I'm convinced "privacy is a hard sell" because most people starting privacy-based businesses are hardcore privacy advocates, and in my experience hardcore privacy advocates don't really understand how the vast majority of the population thinks. And you can't sell something to people who you don't understand.
To wit, this excerpt from the linked article:
If a sales person was to knock on your door tomorrow with the opening lines:
“Over the past few months I’ve been watching you, had a look through your emails and browser history and I saw you searched for vacuum cleaners. I also noticed you signed up to the Ikea newsletter yesterday. Well, you’re in luck, because I’m selling vacuum cleaners and they’re on special.”
… That’s exactly what all data hungry adtech companies are doing. Spying on you through various mediums…
I disagree that this is "exactly" what adtech companies are doing. And I'd wager that well over 99% of people would be able to spot the crucial difference. In fact, that difference is stated further down in the article itself:
For some reason this kind of intrusive behaviour is acceptable when a computer performs it instead of an actual human being.
Of course people think it's different when a human tracks your data vs a computer — computers aren't alive! They don't have thoughts and opinions. But humans do. When humans see what what you're doing, it's personal. When humans don't see what you're doing, it's not personal. This is intuitive to most.
For example, would you be embarrassed to dance naked in an empty room? What about in front of a camera where nobody's watching the feed? Okay, how about on stage in front of everyone you know? Almost everyone on Earth would prefer to avoid the last situation, but wouldn't mind the first two. Because humans.
In addition, people are well aware that when Google et al are scooping up their behavioral data, they're using computer algorithms to do it, not people. Especially when dealing with the bigger adtech companies, the data is usually anonymized, well-protected, and never accessed or seen by humans.
So the argument that "this is 'exactly the same' as a 'creepy' person 'spying' on you" will ring false to pretty much everyone. Because it is false.
My advice on selling privacy:
First, sell to other hardcore privacy advocates, not to the mainstream. The mainstream is generally happy making the tradeoffs they're making. But if you insist on selling to the mainstream…
Focus on areas where the tradeoffs are worst, i.e. where the consumer risks the most and benefits the least. For example, people tend to buy insurance for high-value items (healthcare, homes, vehicles, etc.), not low-value items. Note that platforms like Gmail and Facebook are probably among the best tradeoffs consumers can make, because they're the most competent companies in the world at protecting data (low risk), while also providing consumers with a lot of value and convenience (high benefits), so it's difficult to make the case that people should abandon these platforms.
Understand that privacy is a feature, not a product. People buy products for the value they provide, and privacy doesn't provide any value. Rather, the lack of privacy decreases value. Therefore, people ask, "Okay but is it private?" as a potential objection to buying things they've already decided are valuable. IMO you should address privacy as a potential deal-breaker, not as a deal-maker, which means it comes secondary when convincing people to buy.
Focus on humans. Privacy is personal. Don't talk about computers reading data. Talk about people reading data. About leaks. Hacks. Employee snooping. Government subpoenas.
Sell to emotion. You need to understand emotion: fear, embarrassment, shame, etc. Bare minimum table stakes is understanding why people care more about personal privacy violations than impersonal ones. Again, look at insurance and security companies. The Ring doorbell/alarm system is a good one. They tune into people's fear for the safety of themselves and their families. They broadcast and incentivize sharing videos of actual break-in attempts. Instead of making some logical or numerical argument, they literally just show the scary situation that people are focused on avoiding to drive the point home.
First of all, thanks for a really insightful response to my post!
I agree that it's easier to sell privacy to hardcore privacy advocates because they are the people who understand the risks of not caring about privacy.
Of course people think it's different when a human tracks your data vs a computer — computers aren't alive! They don't have thoughts and opinions. But humans do. When humans see what what you're doing, it's personal. When humans don't see what you're doing, it's not personal. This is intuitive to most.
For example, would you be embarrassed to dance naked in an empty room? What about in front of a camera where nobody's watching the feed? Okay, how about on stage in front of everyone you know? Almost everyone on Earth would prefer to avoid the last situation, but wouldn't mind the first two. Because humans.
In addition, people are well aware that when Google et al are scooping up their behavioral data, they're using computer algorithms to do it, not people. Especially when dealing with the bigger adtech companies, the data is usually anonymized, well-protected, and never accessed or seen by humans.
I understand the argument that computers are not alive and the fact that your data is handled by computers makes it less intrusive. But, one the other hand, a lot of analytics and tracking metrics are consumed by humans to inform their decisions. Although most analytics are consumed in aggregates (i.e. 30% of users like X) it is still possible with some tracking tools to drill down in the data and see exactly which user clicked what at what time (with more metrics). To use your metaphor, it's kind of like dancing naked in front of the camera with the possibility of people watching, but you would never know. The fact that most analytics and tracking data are anonymized and stored safely is an assumption that's not always true (See this article about Oracle's BlueKai).
Note that platforms like Gmail and Facebook are probably among the best tradeoffs consumers can make, because they're the most competent companies in the world at protecting data (low risk), while also providing consumers with a lot of value and convenience (high benefits), so it's difficult to make the case that people should abandon these platforms.
I disagree that Facebook and Gmail are some of the best tradeoffs consumers can make in terms of risk vs reward. On the contrary, Facebook has established itself as one of the worst companies when it comes to protecting their users' personal data (See this link - https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=facebook+data+leaks&atb=v184-1&ia=web).
The mainstream is generally happy making the tradeoffs they're making.
I don't agree that the mainstream is generally happy making the tradeoffs they're making. I'd say that the mainstream is generally unaware and oblivious to the tradeoffs they're making. Not a lot of people think consciously about the tradeoffs they're about to make when they open a Facebook account. I realize that this is a difference in opinion and I'm not saying that people I've spoken to represents everyone in non-technical fields.
Understand that privacy is a feature, not a product. People buy products for the value they provide, and privacy doesn't provide any value. Rather, the lack of privacy decreases value. Therefore, people ask, "Okay but is it private?" as a potential objection to buying things they've already decided are valuable. IMO you should address privacy as a potential deal-breaker, not as a deal-maker, which means it comes secondary when convincing people to buy.
I agree fully that privacy is a feature, not a product. In my opinion it's one of the most important features of any product. In the future it will (hopefully) be THE feature that people can't go without.
Here's what I think: humans, as a specie, don't really care about things till they have direct (negative) consequences of these things in their life. Covid? I'm not sick and I don't know anybody sick, so let's go party! Climate change? I'm fine for now, so why should I care?
I think we need to find something which has direct benefits for people in the now concerning privacy, or we wait for something really bad happening (and really visible) and which has privacy as a direct cause.
Another solution: people shifting their believes about money = happiness 🤣 (who's up for a challenge?)
This is great thank you! I recently launched www.getmangoo.com a simple google analytics alternative that is privacy first we are GDPR compliant and no need for cookie banners! Will leverage you advice as I grow Mangoo Analytics. Thanks
Hoody protects your privacy and security. When using your browser with Hoody, each one of your tab and website gets a new IP, a new location and a unique set of Fingerprints, making tracking impossible. Hoody Phantom Browsing™ future-proof technology beats the most advanced tracking techniques. https://hoody.com/
This takes the sale from the consumer side. There is however the b2b side which is a bit easier. Things such as GDPR compliance and IAB implementation. The sell "Do you not want to be sued" is nice
I'm convinced "privacy is a hard sell" because most people starting privacy-based businesses are hardcore privacy advocates, and in my experience hardcore privacy advocates don't really understand how the vast majority of the population thinks. And you can't sell something to people who you don't understand.
To wit, this excerpt from the linked article:
I disagree that this is "exactly" what adtech companies are doing. And I'd wager that well over 99% of people would be able to spot the crucial difference. In fact, that difference is stated further down in the article itself:
Of course people think it's different when a human tracks your data vs a computer — computers aren't alive! They don't have thoughts and opinions. But humans do. When humans see what what you're doing, it's personal. When humans don't see what you're doing, it's not personal. This is intuitive to most.
For example, would you be embarrassed to dance naked in an empty room? What about in front of a camera where nobody's watching the feed? Okay, how about on stage in front of everyone you know? Almost everyone on Earth would prefer to avoid the last situation, but wouldn't mind the first two. Because humans.
In addition, people are well aware that when Google et al are scooping up their behavioral data, they're using computer algorithms to do it, not people. Especially when dealing with the bigger adtech companies, the data is usually anonymized, well-protected, and never accessed or seen by humans.
So the argument that "this is 'exactly the same' as a 'creepy' person 'spying' on you" will ring false to pretty much everyone. Because it is false.
My advice on selling privacy:
First, sell to other hardcore privacy advocates, not to the mainstream. The mainstream is generally happy making the tradeoffs they're making. But if you insist on selling to the mainstream…
Focus on areas where the tradeoffs are worst, i.e. where the consumer risks the most and benefits the least. For example, people tend to buy insurance for high-value items (healthcare, homes, vehicles, etc.), not low-value items. Note that platforms like Gmail and Facebook are probably among the best tradeoffs consumers can make, because they're the most competent companies in the world at protecting data (low risk), while also providing consumers with a lot of value and convenience (high benefits), so it's difficult to make the case that people should abandon these platforms.
Understand that privacy is a feature, not a product. People buy products for the value they provide, and privacy doesn't provide any value. Rather, the lack of privacy decreases value. Therefore, people ask, "Okay but is it private?" as a potential objection to buying things they've already decided are valuable. IMO you should address privacy as a potential deal-breaker, not as a deal-maker, which means it comes secondary when convincing people to buy.
Focus on humans. Privacy is personal. Don't talk about computers reading data. Talk about people reading data. About leaks. Hacks. Employee snooping. Government subpoenas.
Sell to emotion. You need to understand emotion: fear, embarrassment, shame, etc. Bare minimum table stakes is understanding why people care more about personal privacy violations than impersonal ones. Again, look at insurance and security companies. The Ring doorbell/alarm system is a good one. They tune into people's fear for the safety of themselves and their families. They broadcast and incentivize sharing videos of actual break-in attempts. Instead of making some logical or numerical argument, they literally just show the scary situation that people are focused on avoiding to drive the point home.
Hi @csallen,
First of all, thanks for a really insightful response to my post!
I agree that it's easier to sell privacy to hardcore privacy advocates because they are the people who understand the risks of not caring about privacy.
I understand the argument that computers are not alive and the fact that your data is handled by computers makes it less intrusive. But, one the other hand, a lot of analytics and tracking metrics are consumed by humans to inform their decisions. Although most analytics are consumed in aggregates (i.e. 30% of users like X) it is still possible with some tracking tools to drill down in the data and see exactly which user clicked what at what time (with more metrics). To use your metaphor, it's kind of like dancing naked in front of the camera with the possibility of people watching, but you would never know. The fact that most analytics and tracking data are anonymized and stored safely is an assumption that's not always true (See this article about Oracle's BlueKai).
I disagree that Facebook and Gmail are some of the best tradeoffs consumers can make in terms of risk vs reward. On the contrary, Facebook has established itself as one of the worst companies when it comes to protecting their users' personal data (See this link - https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=facebook+data+leaks&atb=v184-1&ia=web).
I don't agree that the mainstream is generally happy making the tradeoffs they're making. I'd say that the mainstream is generally unaware and oblivious to the tradeoffs they're making. Not a lot of people think consciously about the tradeoffs they're about to make when they open a Facebook account. I realize that this is a difference in opinion and I'm not saying that people I've spoken to represents everyone in non-technical fields.
I agree fully that privacy is a feature, not a product. In my opinion it's one of the most important features of any product. In the future it will (hopefully) be THE feature that people can't go without.
Here's what I think: humans, as a specie, don't really care about things till they have direct (negative) consequences of these things in their life. Covid? I'm not sick and I don't know anybody sick, so let's go party! Climate change? I'm fine for now, so why should I care?
I think we need to find something which has direct benefits for people in the now concerning privacy, or we wait for something really bad happening (and really visible) and which has privacy as a direct cause.
Another solution: people shifting their believes about money = happiness 🤣 (who's up for a challenge?)
This is great thank you! I recently launched www.getmangoo.com a simple google analytics alternative that is privacy first we are GDPR compliant and no need for cookie banners! Will leverage you advice as I grow Mangoo Analytics. Thanks
Hoody protects your privacy and security. When using your browser with Hoody, each one of your tab and website gets a new IP, a new location and a unique set of Fingerprints, making tracking impossible. Hoody Phantom Browsing™ future-proof technology beats the most advanced tracking techniques. https://hoody.com/
I know that this was posted a month ago but Im currently building a privacy learning tool to fix this problem.
This takes the sale from the consumer side. There is however the b2b side which is a bit easier. Things such as GDPR compliance and IAB implementation. The sell "Do you not want to be sued" is nice
I think that once software becomes more mainstream, ppl will want privacy more. Technical people tend to be more cognizant of it.
This comment was deleted 4 years ago.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.