My POV on The Social Media Privacy Debate and Positioning on Social Media Spectrum
For those of you who missed this past Monday’s Social Media Privacy in Marketing Research debate, with representatives from US marketing research trade org CASRO and the UK’s MRS, there is a recording here.
In the space generally referred to as social media research there are many “experts”. Most though tend to fall on one extreme or other of the social media consulting spectrum (Top Image). Most traditional marketing research firms currently fall far towards the “All Strategy/Little or No Data” side. Text Analytics or ‘Social Media Monitoring’ firms tend to fall on the “All Data/No Strategy” side.
Due to Anderson Analytics‘ unique experience conducting research on behalf of companies like LinkedIn, and our current patent pending text analytics development effort (OdinText), I’ve tried hard to position my firm in the middle of this spectrum.
Not surprisingly, in Monday’s debate, most of the representatives were from the right side of the spectrum, and there was not a single representative from the left side (software/big data). Still, half of the panel seemed to share my position, that it is far too early to allow ourselves to be confined to any self-imposed rules created by the ‘traditionalists’ on the right hand side of the spectrum.
In my opening statement I stated that:
I think surveys have very little to do with the fast moving social media and web analytics space!
Do researchers need social media guidelines no! Even if we did, they certainly wouldn’t be drawn up by those who come from panel and survey research business and know next to nothing about these ‘Next Gen’ research techniques such as data and text mining!
Ethical guidelines in the area of survey research were accepted because they actually made some sense but more importantly benefitted research suppliers. Right or wrong we were able to point to these standards as an excuse to keep the details of our product (typically a research panel), out of the reach of clients. What we research suppliers tell clients like P&G and Kraft is that “we have a special relationship and ethical obligation to our panelists…”. In actuality, the reason these old guidelines have been so widely accepted, is that most of who work with panels would hate nothing more than to show these quite responsible clients exactly how badly the sampling sausage is made.
While even this practice is being called into question, by those such as Bob Lederer and clients demanding better transparency, at least it has served many suppliers well over the years.
This would not be the case for even a moment with the current social media suggestions, which rather than helping suppliers is more likely to hinder smaller creative firms and preserve the status quo. Still I highly doubt even the Honomichl Top-5 would agree to confine themselves to these outrageous constraints.
True, these guidelines will mean almost nothing to the vast majority of research firms which belong to these marketing research trade orgs as they are involved mainly in CATI, qualitative or survey research. Many of these do not have the technological or methodological skill set to leverage the Next Gen techniques. And those few of us who do, are already looking away from traditional marketing research and competing against a totally different set of companies who also have NO interest in traditional marketing research trade org guidelines…
So why should you care?
Since Monday I’ve spoken to a few marketing researchers who didn’t bother listening in. Their reasoning was similar to mine, in terms of initially being hesitant to take part in the debate. “It’s a non-issue”, “Those guidelines will never be accepted anyway”, “They [Trade Orgs] just talk while others do the work” etc.
In the end I decided to participate in the debate because the traditional marketing research trade orgs are attempting to re-define what marketing research is and what it isn’t. It seems clear that they want to prevent anyone operating towards the left hand side of the above spectrum from calling what they do marketing research. For instance one of the co-authors of the CASRO standards, Annie Petit, recently commented on the MRS blog that:
The world is full of people who have no incentive to appreciate the ethics that we as market researchers bring to the table. Those people don’t need to join MR organizations or call themselves market researchers to conduct observational research. . I, however, WANT to be a member of research organizations
Assuming that as a co-author of the guidelines, and commenting on another trade orgs site, that she either represents or at least is communicating her understanding of these guidelines, it sounds almost as if the end goal of these rules may be to further divide and separate anyone interested in expanding their analytical possibilities from those who want to limit themselves to strictly the survey research business.
Similarly, Brian Tarran, MRS employee and editor of their blog commented
…you might find yourself residing in this “not market research” space…I still think there is a strong argument for maintaining a base level understanding of what “market research” is and the ethics that underpin it. It might not fit with what researchers are actually called on to do some of the time…
Perhaps because of my long background in marketing research, I take great offense to anyone who tells me that the very scientific techniques we are employing, on far larger data sets than are typical in survey research, would not also be considered marketing research.
While those on the left side of the social media consulting spectrum are unlikely to ever care what traditional marketing research firms on the right hand side of the spectrum say or do, for a firm like mine in the middle, or for any traditional market research firm who recognizes the opportunity that social media data can offer and wishes to increase their capabilities thus moving toward the center, the audacity these trade orgs have exhibited in thinking they alone are the arbiters of determining what marketing research today is, should be unacceptable!
I believe this is precisely why the Next Gen Market Research group (NGMR), with almost 13,000 members, has been so successful. Most of us are tired of the limitations imposed by those who would hold us back.
Many of the arguments raised by the trade orgs for self-imposed rules, such as the public’s unawareness of the fact that what they say on platforms like Twitter is public, is not based on facts of any kind. To the contrary, several studies conducted by Anderson Analytics, such as the Seven Social Network Segments, have proven otherwise.
Next Gen Market Researchers will not allow these trade orgs to label or constrict what they do. I highly doubt even the Honomichl Top-5 firms will do so in the end.
@TomHCAnderson
![[Post to Twitter]](../../../../wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-big1.png){kind=icon}
12 responses so far ↓
1 A Client-side Technologist's Perspective On The MR Data Privacy Issue | GreenBook // Aug 25, 2011 at 9:11 pm
[...] Tom Anderson: The Spectrum of Social Media Expertise [...]
2 Saul Dobney // Aug 26, 2011 at 6:09 am
Tom,
I’d agree with you strongly here. The main market research associations are essentially associations of survey researchers - perhaps even better described as associations of fieldwork suppliers and users. Even though we still work to MR codes of practice for surveys, I stopped being an MRS member because much of what we were doing in the form of consultancy and helping businesses understand customers in a consent-based non-anonymised view (eg database analytics, key account evaluation, DIY research systems) didn’t fit into this fieldwork plus view - eg MR ISO standards are heavily biased towards fieldwork supply.
So for me, I don’t think survey researchers have the skills for social media analytics or Big Data. Those skills will come from elsewhere. But there will also still be a separate need for surveys - social media doesn’t measure everything - ‘buzz’ is not ‘rep’.
However, I do think the privacy debate is important and will grow and intensify because individuals will (and are) demanding more privacy control. Research organisations have always had an ‘honest broker’ position that tries to take the ‘respondent’ view and as such had opt-outs from certain data protection legislation. They must have a view because it does impact on the survey business and what their members are doing and using. But there’s no way survey research codes are going to impact on non-survey analysts. We’ll have to wait for legislation for that.
Saul
3 Brian Tarran // Aug 26, 2011 at 6:10 am
Hi Tom,
I’d like to follow up if I may on the bits where you quote from my comment piece on Research-live.com.
I think you misrepresent Annie’s position. The full comment on our site and the blog post she links to is quite clear that her intention in working on these guidelines is to move research organisations into the social media space in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the social media researcher.
Indeed, her blog post is an imagined eulogy for a market research organisation that doesn’t adapt to the times.
Here’s a link to it: http://lovestats.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/eulogy-for-a-beloved-market-research-organization/
As for my quote – you conflate a follow-up comment in response to a reader with the main body text in a way that seems to serve the point you are making but with no reference to the context in which those words were printed.
So to be clear, there’s no need to “take great offence” – no-one is saying that analysing data sets is “not market research”. It all depends on the purpose. So analytics for the purpose of informing and advancing a company’s understanding of customer behaviour in order to help inform the development of new products is market research.
Analytics for the purposes of identifying customers who might be interested in a new product and passing their personal details on to a company so they can contact them with a sales call clearly isn’t market research.
The industry – whether for or against these social media guidelines – seems united around two basic principles of “market research”, which are (a) do no harm and (b) do not sell. Nothing controversial there, I don’t think.
Point (a) for me is what this whole privacy debate is about: what constitutes harm to a respondent, participant or subject in a social media world and how should the industry avoid causing it? I don’t think anyone can speak clearly on that yet. As Linkedin found to its own surprise with Social Ads, people are not always going to be happy for you to use the data they share publicly in whatever manner you choose.
Anyway, here’s a link to my article in full: http://www.research-live.com/comment/an-ethical-dilemma/4005791.article.
One final point of clarification. I’m the editor of Research Magazine and Research-Live.com. It’s not the “MRS blog”. The organisation pays my wages but we are editorially independent and do not speak for the organisation.
Thanks,
Brian
4 Gregory Yankelovich // Aug 26, 2011 at 10:37 am
My opinion comes from the Software/BigData side of the table and I was listening to the debate on Monday with a great interest. Not because of business implications for our company, but due my keen interest in online privacy issues. Philosophically, and in practical business decision making, I do not support unauthorized data scraping from “walled garden sites” because people publish their opinions behind these walls precisely to protect them from the public at large. However the attempts to protect stupidity by legislation is a bankrupt concept in my opinion and any person who is sharing their information and/or opinion in open forums forfeits their claims to privacy. The choice is ours to share or not to share and we all leave with consequences of our decisions.
5 Lenny Murphy // Aug 26, 2011 at 11:53 am
In all fairness, I think the trade orgs have good intentions here, but the execution is off target. Of course we should apply some ethical standards in our work (and our lives), but this specific debate is much more of an issue between consumers and web portal/app/service providers.
I am a big believer that privacy is only a concern to an increasingly small percentage of the population. Consumers have proven that if they receive value from their openness they will continue to provide access to their data. The very existence of Social Media and mobile apps themselves bear that out. I believe this debate is best left to the consumer and the portal provider via the TOS; it is a private business transaction between them, not us.
Our relationship is with the owners of the data, and that is the Twitter, Facebooks, LinkedIn, mobile app developers, etc.. of the world. As long as we are working within the ToS of the owners of the data, our only concern should be in how each company applies ethical standards to their own business practices.
I understand that international law could be a significant issue here, but I still maintain that the U.S. and Asia will lead the world on this and the EU will have to loosen up in order to compete economically and socially. The laws there currently in place or being discussed are not progressive; they are repressive and it will cost them where it counts; corporate tax revenues.
6 Tom H C Anderson // Aug 26, 2011 at 12:52 pm
I’m curious now, do these organizations consider grocery store scanner data marketing research?
If so do they worry about those who don’t realize their transaction data is being used for research?
7 Andrew Jeavons // Aug 26, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Tom,
As I have mentioned to you I have more sympathy with your “side” of the argument, with caveats. With regard to the “orgs”, they are trying to do what their members want. Many companies are unsure of what they should or shouldn’t do, the orgs are paid to have an opinion. However I don’t want to get into a discussion of the orgs and their relevance. The critical issue, as you pointed out in the debate, is that there is a whole, vast, industry out there competing with MR which do not feel bound to the ethics that some of the orgs promote. This is the critical issue. If the orgs issue guidelines that hobble MR in respect to our competition then MR is doomed. I have to say the MRS guidelines are one of the more classic British acts of self immolation I have seen for a longtime. I think the limits of what is acceptable will be decided by the marketplace, and I think this is a good thing. We have the text analytics market in general to compete with. The issue that is going to be difficult is the Term of Use (ToU)- to abide or not to abide by them ? As someone in a business (software) where we want people to abide by our contracts I have a conviction that if you agree to something you should stick to it. And of course the whole PatientsLikeMe saga puts us at opposite sides of the argument. Even if you don’t like ToU if you agree to them, you need to stick to them. Not least because of litigation. I don’t think that the fact that there was no *public* litigation by PatientsLikeMe against Nielsen does not mean that there was not some settlement. At some point Facebook or someone of that ilk will make an example of a scraper, I just hope it is not a company from the MR business. Privacy is evolving, we need to debate what to do about it, the orgs are fostering debate and this is welcome. In the end however MR cannot adopt any guidelines that put MR at a commercial disadvantage to our (legion) competitors in this business area. While the debates promoted by the orgs are welcome, I am not convinced the orgs are sufficiently forward looking to really understand what is going on. Too many middle aged white men….
8 Alec Maki // Aug 26, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Comparing traditional marketing research practices, rooted in survey research, to social media research practices is like comparing apples to cows. Sure, apples and cows have some things in common: both are organic and both have (roughly) round shapes. But, despite these commonalities, what’s good for apples (and apple trees) is not the same as what’s good for cows. If farmers were to apply the same rules and procedures to apple orchards as they do to cattle ranches, there’d be a lot fewer apples to go around. And that’s too bad, because I like apples.
My company conducts traditional research — both online and offline. We follow ethical practices, and make every effort to protect the privacy of participants. We value this privacy, as it is essential to preserving the trust between parties and, hence, sharing of information. With these traditional approaches, we solicit participation. Consumers opt-in (usually for an incentive). There is a mutual agreement between researcher and participant. Part of this agreement is an understanding of privacy. This all makes sense in the traditional scheme of things.
Social media information, however, is completely different than these traditional approaches. Sure, the information is still coming from people and we can learn a lot from it. But, like apples and cows, just because there are similarities between the two, that does not mean they should be treated the same way. What works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
This debate would make sense if we were talking about the transition from offline survey research to online survey research. But we’re not. Instead, this is more akin to the transition of offline observational research to online observational research. In the offline world, people do things in public places. They behave. They consume. They talk about it. They socialize. For hundreds (thousands?) of years, savvy business people have observed these behaviors and used this information to better craft offerings. For observational research, there are well-defined conventions (as outlined by Annie Petit in her LoveStats blog). It seems those may be closer to an apple-to-apple comparison with respect to social media research.
In social media, people are simply putting content out there. It is publicly available. As in real life, they do things in public places. They behave. They consume. They talk about it. They socialize. It’s perfectly reasonable for savvy business people to observe these online behaviors (just like they do offline behaviors) and use this information to better craft offerings. Why should businesses be curtailed from learning from publicly available information because of policies based on traditional research methods?
Simply put, businesses won’t be curtailed. They will use this information – regardless of how we, as an industry, shackle ourselves. Businesses will simply go around official “research” companies that abide by well-intended but misplaced ethical guidelines and work with non-research companies to observe people’s social media behavior, consumption, discussions and socialization. We, as an industry will watch this exodus as we are curtailed by well-meaning regulations and guidelines.
Social media information is too valuable for businesses. Speaking from experience, the insight that emerges can be outstanding. Further, it is publicly available. What’s more, it is the mission of companies like Twitter to share – with the public – information posted via their information channels. Businesses ignore public information at their peril. For example, businesses do not ignore the stock market when it goes up or down. That is public information. Businesses do not ignore competitive advertising campaigns. That is public information. Local restaurants do not (er, should not) ignore consumer feedback on sites like Yelp. That is public information. If people are talking about products and brands in the public domain, businesses have every right to listen and use those conversations. If they don’t, they put themselves at a disadvantage. There’s nothing ethical or unethical about observing publicly available information. It is out there, like the sky is blue, just a fact. Observing facts is not wrong. Using observations of facts to make better business decisions is not wrong.
If anything, I would say it is more unethical to ignore known, observed facts if those can help you better serve customers. What’s more unethical: 1) listening to customer complaints on Yelp or YouTube and, as a result, fixing the source of those problems so the product/service is better as a result or 2) not listening and continuing to offer a poor product/service? One action results in an improved offering and, one would presume, happier customers (yielding in some small fashion an overall uptick in social good). The other action results in a poor offering and unhappy customers. Ethically, I know where I fall.
Unless there is clear rationale to do so, standards and policies should not circumvent common sense. They should not ignore how businesses have worked for hundreds of years when it comes to observing customer behavior. They should not ignore how businesses work now. They should not ignore the disciplines currently engaged in observational research. They should not ignore the disciplines currently engaged in online observational research (disciplines which are not bound by marketing research policies). They should not ignore the fact that, if they are followed, they will do unneeded financial harm to the industry that they are “ethically” seeking to guide. They should not fly in the face of history. They should not be designed for cows when we’re talking about apples. Because, like I said earlier, I like apples.
To quote Matt Damon, how do you like them apples?
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents.
9 Tom H C Anderson // Aug 29, 2011 at 9:32 am
Data Mining Guru and Editor of KDNuggets, Gregory Shapiro just shared his opinion on this post on Twitter. He said he agreed with the post and said that it’s “too early to impose rules on text analytics driven by privacy - effects not well understood yet”
10 Malcolm DeLeo // Sep 1, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Tom,
Great post and good question. I would say this…
I don’t think this is really a left side, right side issue…it is a culture issue.
As someone who lives on the “left” side but has spent his entire career in front end innovation and change management (not market research), I try to take a cultural view on things because that is what I believe we are facing: a cultural shift. When I spoke at the MRA meeting in Washington and asked a group of 60 people how many trust social media as a data source, 2 out of 60 raised their hands. When I asked them later in the presentation how many of them go to the web when buying a new appliance or electronic product, 58 out of 60 raised their hands. This is the cornerstone of the debate and why I believe it is a cultural issue. As consumers, we ALL turn to the data on the web as part of our personal process, but when it comes to our professional lives, we throw our own consumer behavior out the window.
This is why there is a currently a left and right side. The reality is that those who make decisions across the business landscape continue to resist the fact that the methodologies are changing before their eyes. We all know people are getting rid of their landlines, making it harder to collect survey research the traditional way. Couldn’t we say this right side technique is actually just as fallible as using the massive collection of social media that is now freely available? Even though this might be conceptually true, creating the right methodologies that are quantifiable will certainly help ensure that companies don’t make mistakes. But on the flip side aren’t they starting to make huge mistakes by staying true to “the way they do things” when social media strikes them faster than they can react (think GAP logo in 2010)?
People working on the left side of things are not necessarily saying move away from what has worked for the last 50 years. I personally believe that the speed of insight is getting too fast that it won’t eventually take over the past methods because when an “event” occurs, understanding what is being said in hour one could be different by hour three. But it is my job to say that. Putting a more objective lens on would say that in today’s state of social media monitoring and big data filtering, it is imperative that people begin to understand what processes the “left side” can augment (for instance use social media to learn about a topic BEFORE you design a focus group or survey to improve your method) to make them better. It is becoming imperative that people think more holistically about the topic (as your question does here), because the change is coming and those who summarily dismiss change are often hit head on when they are not looking. In fact, this debate highlights my point…
11 Michalis Michael // Sep 6, 2011 at 4:02 am
Tom, DigitalMR which triggered the data privacy debate by reacting to the MRS guidelines is also somewhere in the middle of your spectrum. We are also frustrated by guidelines written from pure traditionalists. Annie Petit may not be a traditionalist and yet she was part of the ESOMAR committee that created the ESOMAR guidelines which also ask MR agencies to mask the names of people who post comments on public websites.
We do agree with most of the things you say on your post.
We especially agree with Gregory Yankelovich’s comment :
“However the attempts to protect stupidity by legislation is a bankrupt concept in my opinion and any person who is sharing their information and/or opinion in open forums forfeits their claims to privacy. The choice is ours to share or not to share and we all leave with consequences of our decisions.”
We also like the way Alec Maki is asking the question:
“Why should businesses be curtailed from learning from publicly available information because of policies based on traditional research methods?”
More detail on our take-aways from the debate can be found at: http://www.digital-mr.com/blog
12 Tom H C Anderson // Sep 6, 2011 at 9:21 am
Hi Michalis, yes I got that sense about DigitalMR during the call. Best of luck, I’ll check out your post.
Leave a Comment