Apparently nobody wants to comment on Celebs or privacy. Privacy for celebs is a lot different from customer privacy. I'll ignore the celeb side too. For customers or prospects, our intended use of their information is about customising an offer, or targeting within a population more appropriately. We marketers are producing "mini-pictures" of customers to make this work better - ideally for the clients and the customers. The "mini-picture" could come from research or analysis of databases, or even both at once. Problem is that the "mini-pictures" may be wrong or distorted, leading to missing good prospects or hitting on bad ones. Other problems are that some cohorts choose to remain private, unknowable, or uncontactable, or that clients want to push the limits of a working relationship and over-reach. Deep down, we're using technology to do what good local store owners and good waiters have done for centuries - personalised interaction. For a consumer, "opting out" has a serious downside of not getting good offers, and having to do your own research. "Opting in" has a downside of getting hit on when they want to be left alone. Sleazy operators should (and do) get whacked at every opportunity. This works in different ways in traditional markets. Consumer backlash, fines, weak campaigns, etc. [But PT Barnum was right, too, as was Churchill]. Observation: the economics of being ethical in marketing works most of the time. It doesn't stop some unethical exploitation of customer information, but most clients put a lot of effort into avoiding it. Tom (rose coloured glasses???).

and here I was hoping that Britney would win the day for me -- Oh well....to yoru point good store owners never spammed -- at least not teh succesful ones. They remembered that you liked blue; never wore a tie and bought suits twice a year. Its really simple. Technology, though, has erased teh insight -- way too often

I think there is a difference between privacy and piracy. Technology certainly makes our personal information accessible. Perhaps it is Moore's law of information access as well. I believe rummaging through my garbage or looking over my shoulder is equally as sinister as hacking a database of social security numbers. The difference today is the amount of information we are required to keep is greater, thus the amount to protect equally as large. What I find interesting is the cottage industry that feeds on privacy fears. Identity theft protection insurance, Key FOB's, WAP encryption, cookies, etc. Access codes and account numbers I didn't even know I needed now need protecting. The wolves are at the gate, and we'd best be armed. I see the issue of privacy as it pertains to personalization more one of preference. We all know the proverb "it has been said that someone's name is the sweetest word that person ever hears, so do whatever it takes to make that sound. You'll do more than impress them. You'll make them feel memorable." The convenience of a FreshDirect shopping list compiled by my previous shopping habits, recommended new Jazz CD's prompted by my purchase of Kind Of Blue even the Gerber baby food coupon handed to me by the cashier with my receipt because I bought diapers for my twins all make my life better, faster and cheaper. Perhaps, it's not what life is all about, but it feels pretty slick. When I was interviewed on 20/20 in their year in review episode, John Stossel shot right to the point- "Stephanie, is there such a thing as too much information?" My reply then, as it is now, "Probably, but not for me."

How do the good store owners get that way? Training? Rewards? Maybe it is the presence of human in the loop, at the point of sale rather than tied to comms and the offer. Maybe the human-ness of the human. Technology as an aid to memory? Tom

How about Humanity at the core of all we do -- Technology is an enhancer -- not a replacement