Online Shoppers are Willing to Pay More for Privacy 106
Caroline Matische writes "People are willing to pay more to buy items from online retailers who make their privacy policies clear, a new Carnegie Mellon University study showed. People were more likely to buy from online merchants with good privacy policies and were also willing to pay about 60 cents extra on a $15 purchase when buying from a site with a privacy policy they liked."
Why privacy matters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why privacy matters... (Score:5, Funny)
Why copyright matters: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why privacy matters... (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy has a lot of grey area to it, and I think different places in that grey area are appropriate in different circumstances. Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media. Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police. The trick is who gets to decide, what info is databased and shared. If someone goes to the doctor for an STD medication, should that info be attached to their online dating profile? If someone is in Alcoholics Anonymous, should their children's teacher be informed?
There is a difference between allowing someone's reputation to follow them, and having institutionalzed gossip. But it's a tough call as to exactly where that difference lies. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237213&ci
Re: (Score:2)
"Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media."
The pervert's neighbors have a need (right?) to know. What better way to inform *all* ther neighbors than by releaseing the info to the media.
"Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police."
This is just plain silly in that, if it is known to/published in media, the police will know by default. Besides, who is donating and how much to a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why should pharmacists (or bar tenders) have no privacy? Exactly what money is "dirty"...
Re: (Score:1)
A) Get more junk e-mail
B) Get more jumk mail
C) Get telemarketers calling me
I could really care less. I don't care what details they use for marketing research, no matter how personal.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Oh, please (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This clearly leads to the conclusion that all online shoppers care deeply about privacy and will happily pay web shops with good privacy policies much more for the same products.
Anyone got some statistics from a web shop with a privacy policy? I'd sure like to see how many % of visitors and buyers actually read this policy.
This should give some indicat
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
where gizmo XCK45-DC99 is available not where I would like it to be available.
That said,
- Corps that don't spam me get much more business and are preferred
(all things being equal)
- Corps that don't require an email address or "registration" get more business
(all things being equal, I won't generate a new account in favor an existing
vendor if it won't save a non-trivial sum of money)
- Personally, I read every privacy policy. Often
Ridiculuous (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ridiculous. Users should expect, no, demand privacy, not have to pay for it. Privacy should already be there, because the user has to trust the company to handle their data correctly.
I won't trust a company that makes people pay for "extra privacy." That screams distrust to me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, in the real world..there are a lot of shady outlets which either haven't bothered to make their privacy policy clear or don't respect the privacy of their customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Fraud
Theft
Extortion
Murder for hire
When we as a society fail to prevent them--using "men with guns" as needed--from doing these things, it's a problem that we need to fix. It is not a time for a casual libertarian shrug and a bratty comment about some invisible hand--a hand frequently clenched into a fist, punching anyone who hasn't been born to wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
It really dosn't matter if the policy is clear or not. If someone is a crook they will simply lie anyway. As well as it being trivial to write a policy full of loopholes.
The only really meaningful policy would be one along the lines of "If you supply any customers' details to a third party without explicit authority (either from the c
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, people should be more willing to buy at all from a company with a good privacy policy? Isn't that one of the things the summary says that the study found?
What, exactly, of what is actually in the summary/article, do you find ridiculous?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just compare it with television. The ones with the most (annoying) commercials make the mos
Re:Ridiculuous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read anything other than the headline? The summary even mentions that people are more willing to buy from a company that makes their privacy policy clear. Scenario:
Retailer X sells widget A for $10, and makes it clear that they protect your privacy
Retailer Y sells widget A for $9, and is ambiguous about their use of personal information.
More people are choosing retailer X than retailer Y.
I know this
Re: (Score:2)
Advantages of B&M retailers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While this is true, I bet if you walk up to the counter wearing a ski mask, people are going to get the wrong idea.
Re: (Score:2)
So the next time I'm in there the same scenario comes up again and I save time by simply telling them that my name is Mr. John %STORE_NAME% before giving them the
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: (Score:3, Informative)
Privacy is temporary, no? (Score:2, Interesting)
Privacy is not always temporary (Score:5, Interesting)
It varies, depending on to whom you give your information.
In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness. You could argue that resisting even the smallest extra expense is in the short term interests of their shareholders. Of course that ignore the possibility that ethical policies may increase customer loyalty, and better serve their shareholders' longer term interests - as well as being "The Right Thing".
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about "impersonal corporations". Folk forget that it's actual human beings who make the "decisions of the corporation". Some of those people do good and some do evil.
Maybe they should be held to account?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of nonsense spoken about "impersonal corporations". Folk forget that it's actual human beings who make the "decisions of the corporation". Some of those people do good and some do evil.
Maybe they should be held to account?
That's a laugh. The whole point of incorporation is to shield the owners and the management from legal liability. Add in the factor of diffusion of responsibility - the bigger the company, the less direct personal responsibility any one employee has for any one policy - and the end result is practically guaranteed to be "impersonal."
In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.
This is really the only way to make it work. As long as the legal framework is such that customer's do not own the information associated with a business transaction, busin
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the original idea behind a Limited Liability Corporation was only to shield the owners from creditors if the business failed. Their liability being limited to the amount they had invested, worst case senario being that they ended up with a worthless piece of paper.
The idea of this protecting the executive is rather more recent.
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Then the companies that do "The Right Thing" will survive and out-prosper the o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the data "belongs" to the customer.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness.
The US Government is doing more than "howling" when it c
Depends on where you are (Score:2)
Plus, we don't depend on random users suing, but have government and EU agencies for enforcing the consumer rights. They _can_ afford good lawyers.
So shareholders can't really
Privacy? (Score:2)
Shoppers *Not* Willing to Pay More for Privacy (Score:1, Interesting)
Given the evidence presented in the article, I'd draw the conclusion that shoppers don't care about privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a link to the researchers' actual report [econinfosec.org]. (Never trust a press account of any study of anything. Or a slashdot summary, for that matter.)
This was a controlled experiment, and I agree with your point about real-world relevance. It appears to me that the researchers are claiming that if privacy information was made more prominent and easily digestible (as it was in their experiment), people would pay more for privacy. I don't think they are claiming that privacy policies influence people in the curren
Re: (Score:2)
Rather they might pay more for some text on a website saying or not saying certain things... You'd need to carry out more research to see what a company's actual policy on privacy was.
Re: (Score:2)
But thanks for playing!
Re: (Score:1)
Keep in mind that this number is related to the total cost. If this scales linearly, it would indicate a "privacy premium" of 4% (.60 / 15.00). The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%. But far be it for me to question capitalism on Slashdot...
Re: (Score:2)
If you were really cynical you'd consider that they could both charge and extra 4% and sell the data...
Re: (Score:2)
The privacy rating was not conspic
Online Shoppers willing to SUE for Privacy (Score:1)
Pay for privacy? News flash - we're shoppers, customers, not your servants.
And, if you're from the EU, you have privacy rights.
Same goes for Canada.
It is obvious when you psychologically analyze it: (Score:1)
Another idiot tax (Score:1)
Let's examine a typical online purchase...
Purchase price: $24.32
Fee for non-insane privacy policy: $0.60
Fee for secured, audited servers: $0.81
Fee for someone to do anything when something goes wrong: $0.72
Fee to hire non-stupid peopl
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
Shipping: $6.75
I buy locally if the local store carries something and it's only a couple of dollars difference. Usually when I buy online, it is either because local stores don't have it or because it would save 30% or more of the purchase price. If you aren't saving me a significant chunk of change off of the local price, your online store isn't worth my time. If your site is buggy and rejects payments and/or has significant navigation problems, your store isn't worth my time. If your po
Re: (Score:1)
Where do you get *real* privacy ratings? (Score:3, Insightful)
So how do you rate what they _do_ instead of what they _say_?
You should not have to know. (Score:2)
So how do you rate what they _do_ instead of what they _say_?
All that can really be done is to pass laws that make inappropriate data sharing unprofitable. This is the only way to make good, privacy respecting service competitive and fix those places where market forces or bad laws have eliminated choice.
meanwhile, in the real world, ... (Score:2)
And ChoicePoint, which supposedly paid ~$5 million after their little data Valdez incident, seems to be chugging along quite nicely thank you.
Yeah, toothful privacy laws in this country would be great. But for now, I want useful independent information about bad actors so I can avoid them when possible.
I always check resellerratings.com to see what other people think about an online vendor before using them. It would be nice to have independent informat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. corporate privacy policies are basically meaningless because they don't actually protect *anything* under all that legalese
2. they often retain the right to change at any time
3. breeches are often hard to detect until long after the fact
4. there is no significant enforcement by FTC or anyone else
5. and worst of all there is no umbrella privacy law in the US.
The way things typically go, the Feds will end up passing something weaker than wha
Re: (Score:2)
In other words... you can't really trust most stores, but you don't have to worry about that if you don't put yourself in a position where you're relying on their trustworthiness.
Error: Subject Conformation (Score:2)
MSNBC has an article on the same subject (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/06/price_of_privac. html#posts). Their poll is flawed for the same reason (it ends up measuring what people say
Re: (Score:2)
How can a web shopper "like" a privacy policy?!? (Score:1)
1) A length legalese document more complicated than a home loan;
2) One line "promising" never to sell or otherwise disclose personal info.
The only thing a consumer can "like" is whether they care and/or trust the vendor, regardless of any so called "privacy policy" (obvious and displayed prominently, or obfuscated under a mountain of half broken links).
Re:How can a web shopper "like" a privacy policy?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How sad that this is such a unknown!
And the conversation went (Score:4, Funny)
Woman in Mall: Sure, what do I have to buy?
Researcher: Just batteries. Oh and a... um... vibrator.
Woman in Mall: <turns around and walks away looking for security>
Researcher: But you get to keep it!
Woman in Mall: Well, I guess if it's for scientific research...
What this means (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't change their actual privacy policies or anything, and they'll still leak credit card details etc. to the highest bidders.
Think I'm being cynical? Maybe. But think about it, this is bound to happen.
Isn't privacy a right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, someone you DIDN'T introduce yourself to comes up and already knows your name.
No, you don't have a right to privacy when you talk to someone else.
What are you paying for? (Score:2)
So that the store wont stick you on a Spam list?
Wont use your Credit Card drain your bank account?
What is the actual cost involved in limiting your supplied information to the transaction at hand?
If the store even hints that my info is going to be used beyond what it is supplied for, I wouldn't touch the place with a 10 foot pole.
Re: (Score:1)
Use Fake Info Where Possible (Score:1)
Shopping online, I pretty much never give out my real phone and e-mail--if you do, you're just asking for spam and telemarketing calls. Oddly enough, I almost get none! Just give your credit card info and correct address (nobody much bothers with junk snail-mail anymore), take down the confirmation number from the purchase, and you're set! If the package doesn't arrive when it's supposed to, YOU call THEM with the confirmation number and see what's up. I've always done this over the years and never had
Re: (Score:2)
"You cannot guarantee that this product is fit to actually do what you advertised it for ? Well, I can't guarantee that that money you got from me is actually fit to be used either"
Depends where you are in the world. There are plenty of places where goods must be "as described". With an advertisment (even a salesman's comment, if documented/witnessed) being l
Re: (Score:1)
Companies would never do that. First, if I provide accurate shipping info they cannot legally charge my card and not ship the product. Companies really, really want your money, and they'll almost always bend their rules to
Does not always work (Score:2)
You'll miss the message, thinking the company is a bad one. On their end - they attempt to get in touch with you because they have received the failed delivery report; but they fail to contact you because all the data you provided were bogus.
Sometimes the customer may figure out something like this has happened and contact the company. Other times the customer sends a nastygram to
Re: (Score:1)
On the rare occassion you need to get info back (say you're buying software and need an activation code), use a disposable e-mail (and sign up for that using fake info!). When you get the information you need, eliminate the e-mail account. Your privacy and true e-mail address is secure.
Re: (Score:1)
What a joke (Score:1)
The study's methodology seems flawed to me (Score:2)
From TFA: Participants in the laboratory study...
I've seen over and over again that when you place Internet users in an environment where they are being watched, and know they're being watched, their behavior changes. If you were participating in a study conducted by the Carnegie Mellon Usable Privacy and Security Lab, using their own "Privacy Finder" search engine, don't you think your behavior would be a bit skewed?
I'm all for privacy, and for giving consumers a choice about whether they want to let
Re: (Score:2)
Here, educa
Re: (Score:2)
Read the fucking paper before commenting on the methodology.
I stand corrected. The article led me to believe that the study was flawed, and I did not read the paper. A better article would have made this more clear, but I was reading into it I suppose.
Thats all well and good, but.... (Score:1)
Long story short I got a call 3 mos after buying something from them, from some jerk trying to send us $40 in free gas vouchers if we sign up for a service that is $1 for the first month, $20/mo after that. Took forever to convince
Profiting From Inefficiencies..... (Score:1)
Make money from the long waits in lines by charging people to cut to the head of the line.
In effect, you are making money by providing poorer customer service.
Which would you choose? Spend money keeping customers happy (and making money from repeat business as a result of good customer service), or make money from crappy service (and saving money from keeping them happy)
Re: (Score:1)
Checking out BankRate and Wachovia (Score:2)
The idea here is that they're looking for sites that have a privacy policy expressed in XML, something that's been working since 2002 but never really caught on.
Even the few sites that use that have problems. Check out Bankrate.com [bankrate.com]. According to PrivacyFinder, their policy, from the XML, can be summarized as "BankRate.com may share your information with: Companies that help this site fulfill your requests (for example, shipping a product to you), but these companies must not use your information for an
this study is absurd (Score:1)
Then they say that people were motivated to really shop around to save a buck or two? A couple bucks is no real economic incentive for an adult to do anything beyond
Better Surveys: 15% value privacy (Score:2)
Wierd #s (Score:2)
Then I realized that if your privacy 'gets broken' for batteries, you are likely to get catalogues about batteries in the snailmail.
But if you privacy is 'broken' for the sex toys, you get catalouges about sex toys.
Cleary, people WANT to get sex toy catalogues in the mail.