Influencing the vulnerable on digital platforms should be made illegal
Given we
have a new sitting parliament just elected, the second Morrison Government,
they’ll no doubt be working towards implementing policies they campaigned in
the lead up to the election.
Amongst
their promises, I have a prediction for a policy that will be implemented as law by Prime Minister Morrison during his term (assuming he goes the distance).
The use of information to influence
consumers who are of a vulnerable state be made illegal.
The key word
in that is vulnerable. But how do you define vulnerable?
Perhaps the
best way of defining vulnerable in a marketing context is that being vulnerable means one can be subject
to harms stemming from actions or omissions (Goodin, 1985: 110).
Digital
companies like Google and Facebook use the information provided by us to target
things that may be of interest to us in our current state. They know whether
your happy, sad or otherwise based off your activity.
Picture this
scenario: A Facebook user has seen a post of a friend holidaying in the
Caribbean, the users favourite holiday destination. However, this person has a
spending problem that has soured their relationship and finances to the point
of staring down bankruptcy. He’s been looking up reviews and pages of lawyers
specialising in bankruptcy and advice on dealing with stress. However, he’s
following a lifestyle page that displays Caribbean style holidays; a page he
has regularly had activity in (liking etc.) and is receiving advertising material
related to travel options to the Caribbean. What if the user took action and went on a holiday
to the Caribbean?
Regulation
isn’t enough to protect against the grey area that is data-driven marketing.
Rule 5.2 in the ADMA Code of Practice outlines the following:
“Ensure that marketing and
advertising practices do not exploit, in circumstances where the Member is
aware or should reasonably be aware of, the lack of knowledge or inexperience
of consumers - and take particular care when dealing with children and other vulnerable
consumers” (ADMA,
2018).
But when you
use Facebook, you are ‘opting in’ to their terms and conditions, which is reflected in this section of its privacy
policy:
This nullifies
the regulation set out by the ADMA because of Australia’s ‘opt-in’ stance to
privacy and data collection, meaning companies like Facebook and Google can
continue to manipulate user-generated content to target consumers in any state
of mind. Thus, a failure to fulfil a moral and legal obligation to protect the people he serves. The definition of omission.
Given Scott
Morrison is a hard-line leader, will law be introduced during his second term
as Prime Minister to stop companies using information to influence the
vulnerable?
Feel free to
discus in the comments.
Nice blog Matt, I think that using the information of vulnerable people online is quite unethical however in a marketing sense it is quite profitable and isn’t really illegal. Do you think it should be the marketers responsibility to make sure they aren’t targeting the vulnerable? In a way you could say they are only doing their job.
ReplyDeleteHey Dean thanks for the question. Whilst marketers should uphold a high ethical and moral standard to ensure they don't manipulate those that are vulnerable, more often than not they're job is to exploit these grey areas and because there's no legislation saying they can't, marketers can legally exploit and manipulate the vulnerable on digital platforms. This is why I believe we need to introduce legislation, because it will offer far better protection to these consumers from being manipulated.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Matt nice article. I wonder whether this should be extended to children who are exposed to all kinds of banner and pop up advertising within their game platforms and youtube. What do you think would be the best way to moderate which users are targeted by which content?
ReplyDeleteHi Robert, thanks for the comment,
DeleteThe best way to moderate how users are targeted by which content in my opinion would be to have a legislative body set up by the government, one that would act as a watchdog specifically for digital platforms and social media conduct. They would be in the best position to moderate and bring companies into line who exploit those that are vulnerable on these platforms.
Regulation hasn't really stopped digital companies from unethical practice, so what is the solution? Legislation. The buck stops with law, so it's probable that it will make companies think twice before deciding whether to conduct themselves in the manner they have demonstrated before.
Hi Matt, thanks for an interesting read and I think you raised some really good points. Reading the comments above I agree with Dean, using the information of vulnerable people online is very unethical, although it's a way in which marketers can make a lot of money without breaking any rules or regulations. Overall I think companies need to be careful because there is a fine line between doing what is unethical and what is illegal.
ReplyDeleteThankyou for the comment,
DeleteYeah there certainly is a fine line in marketing, but as I have stated prior, it is and should be in a marketers nature to push the boundaries.
An analogy would be like how motorsport engineers push the envelope as far as possible and exploit the grey areas for as long as possible until the rule makers eventually peg them back into line with everyone else.
Marketers are the same in essence.
Now whether its ethical or not is up for debate. They haven't broken any laws, so some will see it as ethical. Others will see the fact that exploiting grey areas isn't in the spirit of marketing, thus will see it as unethical.