D

A

Saiitotm©

K

uotiofotivatmt

cta

p

h0

Journal of Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457

ata Privacy in Retail: Navigating Tensions and Directing Future Research

Kelly D. Martin a,∗, Robert W. Palmatier b

a College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1278, United Statesb University of Washington, Michael G. Foster School of Business, Seattle, Washington 98195, United States

Available online 7 November 2020

bstract

To understand data privacy in retailing, one must consider a myriad of consumer, retailer, and regulatory tensions, trade-offs, and compromises.cholarly research on consumer data privacy in retailing remains a fruitful area of inquiry precisely because it confronts these critical tensions. As

scholarly domain, data privacy research investigates questions and contexts that are fraught with persistent conflicts and paradoxes. Despite somemportant advances, many pressing questions remain, leaving various tensions unresolved too. In this editorial, we review the role of data privacyn retailing, attending to focal consumer and retailer tensions. We also provide an overview of the unique contributions offered by the articles inhis issue, stressing the novel insights they provide for retail theory and practice. This overview exposes three promising research directions thatffer particular promise for informing the critical data privacy tensions that we identify and for expanding the relevance of data privacy research

o encompass a broader set of retail implications. These research directions in turn may motivate future scholarly inquiry in retailing, inform retail

anagement, and suggest public policy options. 2020 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ure; re

ai

otgpptegb

eywords: Data privacy; personalization; privacy paradox; information disclos

A clear sense of data privacy in retailing requires in-depthnderstanding of a myriad of consumer–retailer tensions, trade-ffs, and compromises. Retail managers must balance demandso personalize customer experiences with worries about violat-ng their privacy and inducing backlash. Notably, more than 70%f consumers report frustration when their retail experiencesail to provide personalization (Petro 2019), but more than 70%f consumers also express concerns about how companies usehe data they collect (Auxier et al. 2019). This tension, whichmplies a “state of latent hostility or opposition between indi-iduals or groups” (Merriam-Webster 2020), puts retailers in

seemingly impossible situation. Yet research also has begun

o reveal some relevant exceptions, boundary conditions, and

echanisms through which retailers can partner with consumerso achieve mutually beneficial, data-based applications, person-

The special section guest editors are grateful to Journal of Retailingoeditors-in-chief, Anne Roggeveen and Raj Sethuraman, for their supporthroughout the editorial process. They also thank the special section authorsnd reviewers for their contributions.∗ Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: kelly.martin@colostate.edu (K.D. Martin),almatrw@uw.edu (R.W. Palmatier).

tgc

rtcEinw

ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.10.002022-4359/© 2020 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserv

tail channels

lization agreements, exchanges of data value, and collaborativenteractions.

Understanding data privacy in retailing remains a fruitful areaf research precisely because it seeks to confront these criticalensions. As a scholarly domain, data privacy research investi-ates questions and contexts filled with unresolved conflicts andaradoxes. For example, it reveals that retail consumers valueersonalization efforts and outcomes but are reluctant to sharehe information retailers need to execute such efforts (Aguirret al. 2015). Retailers have access to sophisticated technolo-ies that help them leverage their knowledge about customers,ut they also risk appearing creepy should it seem they knowhose customers “too well” (Bleier and Eisenbeiss 2015). Navi-ating these tensions has produced robust literature already andontinues to motivate scholars working in this space.

Journal of Retailing has been at the forefront of conversationselated to novel uses of consumer information in retail applica-ions. Its publications also have long warned of the threats toonsumer privacy that can accompany such applications (e.g.,smark et al., 2017; Inman and Nikolova 2017). Therefore, it

s particularly fitting to use this special section to take stock ofovel retail applications and their reliance on consumer data, asell as highlight the critical tensions related to data privacy in

ed.

4 rnal o

aitdiurWitmdcm

aCibwmcatr

prpdia(“atpsnPvtaossrMde

bgo

BctpaaaridpatCsdcsimiadgr(mckrec

tisasCaCtmcgcr

pcidt

50 K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

cademic retailing literature and in retail practice. By address-ng these interfaces, the scholarly contributions that constitutehis special section provide critical advances and new researchirections. Yet even with these meaningful contributions, press-ng questions remain unanswered, and crucial tensions remainnresolved. Therefore, we review the role of data privacy inetailing by attending to central consumer and retailer tensions.

e explain how the articles in this special section offer novelnsights for retail theory and practice, which in turn suggestshree promising research directions. Efforts in these directions

ight inform critical data privacy tensions, as well as expandata privacy research to encompass broader, relevant retail impli-ations that can inform retailing management and public policyakers.

Consumer Data Privacy in Retail: Focal Tensions

Protecting consumer data privacy is an important shared goalmong retailers, regulators, advocacy groups, and consumers.onsidering this unitary view, ensuring that consumers’ personal

nformation remains safe, secure, and used only for benign andeneficial purposes should be easily attainable. Yet in contrastith other marketing and retailing goals, for which improve-ents can create linearly increasing consumer benefits (e.g.,

ustomer value creation), protecting consumers’ data privacyctually can impede the benefits that consumers receive, despiteheir expectation and valuation of them in other marketer andetailer interactions.

This unique situation arises from the varied consumer datarivacy tensions that can occur in any combination of consumers,etailers, and regulators or within each entity alone. For exam-le, consumers seek personalization but express equally forcefulesires to limit their personal data sharing. Meaningful personal-zation by a retailer requires consumers to share rich informationbout themselves, their location, and their preferences freelyAguirre et al. 2015), because through this information, retailersget to know” their consumers. The tension between consumers’ppreciation for unique, customized offerings and their reluc-ance to divulge sensitive details that make such customizationossible hinders the value creation process for both parties. Ten-ions also involve regulators, such that retailers attempting toavigate recent data privacy regulations (e.g., EU’s General Datarotection Regulation [GDPR], the California Consumer Pri-acy Act [CCPA]) must devote considerable time and resourceso such efforts, which may mean they have to shift resourcesway from other customer value-creating initiatives. If theyvercompensate in their protective efforts, retailers also mightelf-limit their personalization capacities, which would againtymie customization benefits. Although consumer data privacyesearch has investigated many of these paradoxes (Martin and

urphy 2017), substantial work remains to unpack the varied,ynamic, and complex tensions and challenges that continue tomerge with technological advancements.

Within academic research too, tensions arise regarding theest way to approach this research space. One perspective sug-ests a consumer privacy paradox, such that consumers are awaref data privacy threats but share information freely anyway (e.g.,

awt

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457

arth and de Jong 2017). A wider stream of research insteadites considerable evidence that consumers do not understandhe extent to which their data get used and are not equipped torotect themselves from harm (e.g., Kim et al., 2019; Palmatiernd Martin 2019; Walker 2016). The extent to which customersre actually knowledgeable about the implications of their inter-ctions with retailers is an open question, suggesting the need foresearchers and practitioners to establish a clearer understand-ng of consumers’ actual knowledge, to reveal the associatedata privacy implications (Brough and Martin 2020). By incor-orating consumer privacy knowledge, we can move beyond

paradoxical view that suggests people behave contrary toheir stated privacy preferences. We believe doing so is critical.onsumers who self-identify as “privacy active” take explicit

teps to guard their privacy, which ultimately may help resolveata privacy tensions, in ways that promote mutual benefits foronsumers and retailers. In particular, many benefits require con-umers to know and care about what firms do with their personalnformation, then realize that the exchange of personal infor-ation supports personalization efforts that they value. Even

f consumers do not fully understand the complexities associ-ted with data provision and protection, they believe a firm’sata management practices reflect how they will be treated moreenerally as a customer (90%), so they refuse to purchase frometailers that they believe cannot be trusted with their data (91%)Cisco 2019). These insights suggest that data privacy practicesight offer a proxy for the nature and quality of the overall

ustomer–retailer relationship, informed by consumer privacynowledge. Navigating critical consumer–retailer tensions thusequires researchers to describe consumer data privacy knowl-dge and agency fully, especially in the context of increasinglyomplex retailer interactions and consumption activities.

Another important perspective for understanding persistentensions presents the retailer as concerned about consumers andnvested in protecting their privacy. Retailers’ access to per-onalization tools hinges on their ability to infuse analyticalpplications with rich consumer data. A failure to protect con-umers and their data would nullify this valuable arrangement.ontemporary discussions tend to center on retailers’ compli-nce with complex regulations, such as the EU’s GDPR or theCPA, without acknowledging that many retailers sought to do

he right thing by consumers even before the regulatory enforce-ent (Martin and Murphy 2017; Palmatier and Martin 2019). Of

ourse, some retailers deserve their bad reputations, which sug-ests that understanding retailer orientations and motivationsould clarify yet another tension that arises in both academicesearch and retail practice.

These identified tensions, which crop up in consumer datarivacy studies in marketing and retailing, have notable impli-ations for consumers, retailers, as well as regulators and theirnteractions. This recognition motivates this special sectionevoted to consumer data privacy in retailing. The articles it fea-ures represent important advancements, contributing insights

bout existing consumer data privacy tensions in retailing, asell as suggestions for beginning to resolve them. We draw from

heir collective insights to suggest additional research directions.

rnal o

rewcSccPtaapfMstiwvsct

(gviceppnrnata

thTitfiTtieg

bca

frsbzcc

BD

nwmthdtdaitltdcatt

liwsbiadatcccnewtt2c

K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

Overview of the Special Section

The articles in this special section advance data privacyesearch in retail contexts in important ways. To start, Bidlert al. (2020) reveal that consumers appear more willing to engageith a retailer, including entering information disclosure pro-

esses, if the process is more interactive, media-rich, and fun.uch evidence implies that retailers may benefit from gamifyingonsumer data disclosures, because anticipating gamificationan evoke hedonic responses that increase disclosure likelihood.roviding entertaining, hedonic benefits is not enough though;

extual justifications for the need for the data collection alsore critical. That is, a fun setting is helpful but not sufficient,nd consumers still need to know why they are being asked torovide certain information and how doing so will benefit theirurther exchanges with the retailer. This finding resonates with

artin et al.’s (2020) finding, based on a global survey, that con-umers report more positive firm outcomes when they sense thathey receive some value from the exchange. Their results alsondicate that firms benefit more from providing their customersith experience value, beyond the mere provision of economicalue (e.g., lower prices), in exchange for their valuable per-onal information. Together, these contributions establish thatonsumers consider the value they can receive from exchanges,hen respond to retailers accordingly.

With regard to personal information disclosures, Grosso et al.2020) also determine that trust in the retailer functions as alobal consideration. It can lessen the negative effect of pri-acy concerns on consumers’ willingness to disclose personalnformation, a mitigating influence that emerges in multipleountries and for various retailers. Rather than trust, Aiellot al. (2020) demonstrate the influential role of retailer warmtherceptions for increasing consumers’ willingness to discloseersonal information. Warmth thus increases disclosure willing-ess, though perceptions of warmth communicated in disclosureequests vary, depending on the stage of the consumer jour-ey. Their study helps clarify some stage-contingent factors in

consumer–retailer disclosure setting, with important implica-ions for retailer privacy efforts, sensitive information requests,nd other interactions between consumers and retailers.

This special section also features two big picture views. Inheir meta-analysis, Okazaki et al. (2020) establish a compre-ensive synthesis of research into consumer privacy concerns.heir thoughtful analyses, reflecting input from more than 300

nvestigations of consumer privacy concerns, can inform con-inued privacy research at the consumer–retailer interface. Theirndings also echo the key results offered by Martin et al. (2020).hese inputs establish the need for more purposeful examina-

ions of cross-cultural differences in privacy concerns, especiallyn parts of the world that have been less researched. Okazakit al. also call for investigations of the confluence of regulatory,lobal, and consumer factors in the retail landscape.

In combination, the special section articles and their contri-

utions suggests critical areas for further investigation. Theirollective insights identify research opportunities that candvance understanding of data privacy in retailing in meaning-

t

r(

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457 451

ul ways. In particular, unique aspects of both retail theory andetail management illuminate three notable gaps in our under-tanding of data privacy, as we elaborate next: the need to pusheyond the boundaries of consumer information disclosure toero-party data exchanges, data privacy as it unfolds during theonsumer retail journey, and channel-specific perspectives ononsumer data privacy.

Research Directions

eyond Consumer Information Disclosure to Zero-Partyata Exchanges

Investigations of data privacy in retailing often address theature of the information disclosure. In this special section,e find insightful explorations of how data privacy concernsight inhibit or encourage consumer information disclosures;

hey push existing boundaries to advance retail thinking andelp clarify the implications of data privacy and informationisclosure for both retailing theory and practice. But as novelechnologies emerge, it is important to continue asking: Whato we mean by information disclosure? Not all disclosure is cre-ted equal. How do the many and varied nuances surroundingnformation disclosure evoke other privacy concepts, pertainingo transparency, control, or trust? Are current theories in extantiterature sufficient to facilitate a clear understanding of informa-ion disclosure? We posit that data privacy may be an importanteterminant of not just information disclosure but also of otheronsumer–retailer interactions. The insights derived from therticles in this special section also suggest that future investiga-ions of information disclosure willingness and intentions needo shift in some concrete ways. We highlight three such ways.

First, many consumers willingly provide retailers with someimited, personal data (e.g., contact details, basic demograph-cs). This form of information disclosure could be enhancedith practices and ideas suggested by the articles in this special

ection (Aiello et al. 2020; Bidler et al. 2020; Grosso et al. 2020),ut as the nature of consumer information disclosure changes,ts investigation also may need to be reimagined. For example,dvanced retail technologies are not limited to traditional, onlineata entry fields that consumers populate manually to complete

purchase. Through novel touchpoint technologies such as loca-ion tracking, facial recognition, and emotion tracking, retailersan gather data invisibly and without explicit permission fromonsumers. Rather than making a conscious choice to disclose,onsumers may lack an option to refuse. These changes raiseew, highly sensitive privacy challenges and call into questionxisting theoretical views of consumer privacy and disclosureillingness (Okazaki et al. 2020). For example, consumers tend

o define privacy according to whether they maintain control overheir personal information (Martin and Murphy 2017; Stewart017). If technology-enabled touchpoints gather data withoutonsumers’ consent, or even their awareness, they inherently

hreaten this perceived privacy.

Second, beyond initial disclosures, consumers worry aboutetailers’ use and protection of their data, and very few of them5% in a recent survey) believe that retailers perform sufficiently

4 rnal o

wtdowahddietvetah2

itir(iCtmctoda2Ibbdipaav(atfmrih

D

ni

caRvctvcFaa(r

ecjipaopvtocrwIhmtdtcppptt

pgprpcfpttmi

52 K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

ell (Sides et al. 2019). New technologies and opportunitieso access consumer data continue to proliferate, but then soo potential threats and consumer concerns—especially amonglder consumers (55+ years) (Cisco 2019), a majority (73%) ofhom acknowledge that they do not know and cannot man-

ge how companies use their personal information. Aroundalf (49%) believe they have no choice but to relinquish theirata to receive services, and a similar percentage (46%) believeata protections are futile, because their information alreadys exposed. Younger consumers express concerns about retail-rs’ use of their personal data too, including a sense that novelechnologies may follow, spy, or eavesdrop on them, which pre-ents them from fully adopting certain retailer innovations. Forxample, nearly 70% of this consumer group report a reluc-ance to use voice technologies to engage with retailers, worriedbout intrusiveness or data security. As such, privacy issues caninder technological adoption and retailer engagement (PwC018).

Third, retailers already have begun to reimagine consumernformation exchanges using zero-party data disclosures. Aerm coined by Forrester Research, zero-party data refer tonformation that consumers knowingly, willingly provide toetailers in exchange for more meaningful personalizationRowan 2020). The process for extracting zero-party data occursn a conversation-like format between the retailer and consumer.onsumers receive incentives to engage in such conversations

o gain better personalization, more appropriate product recom-endations, and service suggestions. But the format still enables

onsumers to disclose only the information they want, in a formato which they agree. In other words, the data disclosure happensn consumers’ terms. Retailers may encourage zero-party dataisclosure with financial incentives and rewards, often under theuspices of effective loyalty programs (Palmatier and Martin019), and thus might offer worthwhile value for retailers too.n contrast, first-party data disclosures require retailers to makeroad inferences about consumers’ motivations from relativelyasic, less personal consumer information. But with zero-partyata, retailers might better understand why consumers behaven certain ways and in which contexts. Finally, because zero-arty data disclosure is based on an existing consumer–retailergreement, various transparency and control benefits shouldrise, which can engender trust and reduce both feelings ofiolation and the negative effects of unexpected data breachesMartin et al., 2017). Consumers know what information theyre sharing and why, so ultimately they can decide how mucho reveal—which constitute ideal conditions to empower andoster trust. If the value received is sufficient, the consumer isore likely to share additional data over time, in cooperative

ather than adversarial exchanges. Academic research has yet tonvestigate this new frontier of data disclosure; doing so may beighly fruitful.

ata Privacy and the Consumer Retail Journey

Aiello et al. (2020) capture consumer disclosure willing-ess at various phases of the consumer journey. Their insightfulnvestigation demonstrates the relevance of consumer journey

rppr

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457

oncepts for understanding data privacy and thereby highlightsn important route for retailing theory and practice (Grewal andoggeveen 2020). We recommend research into how data pri-acy unfolds throughout the retail experience and across theonsumer journey too. Beyond intentional disclosures at theime of purchase, how should we understand how data pri-acy manifests, shifts, and changes during various phases in theonsumer retail journey? In the discussion that follows and inig. 1, we map a series of data privacy concerns and questionscross the consumer journey framework advanced by Grewalnd Roggeveen (2020), consistent with Lemon and Verhoef2016), suggesting research opportunities across phases andeflecting external influences.

Prepurchase. To date, data privacy in retail research mostlyxamines privacy concerns or events during the actual pur-hase stage. Yet the prepurchase phase of the consumer decisionourney theoretically includes all consumer experiences thatnform and lead up to an actual purchase. This phase encom-asses the time from need recognition to purchase (Lemonnd Verhoef 2016). In its most benign form, prepurchase usesf consumer data can produce product suggestions or cross-romotions. Potentially more serious, subversive, and influentialiolations also might occur in the prepurchase phase, designedo trigger consumer need recognition, define search parameters,r encourage a specific purchase. By definition, data privacyoncerns can involve need recognition, suggesting an ability byetailers to use consumer information extracted in subversiveays to “suggest” or make salient specific consumption needs.

n particular, a retailer might use consumer tracking or searchistory data, voice and text analyses, contents of email com-unications, social media posts, or even physical movement

racking to determine which product solutions to recommenduring the customer’s search. Academic research should seeko identify mutually beneficial ways for retailers to influenceonsumers during the prepurchase phase without violating theirrivacy or basic fairness considerations (e.g., charging a higherrice to some consumers, on the basis of data gained from arepurchase search). Can mutual benefit and value be created inhe prepurchase phase, by using consumer data in ways that areransparent and provide consumers with more control?

Purchase. As Lemon and Verhoef (2016) note, the purchasehase of the consumer journey is the most widely investi-ated one in marketing research; the same trend holds for datarivacy research in marketing and retailing. The substantialesearch that investigates consumers’ willingness to discloseersonal information to a retailer shows that this choice typi-ally takes place at the moment of purchase. Thus it is pertinentor researchers to simulate a purchase transaction and askarticipants if they would provide personal data in that situa-ion. In practice, purchase interactions also are where retailersypically solicit consumer information, through personal infor-ation forms issued in digital channels or salesperson requests

n brick-and-mortar settings. The former has received more

esearch attention, likely reflecting the extensive use of onlineersonal data requests during purchases. Even though suchersonal information is actively sought at this phase, it stillepresents first-party data, generally limited to basic demograph-

K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Journal of Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457 453

cross

iifioswepawttmp

owTpapaapm

rpcdgc2hbiBI(panautawc

Fig. 1. Data Privacy Threats A

cs or contact information from which retailers can only makendirect inferences. If researchers address the potential bene-ts of zero-party data exchanges at the time of purchase (orther phases of the customer journey), they might encourage ahift away from first-party tracking and inference making, asell as expand the use of zero-party data to reduce data mon-

tization practices (i.e., consumer data extracted at the time ofurchase are sold to various entities without consumer consentnd contrary to their intentions). The purchase phase also ishere consumer data tend to be breached, misused, or subject

o identity theft. Researchers should seek solutions to preventhese catastrophic consumer privacy failures, as well as deter-ine whether a firm can build a reputation for data and privacy

rotection that influences consumers’ purchase decisions.Postpurchase. Similar to prepurchase, the postpurchase phase

f the consumer journey has received less attention associatedith data privacy, despite its promise as a fruitful area of inquiry.his phase of the journey also appears particularly ripe for datarivacy violations. Because it is lucrative for retailers to create

looping process (Grewal and Roggeveen 2020), in which aostpurchase phase reinforces the desire for future purchasesnd perhaps even engenders loyalty, retailers have consider-

ble motivation to understand the consumer experience in thishase. Obtuse means for extracting postpurchase data includeonitoring customer reviews, tracking social media activity, or

as

the Consumer Retail Journey.

equesting insights; in addition, RFID capabilities represent aotentially rich source of consumer data, because marketersan monitor how tagged products are consumed, shared, andisposed. In this sense, these technologies and their ability toarner highly personal, potentially sensitive information exposeonsumers to considerable privacy risks (Albrecht and McIntyre005). The proliferation of the Internet of Things (IoT) and smartome technologies also create postpurchase data privacy threats,ecause by design these smart devices monitor consumer behav-ors and usage, relying on constant siphoning of consumer data.y many accounts, consumers do not realize the extent to which

oT and smart home devices extract their personal informationMolla 2019). Retailing scholarship thus might help create trans-arency and inform retail practice regarding appropriate, open,nd honest uses of consumer data gathered through such tech-ologies. Can meaningful dialogue occur between consumersnd retailers on postpurchase topics, in ways that improve prod-ct performance and consumer experiences? For example, arehere ways to make consumer reviews more dynamic and inter-ctive so that the consumer and retailer exchange informationillingly, rather than surreptitiously or in ways that promulgate

onflict? How might open avenues for consumer–retailer cocre-

tion ensure that meaningful consumer input on products andervices is ongoing and gathered programmatically? Academic

4 rnal o

rp

eRttopivrpiIpsppobcbetiteaft

C

vtcbivlcbriitBtd

teoco

os2(taAiapadsivhidsrrmi

atSimumtmboadTvecwsdsor

iiohb

54 K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

esearch and practical insights about consumer data privacy atostpurchase phases thus are especially critical.

External forces. Beyond the three purchase phases, a vari-ty of external forces shape the customer journey. Grewal andoggeveen (2020) identify technological influences, sociocul-

ural and political influences, and retail atmospherics; we asserthat data privacy considerations inform or are informed by eachf these forces too. Continued research should investigate datarivacy as a critical outcome or driver of the way these forcesnfluence the consumer journey. For example, how does pri-ate knowledge of a consumer’s political affiliation shape aetailer’s communication with that consumer in the prepurchasehase? Political affiliation affects postpurchase phase behav-ors, such as dissatisfaction and complaining (Jung et al. 2017).f retailers are aware of this information, it might shape theirostpurchase interactions, potentially leading to (un)favorableervice interactions informed by political partisanship or com-laint likelihood. Technology forces also create significant datarivacy concerns because of their reliance on embedded usesf consumer data. Might novel technologies offer the intendedenefits while still protecting consumer privacy? For example,onsumers’ prepurchase, in-store experience traditionally haseen difficult to monitor and track. If technologies help retail-rs achieve this goal though, through technological systems andouchpoints, is there a way to avoid leading consumers to regardt as creepy? For example, perhaps interactive retail atmosphericools might provide greater transparency, offer consumers somelements of control, and alleviate concerns. Similar protocols in

mobile environment also might make consumers more com-ortable, such that they may perceive greater value from locationracking.

hannel-Specific Understanding

In their meta-analysis, Okazaki et al. (2020) find that pri-acy concerns differ by retail channel. Web channels decreasehe effects of privacy concerns on usage behaviors and risk per-eptions; social media channels increase disclosure and usageehaviors among those with high privacy concerns, but they alsoncrease their risk perceptions. Such evidence of privacy concernariations across research contexts and retail platforms estab-ishes that not all channels are created equally when it comes toonsumer concerns and disclosures. Thus, in addition to movingeyond disclosure and accounting for the phases of the consumeretail journey, continued research needs to leverage multichannelnvestigations and analyses of data privacy questions. We exam-ne some differences and suggest data privacy research devotedo web, mobile, social, and brick-and-mortar channels (Fig. 2).y mapping such variation, academic research can grant insights

hat inform retail practitioners about the best ways to mitigateata privacy concerns.

Web channels. Academic research has noted the need to inves-igate online privacy concerns since the early 2000s; Malhotra

t al. (2004) adapt a privacy concerns scale to accommodate annline environment. Because the risks to data privacy in thishannel are readily apparent, a flurry of research has followed,ften focused on consumers’ disclosure willingness toward

tsec

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457

nline retailers. Beyond disclosure, notable topics include con-umers’ awareness of online tracking by cookies (Miyazaki008) and targeted advertising by retailers on web platformsKim et al., 2019). Less studied yet equally worthy of investiga-ion is the question of how multiple consumer tasks performedcross the web might interact to threaten consumer privacy.re email and social platforms being integrated with mobile

nterfaces to surreptitiously profile consumers? To what extentre consumers aware of this integration, and do they employersuasion knowledge to interpret personalization or targeteddvertising suspiciously? Especially as millions of workers, stu-ents, and others have relied on online channels to work, attendchool, and so forth during the COVID-19 pandemic, data repos-tories and third-party data aggregators have gained access toastly increased personal information. With so many house-old members conducting their daily lives online, what are themplications for online retailers attempting to delineate who isoing what, and which purchases are made for whom? Do con-umers welcome the convenience of online retail transactions,eplacing in-person interactions, so much that they willinglyelinquish their data? Or do increased daily online interactionsake them more skeptical and jaded about providing even more

nformation?Social media channels. Social spaces by definition should

llow consumers to share freely and disclose even highly sensi-ive information, in different formats (e.g., text, pictures, videos).ocial media build community and are premised on ideas of shar-

ng and open, transparent communication. Yet popular socialedia spaces such as Facebook have endured significant rep-

tational damage due to their lack of data privacy protections,onetization of personal data, and massive data breaches. Such

ensions should inform retailers seeking to establish a socialedia presence. Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest feature “buy

uttons” that allow consumers to complete purchases directlyn the platforms (Meola 2019), so protecting data privacy isn increasingly complex task, and consumers must worry aboutata protections by both the retailer and the social media site.he retailer’s presence manifests differently on social mediaersus e-commerce websites; do consumers relate to it differ-ntly, depending on the channel they use? For example, mightonsumers interact with retailers in social spaces more freely,illingly disclosing more information than if they visited a web

tore? If so, are consumers at greater risk? Retailers also shouldetermine if they can foster stronger consumer relationships inocial spaces by using messaging about privacy, as they useffline or on the web, or if different privacy interactions areequired in social and community-like spaces.

Mobile. Mobile retailing has experienced dramatic growth,n the purchase stage and the prepurchase stage, particularlyn relation to search efforts (statista.com). Mobile devicesffer retailers a wealth of information about consumers’ searchabits, activities, and geographic movements. When paired withrick-and-mortar retail locations, mobile data allow retailers

o triangulate movement and infer patterns. Such uses of con-umer data are fraught with privacy concerns and subject tothical debates. By using geoconquesting for example, a retaileran identify a consumer’s geographic proximity to a competing

K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Journal of Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457 455

: Sele

rtcTtsdsopraarc

snmpcrbTaa

pfitefAp2st

aortite

Fig. 2. Data Privacy Research Directions

etailer and send targeted messages or promotions, in an efforto thwart a sale. Accordingly, geolocation marketing can appearreepy and heighten consumer worries about being stalked.hese technologies may shift consumer behavior in real-time

hough, so research is needed to understand the effects on con-umer trust or violations of it. For example, if benign promotionso not hinge on location tracking, privacy concerns may beevere if retailers communicate through mobile channels, with-ut explicit permission to do so. These messages appear moreersonal and intrusive than an email or targeted web ad, puttingetailers at risk of backlash. In short, more research is needed tovoid unintended implications that stymie what appears to offer

sustainable retail growth option, ripe for innovation, withoutisking consumers’ safety or challenging their communicationhannel preferences.

Brick-and-mortar. Even physical retail spaces leave con-umers open to data privacy threats, especially those that containovel technologies for consumer location tracking, movementonitoring, and mobile device recognition. To understand pre-

urchase phases of the retail journey, retailers might trackonsumers’ movements, using smartphone connections to theetailer’s wifi, tracking kiosks and displays, or RFID integration

etween physical in-store markers and consumer loyalty cards.raditional technologies have their own privacy risks though. In

study of Fortune 500 firms’ privacy policies, Martin, Borah,nd Palmatier (2018) find that many retailers disclose their

tsat

cted Questions by Retail Channel Type.

ractice of actively recording in-store video, but their tacticsor doing so safeguard their interests in capturing and retain-ng consumer data and even selling those data to undisclosedhird parties. Often such practices are framed as loss preventionfforts, but when coupled with facial recognition technologyor example, they leave consumers prone to privacy threats.lthough recent research has advanced our understanding ofrivacy threats in physical retail spaces (Esmark and Noble018; Esmark et al., 2017; Esmark et al. 2020), continued studieshould investigate data privacy threats and consumer responseso them.

Conclusion

Firms can benefit from strengthening privacy practicesnd implementing customer-protecting privacy policies (for anverview, see Palmatier and Martin 2019). Customer-centricetailers thus have moved past arbitrary or haphazard exploita-ion of big data and data analytics (Business Wire 2019) andnstead seek payoffs from mutually valuable consumer rela-ionships and stronger company privacy practices. Businessvidence affirms that firms with stronger data privacy prac-

ices enjoy tangible benefits (Cisco 2020), including shorterales delays; diminished harm from data breaches; and enhancedgility, innovation, operational efficiency, investor appeal, cus-omer loyalty, and customer trust. Returns on investments in

4 rnal o

dracai

yWwiatscra

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

C

E

E

E

G

G

I

J

K

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

O

P

56 K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

ata privacy are estimated to reach 270%; larger firms reporteturns greater than 400% (Cisco 2020). The result may be

more authentic consumer experience, in which people canhoose which retailers may target them, with which productsnd services, rather than accepting random contacts from brandsn which they have no interest.

Data privacy research in retailing thus has flourished in recentears, as the pages of past issues of the Journal of Retailing show.ith this particular special section, we also seek to highlight theays that nuances of the retail environment and a vibrant retail-

ng academic community make consumer data privacy researchn especially ripe context for continued investigation. We hopehis special section inspires ongoing work in this domain, bycholars and practitioners who focus their energies and talents onustomer data privacy tensions. Such work can offer a source ofealized mutual benefits and actionable solutions for consumersnd retailers alike.

References

guirre, Elizabeth, Dominik Mahr, Dhruv Grewal, Ruyter Ko de and MartinWetzels (2015), “Unraveling the Personalization Paradox: The Effect ofInformation Collection and Trust-Building Strategies on Online Advertise-ment Effectiveness,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (1), 34–49.

iello, Gaetano, Raffaele Donvito, Valentina Mazzoli, Laura Grazzini, DilettaAcuti and Virginia Vannucci (2020), “Privacy Roller-Coaster: Consumers’Willingness to Disclose Personal Information Throughout the CustomerJourney in the Retail Context,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (December),490–506.

lbrecht, Katherine and Liz McIntyre (2005), Spychips: How Major Corpora-tions and Government Plan to Track your Every Purchase and Watch YourEvery Move, Nashville: Nelson Current.

uxier, Brooke, Lee Rainie, Monica Anderson, Andrew Perrin, Madhu Kumarand Erica Turner (2019), “How Americans Think About Privacy and theVulnerability of Their Personal Data,” Pew Research Center,,. November 15,https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/how-americans-think-about-privacy-and-the-vulnerability-of-their-personal-data/, downloadedApril 6, 2020

arth, Susanne and Menno D.T. de Jong (2017), “The Privacy Paradox: Inves-tigating Discrepancies Between Expressed Privacy Concerns and ActualOnline Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review,” Telematics and Infor-matics, 34 (November), 1038–58.

idler, Margarita, Johanna Zimmerman, Jan H. Schumann and Thomas Widjaja(2020), “Previewing a Meaningfully Gamified Data Disclosure Process toIncrease Consumers’ Willingness to Engage in Data Disclosure Processes,”Journal of Retailing, 96 (December), 507–532.

leier, Alexander and Maik Eisenbeiss (2015), “The Importance of Trust forPersonalized Online Advertising,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (September),390–409.

rough, Aaron R. and Kelly D. Martin (2020), “Critical Roles of Knowledgeand Motivation in Privacy Research,” Current Opinion in Psychology, 31,11–5.

usiness Wire (2019), Big Data Analytics in Retail Market Growth, Trends andForecast 2019-2024: Growth of e-Commerce, Online Shopping, and HighCompetition for Customer Loyalty, (accessed March 29, 2020), [availableat: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190626005385/en/Big-Data-Analytics-Retail-Market-Growth-Trends].

isco (2020), “From Privacy to Profit: Achieving Positive Returns on PrivacyInvestments,” Cisco Cybersecurity Series: Data Privacy Benchmark Study,,.

January,. www.cisco.com/go/securityreports

(2019), “Consumer Privacy Survey: The GrowingImperative of Getting Data Privacy Right,” Cisco Cybersecurity Series,,.November,. www.cisco.com/go/securityreports

P

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457

smark, Carol L. and Stephanie M. Noble (2018), “Retail Space Invaders: WhenEmployees’ Invasion of Customer Space Increases Purchase Intentions,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (May), 477–96.

smark, Carol L., Stephanie M. Noble and Michael J. Brazeale (2017), “I’ll BeWatching You: Shoppers’ Reactions to Perceptions of Being Watched byEmployees,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (September), 336–49.

smark, Carol L., Jennifer L. Stevens, Stephanie M. Noble and Michael J.Brazeale (2020), “Panic Attack: How Illegitimate Invasions of Privacy CauseConsumer Anxiety and Dissatisfaction,” Journal of Public Policy & Mar-keting, 39 (July), 334–52.

rewal, Dhruv and Anne L. Roggeveen (2020), “Understanding Retail Expe-riences and Customer Journey Management,” Journal of Retailing, 96(March), 3–8.

rosso, Monica, Sandro Castaldo, Li Hua (Ariel) and Bart Lariviere (2020),“Contextualizing the Privacy Paradox in Retail: A Multi-level, Multi-country, Multi-industry Analysis of the Roles of Trust and InformationSensitivity,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (December), 533–556.

nman, J. Jeffrey and Hristina Nikolova (2017), “Shopper-Facing Retail Tech-nology: A Retailer Adoption Decision Framework Incorporating ShopperAttitudes and Privacy Concerns,” Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 7–28.

ung, Kiju, Ellen Garbarino, Donnel A. Briley and Jesse Wynhausen (2017),“Blue and Red Voices: Effects of Political Ideology on Consumers’ Com-plaining and Disputing Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44(October), 477–99.

im, Tami, Kate Barasz and Leslie K. John (2019), “Why Am I Seeing This Ad?The Effect of Ad Transparency on Ad Effectiveness,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 45 (February), 906–32.

emon, Katherine N. and Peter C. Verhoef (2016), “Understanding CustomerExperience Throughout the Customer Journey,” Journal of Marketing, 80(November), 69–96.

alhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim and James Agarwal (2004), “Internet Users’Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and aCausal Model,” Information Systems Research, 4 (December), 336–55.

artin, Kelly D., Abhishek Borah and Robert W. Palmatier (2018),“A Strong Privacy Policy Can Save Your Company Millions,” Har-vard Business Review,,. February 15 [available at: https://hbr.org/2018/02/research-a-strong-privacy-policy-can-save-your-company-millions]

, and(2017), “Data Privacy: Effects on Customer and Firm Performance,” Journalof Marketing, 81 (January), 36–58.

artin, Kelly D., Jisu J. Kim, Robert W. Palmatier, Lena Steinhoff, David W.Stewart, Beth A. Walker, Yonggui Wang and Scott Weaven (2020), “DataPrivacy in Retail,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (December), 474–489.

artin, Kelly D. and Patrick E. Murphy (2017), “The Role of Data Privacyin Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (March),135–55.

eola, Andrew (2019), “Rise of M-Commerce: Mobile Ecommerce Shop-ping Stats and Trends in 2020,” Business Insider,,. December 17,(accessed September 10, 2020), [available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-commerce-shopping-trends-stats]

erriam-Webster (2020), Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tension.

iyazaki, Anthony D. (2008), “Online Privacy and the Disclosure of CookieUse: Effects on Consumer Trust and Anticipated Patronage,” Journal ofPublic Policy & Marketing, 27 (Spring), 19–33.

olla, Rani (2019), “People Say They Care About Privacy but TheyContinue to Buy Devices That Can Spy on Them,” Vox,,. May 13,(accessed September 10, 2020), [available at: https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/13/18547235/trust-smart-devices-privacy-security]

kazaki, Shintaro, Martin Eisend, Kirk Plangger, Ruyter Ko de and Dhruv Gre-wal (2020), “Understanding the Strategic Consequences of Customer PrivacyConcerns: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Journal of Retailing, 96 (December),458–473.

almatier, Robert W. and Kelly D. Martin (2019), The Intelligent Marketer’s

Guide to Data Privacy, New York: Palgrave.

etro, Greg (2019), “Retailers Walking a Tightrope Between DataPrivacy and Personalization,” Forbes,,. May 17, (accessedSeptember 13, 2020), [available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/

rnal o

P

R

S

SMarketing Science, 45 (2), 156–9.

K.D. Martin, R.W. Palmatier / Jou

gregpetro/2019/05/17/retailers-walking-a-tightrope-between-data-privacy-and-personalization/#2eba356e2fca]

wC (2018), “Prepare for the Voice Revolution,” Consumer Intelligence Series,,www.pwc.com/cisvoiceassistants

owan, Mike (2020), “Is Zero-Party Data the Way Forward

for Personalized Marketing?,” Forbes,,. March 23, (accessedSeptember 13, 2020), [available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/03/23/is-zero-party-data-the-way-forward-for-personalized-marketing/#6b0e735bb324]

W

f Retailing 96 (4, 2020) 449–457 457

ides, Rod, Matt Marsh, Rob Goldberg and Michael Mangold (2019), “Con-sumer Privacy in Retail: The Next Regulatory and Competitive Frontier,”Deloitte Development,, LLC. www.deloitte.com

tewart, David W. (2017), “A Comment on Privacy,” Journal of the Academy of

alker, Kristen L. (2016), “Surrendering Information Through the LookingGlass: Transparency, Trust, and Protection,” Journal of Public Policy &Marketing, 35 (Spring), 144–58.