies and suppliers, this represents an important point for the growth of the industry, says Greg Clayton, managing director at Kadence International. “The study found that the bigger the company, the more likely that the head of IT is responsible for handling budgets and procurement for consumer data systems,” he explains. “This raises a number of questions both for data solutions companies and internal marketing teams – are heads of IT sufficiently marketing literate or working closely enough with marketers and insights professionals to really understand the potential nuances of their data collection and analysis systems? Are they aware of the data promises that ‘ethics’ and ‘rigour’ demand?”

Clayton adds: “From a business development side for suppliers to research users, will we be facing a race to the bottom when it comes to cost for these systems? Or do we need to further bridge the gap between IT and marketing – including within our services, some cross-departmental communication and therapy sessions?”

One of the most concerning points that came out of the study is that despite many high-profile data breaches in the past 12 months, 68% of managers and directors globally consider consumer data to be owned by the company once collected. Furthermore, 54% of respondents in the UK, and 67% in the US agreed that data in their organisation is shared too freely with external third parties. These are frankly staggering proportions in this era of data sensitivity, and highlight a disturbing lack of understanding of long-standing, system-agnostic ethical data practices.

While data scandals may ebb and flow in the consumer consciousness, and while Facebook and Cambridge Analytica may fade from consumers’ minds, it’s important to understand that it does not fade in the mind of the legislator. So, where a data scandal may affect brand trust for a single company, they all have a cumulative effect for legislators. And unless businesses change their attitude toward consumer data, GDPR, every marketer’s (mistaken!) 2018 nightmare, will only be the beginning. If you read nothing else from this article, please note that GDPR facilitates data usage – it does not limit it.

Finn Raben is director general at Esomar

Originally posted on Research Live

The Australian Market and Social Research Society is linked globally to 45 associations through its partnership with the Global Research Business Network (GRBN) and the Asia Pacific Research Committee (APRC). Click here to read about the AMSRS global network. This article is originally sourced from GRBN website.

About The Research Society 1063 Articles
The Research Society is the peak body for research, insights and analytics professionals in Australia. It has a diverse membership of individuals at all levels of experience and seniority within agencies, consultancies, client-side organisations, the non-profit and government sectors, support services as well as institutions and the academic community. As well as over 2,000 individual members, the Research Society has 125+ company and client partners, with the number continuing to grow. The Research Society research professionals and company partners commit to and are regulated by the Research Society Code of Professional Behaviour.

1 Comment on Who owns the data?

  1. Great to see somebody looking at this issue. However, though I may have misread, you don’t appear to have taken a position on who owns the data.

    I think it would be useful for us as professionals and AMSRS as our society, to make an explicit statement about ownership of data. Ethically I would argue that the data on each individual is owned by the person who shared it with the researcher, or company. The owner provides us with a licence to use the data in a particular way and we have an obligation not to use the data in other ways. While the Australian Privacy Principles do not take an explicit position on ownership of the data, the tenor of the principles certainly infers that ownership rests with the person who provides the description.

Comments are closed.