PERSONALISATION: Hanging in the Balance · personalisation is at risk. Extreme views and misconceptions around data and especially its use for marketing purposes are threatening to

PERSONALISATION:Hanging in the BalanceUPDATE: The impact of the

GDPR and Brexit

By: Jed Mole I European Marketing Director, Acxiom & Alex Hazell I Head of UK Legal, Acxiom

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Let’s make this personal. We’re all individuals; we all value personal relationships; we’re all impressed by great, personalised service. But today, as we interact, socialise and buy more in the digital space, our ability to enjoy high standards of personalisation is at risk. Extreme views and misconceptions around data and especially its use formarketing purposes are threatening to seriously curtail marketers’ ability to deliver great personalisation and a great customer experience.

The purpose of this updated white paper is to consider the various factors and forces at play so that the reader can take a more balanced view of consumer data and, in turn, how it’s used for marketing purposes and the benefit to the consumer.

Updates:GDPR, Brexit and New Research Findings

This document was originally authored in 2013 and while the key principles remain the same, there has been much change in the world in which these principles operate. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was adopted in April 2016, promising great harmonisation of regulations across the EU. While they were generally welcomed it was the ‘guidance’ to follow, the detail around how the new regulations would be applied, that would be just as important to brands and consumers in practice.

GDPR will be enforced across the EU from May 2018. However, in a referendum on the 23 June 2016, the British public voted to leave the European Union. The digital minister1 has made assurances that the UK will be following the GDPR principles following its withdrawal, to ensure effective flow of in-formation between European countries. He has also discussed the development of further data exchange structures to protect and facilitate data flows between the UK and other countries with ‘high-quality data protection regimes’. As the implications and details of Brexit unfold, these moves are all crucial in order to support business interests between the UK, EU countries, and beyond. In this update, we will highlight any specific points around the personalisation dilemma relating to GDPR and Brexit.

Finally, the previous version of this document originally included research from the DMA / Future Foundation 2012 report ‘Data Privacy – What the consumer really thinks’. In this updated paper, we have revised the figures to include those from the same report, rerun in 2015.

1 http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450412141/UK-legislation-will-mirror-EUs-GDPR-says-Matt-Hancock

Personalisation:Hanging in the Balance

1© 2017 Acxiom Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

PERSONALISATION I Hanging in the Balance

INTRODUCTION:

Current attitudes towards data useAt the time of writing, the sun has been around for 4.57 billion years2. In that time, it has proved not only essential to us but a welcome friend; how many of us don’t enjoy a sunny day? However, that same ‘friend’ is in many respects a massive nuclear engine which not only sounds alarming, looked at the wrong way, it can cause real harm to the eyes and without the right protection, to the skin.

Data, like the sun or any other energy source, is neither inherently good nor bad. Handled carefully and put to good use it greatly enhances our lives. However if it’s misused or abused, the consequences can beserious.

DATA - a private function?Before discussing the issue of data and its use in modern business and marketing infrastructure, security has to be addressed. Without a fundamental promise of the security and respectful use of any form of data shared between organisations or individuals, the trust exchange collapses. The baseline for security and consumer privacy must be correctly set for all uses of personal data. We must keep data safe, secure and operating both within the letter and the spirit of the law. We must be transparent about how we collect and use data and we must be responsive to questions whether raised by regulators or the public. The root of many individual concerns about data and its use hinges on privacy, and nowhere is the consumerbacklash more vicious than in cases where an individual’s data has been shared or sold in ways they would not reasonably expect.

So why are some people concerned about the use of personal data? It’s natural really, given news stories and increasing consumer awareness of personal data as we generate increasing amounts of data across our many and varied devices.

The latest study 2015 by the DMA (UK) and Future Foundation3 highlighted some interesting findings and shifts in attitude:

• 83% of everyone in the EU has internet access (it is estimated there will be 258.1m smartphone users in Western Europe in 2017)4

• An increasing 73% of people expect organisations to use data to improve service

• The number of people who claim that the exchange of personal data is essential for the smooth running of modern society has risen from 38% in 2012 to 47% in 2015. The number of respondents who claim that online privacy is a significant concern has decreased from 84% in 2012 to 79% in 2015.The number of people who are happy with the amount of personal information they share with organisations has risen steadily since 2012, with almost 60% agreeing that “On the whole I am happy with the amount of personal information I give to organisations these days”.

2 NASA3 DMA ‘Data privacy – what the consumer really thinks’ (DMA & Future Foundation, 2012 and 2015)4 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Digital_economy_and_society_statistics_-_households_and_individuals



The research segmented individuals into three categories according to the terms of their attitudes todata use:

• 54% of the population are pragmatists, up from 53% in 2012

• 24% are fundamentalists, down from 31% in 2012

• 22% are unconcerned, up from 16% in 2012

3

Other fascinating findings include:• 90% of people surveyed want more control of their data

• Consumers are well aware that their data has an intrinsic value – and believe that their financial andmedical data to be the most valuable. In fact the number of consumers who say that they see theirpersonal information as a way to command better deals from companies has increased from 40% to over 52% in the past three years.

• Over 80% of respondents agree that “my data is my property and I should be able to trade it if I like (for better offers, services etc…).”

• 73% of people agreed that in the internet age, you have to provide personal information in order to buy things.

• However, consumers feel that the value exchange is not currently balanced in their favour. 80% of respon-dents claimed that businesses generally benefit the most from data sharing and just 7% stating that consumers benefit most.

In many respects, the bottom line is that data is increasingly accepted as part of the modern world, but consumers expect to see value from it. Many in the marketing industry would argue that consumers already benefit in far more ways than they generally appreciate and that if the availability of data were to be significantly reduced, the consumer would notice the adverse effect, e.g. completely random digital advertising.

22%

24%

54%PRAGMATISTSPragmatists unsurprisingly are prepared to allow the use of data so long as it delivers value to them and is properly managed

UNCONCERNEDThe unconcerned are very laissez-faire in their views, relatively unconcerned with how their data is being used

FUNDAMENTALISTSFundamentalists are very suspicious of the use of data and want to see it more limited and regulated.

© 2017 Acxiom Corporation. All Rights Reserved.


Update:It will be interesting to see what effect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or a post Brexit version of GDPR, has on these groups. Will this new privacy law with its greater checks and balances give people more confidence to share their information, or will it cause people to “clam up” and share less almost in collusion with the more restrictive law?

On balance, Acxiom believes that the move will continue to be towards pragmatism and being less concerned and away from the more draconian, fundamental views, as all segments see morelegislation and enforcement to protect them, whether they seek to appreciate that in detail as some fundamentalists are likely to, or in general through high-level news coverage and the like. Thisassertion is based on another – that the GDPR will be interpreted in a way which allows the continued use of data for third party marketing.

Although some of the draft GDPR guidance documents being issued by regulators at the time of pub-lication are a cause for concern, at present there is no reason why current use of personal information for marketing purposes should not continue, as enunciated by this passage from the GDPR:

“The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.”

4

Narrowing the perception gapThe perception disconnect needs to be addressed and is a key metric for this debate. The survey found again in 2015 as it did in 2012, that ‘trust’ is the number one reason for sharing data; so it follows thatconsumers know data is being ‘tracked’ (admittedly an emotive term) but far fewer see it making adifference. Why would they continue to trust those who have and use their data? As this paper will go on to suggest, the prime goal of the marketing and data industries, beyond the baseline of keeping data safe, must be to deliver value to the consumer.

Unfortunately, some people have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ understanding of data which greatly clouds their perceptions of our industry. Personal data may be used for many purposes but more sensationalist voices group the data used for marketing in exactly the same category as data used for far more sensitive purposes, such as financial services, healthcare, and even crime and security; this is ludicrous. Indeed, it can be seen in mainstream press that journalists will use colourful language such as ‘companies compiling dossiers on individuals’ or ‘hoarding personal information’. This gives the perception that brands and marketing services or adtech companies are spying on people rather than simply using data to drive more relevant marketing.



Update:It is hoped that the increased transparency required by GDPR or its post-Brexit equivalent in the UK will engender a higher level of overall trust within consumers who will feel more assured not only by more regulation, but also by much greater penalties for any infringement. Both of these factors have been covered by national news outlets, and are likely to be emphasized again as we approach May 2018 or the equivalent date for any Brexit regulation.

As consent guidance under the GDPR becomes more strenuous, Acxiom predicts a move towards legitimate interests as an alternative legal basis to process people’s data. This involves balancing legitimate business data use against an individual’s privacy to see which side is “heavier”. The GDPR itself expressly recognises that direct marketing is a legitimate interest which is a good start. Further, the pursuit of this legitimate business interest is in the interests of the “wider community” as it allows it to receive less waste, more relevant marketing as well as free content.

Transparency also forms part of the legitimate interests’ balance. However, for third party marketing to continue to offer alternatives or complementary options to the so called “walled gardens” (closed environments or services which do not share their users’ data beyond that ecosystem - the big three are commonly accepted to be Google, Amazon and Facebook) there needs to be a recognition that whilst businesses or organisations not in direct contact with consumers will at times struggle with transparency. On account of their positon within the marketing ecosystem, privacy enhancingmeasures they put in place such as pseudonymisation or de-identification (a process by which a user’s identifying markers on their data are removed and scrambled before it is matched or proces-sed, so any data augmentation or analytics partner cannot identify a specific individual from their data) should be given increased weight to help tip the balance in favour of data use. This recognition must also be in the consumer’s interests to avoid online marketing budgets being dominated by the enormous social media, search and shopping platforms and thereby stimulate competition. Alter-natively, more of the spend could move offshore to more nefarious outfits which continue to target Europeans but are beyond the practical reach of the regulator – a “lose lose” for everyone!

That said, we also predict that in the period immediately following the introduction of regulation, GDPR or similar, businesses are likely to see a spike in the number of Subject Access Requests (SAR) and opt-outs. This will be caused by the increased publicity beforehand, a lack of under-standing around the data balance as discussed and the regulations promise of a zero cost SAR.



PERSONALISATION

An Acxiom ViewpointReturning to the consumer segments contained in the introduction and contrasting the ‘fundamentalists’ with the ‘unconcerned’, there are parallels to be drawn with a separate Acxiom white paper, ‘Data InBalance’. The “fundamentalists” would severely restrict the use of data meaning it would be equally likely for a 25-year-old interested in live music to receive a cruise holiday offer tailored for retired people, while a70-year-old would receive a promotion for new music programming software. This would be a step back for targeting, one of the foundations of good marketing and good business. The implications of this would also likely kick off a further backlash from consumers, turning the clock back to the ’mountains of junk mail’ era. The concern shown by the public to cases of mis-targeting or fraudulent communication to vulnerable individuals demonstrates just how unacceptable this practice remains, and the risks inherent for marketing for a discipline should this occur.

By contrast, the ‘unconcerned’ may welcome a world where registering with an employment agency ispublicly available for our bosses to see, and where details of what food and drink we consume is available to the healthcare and financial industries, so they may determine what restrictions to place on our care provisions or what premium to charge us for cover, as long as there is a tangible and visible benefit to the individual for this to happen. This is also a position that the majority would surely want to avoid.

The constraints of freedomThe problem is how much people really understand when it comes to the uses of data and the implications of this gap in understanding. There is always a risk to using any data; the risk of it going wrong. This needs to be balanced against the potential upsides – gaining customers likely to be interested in your offering, or making sure existing customers feel properly valued by a chosen business. Overall this balance is notparticularly well understood and while it will be rightly debated for more sensitive uses of data, the consu-mer should be encouraged to understand that marketing’s use of data is merely to do two things: deliver a more relevant, more personalised message that brands hope will result in the consumer spending money with them, and also to fund the provision of free services.

Here, the argument to process personal information is relatively compelling and has even been recognised in the text of the GDPR itself which says that direct marketing may be a legitimate interest of the datacontroller – to be balanced against the privacy of the individual. Another key point in the new GDPR legis-lation is that consumers will now have the right to object to profiling. Profiling is when data is combined and processed to provide, in this context, held beliefs and likelihoods around a consumer’s attributes, interests and similar; facets a marketer may use to help ensure they target the consumer with even more relevant messages. There is an important difference between profiling and direct marketing, the latter of which the consumer can already opt out of. The difference is, profiling is a step taken to understand, with an option to contact (direct marketing), something the consumer will now be allowed to block.



Update:Currently the ePrivacy Directive generally requires prior consent before contacting someone with electronic marketing (e.g. email, SMS, cookie or device ID). There is a move in Brussels to replace this Directive with a Regulation to harmonise it with the GDPR. Acxiom’s view is that as the GDPR provides individuals with greater protection (e.g. a higher level of consent, greater transparency for legitimate interests) there is no need to have a second piece of legislation that governs the legal basis for electronic marketing. This will then mean for example that not all non-essential cookies will need prior consent provided the cookie setter can point to and justify another legal basis.

Acxiom predicts that, given the nature of marketing, which relies on data far less sensitive than data used for purposes such as financial services, healthcare, or law and order, consumers will be less likely to exer-cise this opt out right. Of course, what one person considers to be highly sensitive will vary greatly from what another thinks is fine. However, when done effectively, marketing based on the use of personal data is seamless – people do not see as irrelevant or inappropriate a message, an offer, or a deal which is ideally suited for them. Exercising the opt out right on its own is likely to simply result in an increase in untargeted direct marketing communications, as the marketer will not be able to ascertain what is relevant and what is not. Even if the consumer exercises their direct marketing opt out, this will not stop advertising, such as display and banner advertising in the digital world, advertising which is becoming increasingly targeted and relevant due to profiling but would become completely random.

Another consideration in this delicate equation is the amount of services which have become widely accepted in modern life (general awareness of which should assist the legitimate interests’ argument referred to above) which are based on the free flow or exchange of individual data in return for access.



A virtuous data triangleEarlier in this paper, mention was made of benefits consumers already received but which are not generally seen by them. According to the Internet Advertising Bureau (Europe), there is a ‘marketing deficit’ of at least €100bn per annum across Western Europe and the US5. This means that if consumer data were seriously or completely restricted, leading to a huge drop in advertising revenue, then we as consumers would likely face the prospect of having to fund that revenue deficit if we still wanted to enjoy many online services for free, such as social sites and search engines.

Would consumers really want to pay to search or go social, for example ‘unlimited searches for just £15 a Month’? The irony is they would have to submit more personal data to do so by registering and providing financial information. That’s before the fuss of having to log in every time as the browser will conveniently ‘forget you’.

The alternative is the continued careful use of data to enable ever more targeted and personalised digital and data-driven marketing. While not every message or offer will be perfect, surely if you’re to see an ad on your device, you’d prefer it to be of some relevance rather than irrelevant? The chances are that for someone who lives in a flat, an ad for a lawnmower or garden shed is likely to be less relevant than one targeted at them based on their love of travel or fashion.

The consumer sometimes asks the question, “Why are you making money out of my personal data?” The answer is, it’s all part of the economy and value exchange. Think of a triangle. In one corner advertisers such as retailers and manufacturers pay publishers and marketing technology firms, based in another corner, to help them reach customers and they get service and solutions in return. In the final corner is the consumer, who pays the advertisers for goods and services, and gets value from those goods and services in return.

5 Consumers driving the digital uptake (IAB Europe/McKinsey Sept 2010)

A virtuousdata triangle

Paying for the free lunch

ValueMoney

ValueMoney

Source: Google Images - for illustration purposes only

8

Top = consumerLeft = advertisers (e.g. manufacturers and retailers)Right = publishers and marketing technology firms.

In this example, value goes one way and money the otheron 2 of the 3 axes. However, while we consumers get greatvalue from search, email and social tools etc., we do not payfor them... not directly. Do we pay for them in the form of data?



So, on two of the three sides, value flows one way and money the other. However, there is no directpayment from consumers to publishers and marketing technology firms, despite consumers getting valuefrom them in the form of search services, social media and the like. The implied payment is publishersreceiving consumer data they can then use to increase the performance of their services, and get paid bytheir advertisers.

If there is a fundamental shift, as a result of the new regulations, it is likely that this would in turn result in a shift in the economic model above, potentially leading to an impact on consumers who may be asked to pay for some services they currently enjoy for free. Furthermore, if the guidance referred to previously, results in ‘free consent’ being interpreted by GDPR regulators as meaning ‘consent cannot be a condition under any circumstances’ (i.e. unless you consent, you cannot receive a service) then, again, this could severely disrupt the ‘virtuous triangle’ model, almost certainly to the financial detriment of not only the industry but importantly, consumers. This draconian approach would also eat away at freedom of contract principles; if someone is willing to pay for services with data why should the state prevent that?

Taking this scenario to an extreme conclusion, would potentially see the creation of a world where some countries pay for ‘free’ services, while others do not. There comes a point where this becomes untenable – undermining much wider implications of digital development and inclusivity while stunting the development of the digital economies of those ‘paid for model’ countries. This scenario seems highly unlikely, as it would have far too many knock on effects for a vast number of other businesses, who have become reliant on the internet as a sales and communication channel, as well as consumers now well used to turning to the internet as a first port of call for information and research.

Some ask about personal data lockers – secure online environments where individuals can collect and store the information held on them by various businesses in order to take control back over that data. If this had been the standard approach from the outset it may have worked well. The issue is, it isn’t an approach that was applied consistently across countries and channels. The more consumers understand how sensible use of their data can help not only the economy but themselves too, the better. If personal data lockers of one kind or another help this awareness and appreciation, then that’s a good thing. The only caveat is just how effective can they be in practice; will there be one stan-dard approach or many versions? Furthermore, it should be noted that consumers already do share their data in return for benefits such as convenience or better deals. Consider price comparison sites and travel booking sites.

GDPR does have a data portability requirement that requires data controllers (with certain ex-ceptions) to export data to other places if requested. This could be interpreted by some as an enabler of personal data lockers, however, the absence of any regulation that directly supports or encourages the operation of such technology, in particular a unifying approach or framework that enables data lockers for the masses, reflects unlikeliness that such lockers could operate at a scale that benefits consumers overall. Simply put – too many businesses hold data in too many different formats for one solution to be truly workable.

GDPR does have a data portability requirement that requires data controllers (with certain exceptions) to export data to other places if requested. This could be interpreted by some as an enabler of personal data lockers, however, the absence of any regulation that directly supports or encourages the operation of such technology, in particular a unifying approach or framework that enables data lockers for the masses, reflects unlikeliness that such lockers could operate at a scale that benefits consumers over-all. Simply put – too many businesses hold data in too many different formats for one solution to be truly workable.



In the US, Acxiom launched AboutTheData.com in summer 2013; considered by some to be an alternative approach to personal data lockers. The website is a consumer-focused web portal that enables consumers to learn more about how their data helps companies create better and more relevant online experiences. Furthermore, the portal enables consumers to see basic data elements featuring significantly more attributes and a wider breadth of sources than any company had ever before made available to consumers at this scale. Once consumers access their data, they can decide if they are comfortable with it, would like to update any elements of it, or opt out – either from online marketing only or from all of Acxiom’s marketing efforts.

GDPR will bring with it, the right to free Subject Access Requests, something aboutthedata.com provides already in the US. Experience from the US has shown that consumers, once they under-stand the relative low sensitivity of the data, coupled with the fact it is merely being used to provide marketing offers and a better customer experience, are far more likely to adjust and update their data than they are to opt out; this is by a factor of around 9 to 1 in favour of updating rather than opting out. This would seem to correlate with the DMA/ Future Foundation report and the prevalence of ‘pragmatist’ consumers.

Social moresSocial media is accelerating issues around personalisation, broadcasting of people’s lives online, and moving the goalposts on just what is private these days and what is public. It is also a major driver of ‘big

Social media allows consumers to reveal more about themselves than any other data-enabled marketing.’atadtool. It can accelerate consumer and brand relationships; good and bad, brands can be built quickly and burned even quicker!

Social media is also an equaliser. When brands do a good job of prospecting or serving customers, the knock-on effect flows through quicker than ever before; brands need to get social right. The keys to this are respecting the fact that consumers often see the social space as ‘their space’; they see it as personal so we, as marketers, need to respect that.

Another aspect of social media and proliferation of channels is the need to avoid ‘brand schizophrenia’. Would we speak to our best friend on the phone but ignore them in the street? No. Would we answer our friend’s emails but ignore every text? No. So, unless social media is connected to other media, we run the risk of presenting the consumer, our prospects and customers, with a disjointed, unconnected and impersonalised experience. The consumer will notice!



CONCLUSION:

Your next best actionThe message for marketers is clear; use all data, whether big data or not, with care and sensitivity but do a great job of putting it to good use. Connect across media, channels and devices, to deliver a genuinely impressive experience for both prospects and customers. Consumers have embraced the digital age and will love the personalisation they crave, the personalisation we can deliver. Common sense should prevail and everyone will view data in balance so long as we as marketers really do deliver the personalisation we aim to provide – and to a large extent, that ball will always be in our court.

Practical steps to drive consumer value

1. Put the Customer FirstAlways easier said than done. However, let the consumer’s interests shape the reasons you’re collecting and using data - to do a better job of engaging them so that they reward the brands doing just that - and how you protect that data. Let the prime measure be customer value.

2. Keep Data in BalanceOrientate marketing, but ideally the whole business, to the consumer and driving value for them. The consumer must see value in return for the data they are willing to see others use. This generates trust.

3. Calibrate Based on ContextExplore and understand the various uses of data from the extreme of crime and security to marketing, and create the appropriate balanced use of data in light of the marketing context. The GDPR itself requires data protection impact assessments to ensure the correct balance is struck and safeguards implemented.

4. Protect DataEnsure the fundamental baseline is set very high. Do not take any chances with data security. Operate within the letter and spirit of the law and if in doubt, seek expert help – you must not get this wrong. The GDPR will help with this protection as it requires companies to put in place a set of accountability measures that will act as the “engine” to drive through businesses good information handling.

5. Be Open and TransparentTake the opportunity to explain that data used for marketing is very different to personal data being used for other reasons. The main drivers are better targeting and personalisation; brands that do this well are rewarded by happier consumers. Those doing the right thing have nothing to hide. Again the GDPR will take transparency to a new level by requiring extra information to be put before people (such as a legal basis for processing and the name of the data protection officer) although brands will need to comply with this smartly to avoidspecificity being drowned out by information overload.



6. Social Media = AcceleratorIt’s a great opportunity and threat and brings brands very close to consumers. Treat the data with care; avoid what could be misinterpreted as intrusion or snooping. High responsiveness and action are expected from good social brands by consumers; be ready to deliver against this expectation.

7. Connect EverywhereConsumers are everywhere, so connect data everywhere. Silos should have been eradicated years ago yet they still persist. Brands that fail to deliver personalisation across all channels, media and devices will be the ones that fail to meet modern consumers’ expectations and begin to fail.

8. Deliver Value and Build TrustValue for consumers, value for the brand. More of the right kind of customers is what every brand wants. Use data responsibly and carefully. There’s nothing wrong with using data creatively, finding smart ways to derive and apply insights. But whatever you do, deliver great personalisation to the consumer - the brands that do so will be rewarded.

9. Plan Now, Act NowThe rise of GDPR and Brexit have meant that those responsible for customer data are having to assess, rethink and change how their organisations host, manage and use it. Just as the world of data-driven marketing has seen rapid change in the past decade, the world of privacy is experiencing the same. Now an issue no longer confined to a compliance person or team, privacy is a strategic issue, one that requires a strategic plan to navigate the continuous change ahead and one that requires not just thought but action; it is imperative to have tracked regulator guidance and implemented your GDPR plan by May 2018 as Brexit is unlikely to absolve UK marketers of many GDPR requirements in the short to medium term at least.

10. Need Help? Get HelpThankfully, with privacy now a strategic issue, there is far more comment and opinion in the industry. As always, we need to filter and distil what we digest but there is a great deal of information available, not least from our industry bodies including the DMA, IDM, IAB and more. Also, we’ve seen growth in the number and variety of businesses that can help. From advice alone to actually changing your data-driven systems, external help may be essential but don’t forget to ensure you have the right talent internally too.



17 Hatfields, London,Greater London SE1 8DJ, United Kingdomacxiom.co.uk

Acxiom is a technology and services company that provides the data foundation for the world's best marketers. We enablepeople-based marketing everywhere through a simple, open approach to connecting systems and data that drives seamless customer experiences and higher ROI. A leader in identity and the ethical use of data for more than 45 years, Acxiom helps thousands of clients and partners around the globe work together to create a world where all marketing is relevant.

For more information about Acxiom, visit acxiom.co.uk

Documents

PERSONALISATION: Hanging in the Balance · personalisation is at risk. Extreme views and misconceptions around data and especially its use for marketing purposes are threatening to