Clash of Compliance Cultures: Old vs. New World

February 11, 2013

In the last few years, US companies have not been shy about expressing their feelings on the EU’s Data Protection Directive (DPD). There’s a major social media player, for example, with a European HQ in Ireland that’s been publicly critical of a proposed “right to be forgotten” rule for letting consumers delete their online data. There’s also a search engine service that, while not openly objecting, is instead suggesting it’s already doing a darn good job of meeting the DPD’s rules.

US companies have begun to learn that the data privacy rules and expectations they’re accustomed to in the US are viewed differently on the other side of the Atlantic. The EU Charter–the European constitution—explicitly lists data protection as a fundamental right. That’s roughly like having a US amendment devoted to encryption, which, at this time, there isn’t.

This is not to say there’s a complete privacy compliance chasm between the US and EU.

Healthcare companies have long had extensive regulatory obligations under HIPAA for securing health information, alerting consumers about breaches, and gaining consent on information transfers. US companies in the banking and credit sectors could point to parallels in Gramm-Leach-Bliley and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

While US medical and financial companies have had to deal with privacy and security legal burdens, that’s not been the case with the social media players. Because the Data Protection Directive covers all companies collecting data—not just ones in select, albeit important, industries—and through its Safe Harbor treaty it snags US firms as well, it’s not surprising that US Internet-based companies face the most culture shock when conducting business in the EU.

The ultimate issue is that in the new information economy data is revenue, and so deleting it is like, well, burning legacy paper currency.

Besides the right to data erasure differences, another sticking point between US social media companies and the EU is on rules for reasonable data retention limits. But this again reflects mostly differences between old and new economies.  After all, outside the social media world, it’s generally considered good security policy—limiting data breach liabilities—to keep PII data to a minimum and erase it when it’s no longer necessary. For example, the credit card vendors, through their PCI industry standard, emphatically remind corporations with regard to credit card numbers that “if you don’t need it, don’t store it! ”

But new regulatory forces along with changes in consumer attitudes may tilt social media companies towards a European view.

The FTC’s new privacy framework that was published earlier last year—and that I always come back to—calls for minimizing data collection of consumer data and sensible retention limits. There’s a (stalled) bill in the Senate, revealingly entitled “The Commercial Bill of Rights”, which will implement some EU-style data and privacy protections. The bill’s scope, by the way,  covers anycompany that “collects, uses, transfers, or stores covered information concerning more than 5,000 individuals.”

Good data protection and privacy best practices may one day become as American as espressos and lattes.


GOOGLE DOMINATES THE MOBILE APP MARKET, HAS 5 OF THE TOP 6 APPS IN THE U.S.

January 24, 2013

Mobile Apps Rankings

Wondering why Apple (AAPL) is sinking so much effort into building its own Maps application? Because it doesn’t want Google (GOOG) to gobble up all the revenue from big-name mobile applications. ComScore has published its most recent monthly review of the top iOS and Android apps in the United States ranked by unique visitors and has found that Google captured 5 of the top 6 spots with Google Maps, Google Play, Google Search, Gmail and YouTube. In fact, Facebook (FB) was the only non-Google app to crack the top 6, although it also had the benefit of being the most-visited app in the entire country by a margin of more than 10 million unique visitors. iTunes was the only Apple app to crack the top 10, meanwhile, as it ranked eighth with roughly 46 million unique visitors last month.


Humanizing Big Data

January 9, 2013

HUMAN FACE OF BIG DATA
Some App Results

In less than two months, more than 3 million share and compare questions have been answered, in more than 100 countries, through “The Human Face of Big Data” smartphone survey app.

By collating and analyzing these 3 million+ responses we gained some insightful conclusions related to the attitudes and approaches to life from men and women, young and old, all over the world. Here are just a few of the most interesting findings…

In asking the question “What is most important for good health – diet, exercise, environment or genes?” we discovered that Americans are more likely to believe that good health is in their hands, choosing diet and exercise, while Europeans seem to believe their health is predetermined or out of their control, predominantly selecting either genes or environment

In response to the question “What do you do to help cope with stress most?” we learned that as we get older work and prayer tend to replace friends or the arts as our primary means of stress relief, indicating that older generations prefer to bury themselves in work or deal with stress on their own, rather than by seeking entertainment or distraction
When asked “If I could alter the DNA of my unborn child I would improve their: lifespan, intelligence, immunity or appearance” the findings showed that Americans are most concerned about their children’s education and job prospects, while Europeans worry most about their children’s health, perhaps reflecting the current unemployment rates and standards of available healthcare in these two nations.

While these findings give only a brief snapshot of the world around us, the goal of this app was to encourage people to embrace the subject of big data and to consider its potential to help us shape and change our daily lives. Hundreds of striking examples of ways this is already happening are illustrated in the photographs, infographics and essays within the Human Face of Big Data book.

The anonymous data complied from the app will be made available for educators, data scientists, researchers and the general public to access as a valuable research tool, in order to conduct further in-depth sifting and sorting of the results, that may one day be considered an invaluable snapshot of human history.


Black Friday E-Commerce Sales Set $1 Billion Record

November 27, 2012

E-commerce sales on Black Friday, traditionally the kickoff to the holiday season for brick and mortar retailers, surpassed $1 billion for the first time in history. Fifty-seven million Americans chose to shop online on Black Friday, resulting in a 26 percent increase in e-commerce spend over the same day in 2011, according to comScore.

Total online sales of $1.042 billion made Black Friday 2012 the heaviest online spending day to date in 2012. Thanksgiving Day also saw strong gains on the e-commerce front, with a 32 percent YoY increase in online spending bringing the total for that holiday to $633 million.

black-friday-billion-comscore


SaaS Adoption Accelerates, Goes Global in the Enterprise

November 2, 2012

In working with manufacturers and financial services firms over the last year, one point is becoming very clear: SaaS is gaining trust as a solid alternative for global deployments across the enterprise. And this trend has been accelerating in the last six months. One case in point is a 4,000 seat SaaS CRM deployment going live in Australia, Europe, and the U.S. by December of this year.

What’s noteworthy about this shift is that just eighteen months ago an Australian-based manufacturer was only considering SaaS for on-premises enhancement of their CRM system. What changed? The European and U.S. distribution and sales offices were on nearly 40 different CRM, quoting, proposal and pricing systems. It was nearly impossible to track global opportunities.

Meanwhile business was booming in Australia and there were up-sell and cross-sell opportunities being missed in the U.S. and European-based headquarters of their prospects. The manufacturer chose to move to a global SaaS CRM solution quickly. Uniting all three divisions with a global sales strategy forced the consolidation of 40 different quoting, pricing and CRM systems in the U.S. alone. What they lost in complexity they are looking to pick up in global customer sales.

Measuring Where SaaS Is Cannibalizing On-Premise Enterprise Applications

Gartner’s Market Trends: SaaS’s Varied Levels of Cannibalization to On-Premises Applications published: 29 October 2012 breaks out the percent of SaaS revenue for ten different enterprise application categories. The greener the color the greater the adoption. As was seen with the Australian manufacturer, CRM continues dominate this trend of SaaS cannibalizing on-premise enterprise applications.

Additional take-aways from this report include the following:

  • Perceived lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) continues to be the dominant reason enterprises are considering SaaS adoption, with 50% of respondents in 2012 mentioning this as the primary factor in their decision.
  • CRM is leading all other enterprise application areas in net new deployments according to the Gartner study, with the majority of on-premise replacements being in North America and Europe.
  • Gartner projects that by 2016 more than 50% of CRM software revenue will be delivered by SaaS. As of 2011, 35% of CRM software was delivered on the SaaS platform. Gartner expects to see SaaS-based CRM grow at three time the rate of on-premise applications.
  • 95% of Web analytics functions are delivered via the SaaS model whereas only 40% of sales use cloud today according to the findings of this study.
  • The highest adoption rates of SaaS-based applications include sales, customer service, social CRM and marketing automation.
  • SaaS-based ERP will continued to be a small percentage of the total market, attaining 10% cannibalization by 2012. Forrester has consistently said this is 13%, growing to 16% by 2015.
  • Office suites and digital content creation (DCC) will attain compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of 40.7% and a 32.2% respectively from 2011 through 2016. Gartner is making the assumption consumers and small businesses will continue be the major forces for Web-based office suites through 2013.
  • The four reasons why companies don’t choose SaaS include uncertainty if it is the right deployment option (36%), satisfaction with existing on-premise applications (30%), no further requirements (33%) and locked into their current solution with expensive contractual requirements (14%).

Bottom Line: Enterprises and their need to compete with greater accuracy and speed are driving the cannibalization of on-premise applications faster than many anticipated; enterprise software vendors need to step up and get in front of this if they are going to retain their greatest sources of revenue.

Source: Market Trends: SaaS’s Varied Levels of Cannibalization to On-Premises Applications Published: 29 October 2012 written by Chad Eschinger, Joanne M. Correia, Yanna Dharmasthira, Tom Eid, Chris Pang, Dan Sommer, Hai Hong Swinehart and Laurie F. Wurster


What exactly is defensible deletion?

October 25, 2012

Philip Favro of Symantec, in an article called Defensible Deletion: The Cornerstone of Intelligent Information Governance on the eDiscovery 2.0 blog, defines defensible deletion as “a comprehensive approach that companies implement to reduce the storage costs and legal risks associated with the retention of electronically stored information (ESI)”.

He goes on to say that organisations which have done this “have been successful in avoiding court sanctions while at the same time eliminating ESI that has little or no business value

That is the point, of course, of the word “defensible” in this context. It matters most in the US, where everyone goes in fear of the sanctions bogeyman, apparently without regard to the terms of Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:

(e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored Information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

Most other jurisdictions can manage without this “safe harbor” because they do not have the same (alleged) reason to fear sanctions. I say “alleged” because if US companies paid more attention to Rule 37(e), they too could set about the deletion of material which is not presently the subject of a legal hold and which is not required for statutory or business purposes. It would help, too, if they read some of the sanctions Opinions which cause such dread to see how many of them were the consequence of the “routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system”.

If you are short of ROI information to justify the work involved in a defensible deletion programme, try and calculate how much money was spent last year processing and reprocessing useless data for eDiscovery purposes, rejecting it time after time, at considerable expense. There’s a big chunk of ROI there.

Thanks to http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/


The New Privacy Environment: European Union Leads the Way on Personal Data Protection

October 24, 2012

We all understand the risks in accidentally revealing a social security number. But are there other pieces of less identifying or even anonymous information that taken together act like a social security number? The European Union is breaking new ground on consumer privacy as it begins to reform its own regulations. The EU’s broader ideas on personal identity have even made their way across the pond into proposed new US regulations.

The history of the European Union’s consumer privacy and data security regulations begins with its 1995 Data Protection Directive–or EU 96/46EC for security wonks. EU directives provide guidance to its member nations’ legislatures, who then are free to craft their own specific laws. The DPD has been influential in shaping the vocabulary and, less charitably, the jargon of the consumer privacy discussion on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the US, the starting point for discussion on data security is Sarbanes-Oxley, which became law in 2002. In comparing and contrasting the two, it’s fair to say the DPD was more focused on securing consumer information, but more inclusive—unlike SOX–in covering both public and private companies. To this day in the US there’s currently no single comprehensive law on consumer privacy.

The EU’s original directive is significant because it defined personal data as “information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person”. For example, by EU rules, street address, name, and phone number are personal data; height, eye color, and model of car you drive are not. This notion of personal data as a type of key is part of the definition used in privacy laws outside the EU–including the US. In North America, though, we’ve come up with our own term for personal data, calling it instead “personally identifiable information” or PII.

By the way, the EU regulators intentionally created a less explicit definition of personal data so that it would encompass new technologies. In 2012, data related to an identifiable person could now be an email address, IP address, and for some EU nations, even a photo image.

To bring the story up to date, security experts began to realize that along with personal data there was other data–let’s call it quasi-personal–that if released could also be used to relate back to an individual. The data magic to accomplish identification typically requires matching a collection of anonymous data points– birth dates (or years), zip codes, ethnicity, and perhaps car model driven–against publicly available databases .

For example, there are well documented cases involving anonymized hospital discharge records subsequently used to re-identify the original patients!

With Facebook now up to 1 billion active users, it’s fair to say that the Web is overflowing with personal data at all levels of detail. Essentially social networks have provided hackers—the new ominous player on the scene—with a huge public repository to match against (c.f. Matt Honan).

To get a better understanding of how it’s possible to re-identify an individual, let’s review a variation on the aforementioned case. While the technique is not always guaranteed to uniquely identify a person (this depends on the available related information), it can often produce a narrowed down list of highly likely subjects.

Suppose, for argument’s sake, a European mortgage company analyzes a health report from a large public hospital. The records show that five individuals were being treated for a rare disease. Their ages were also published. Assuming the patients live near the hospital, the mortgage lender then simply filters its database on zip code and birth year. Working with a smaller set of records, it then scans social media sites or other online forums, filtering on the retrieved names and other data, all the while looking, for say, “get well” messages. If it finds a few matches, and with the additional new data points from the social site … I think you see where this is leading.

The good news is that the EU countries have long recognized that their laws have not kept pace. And the EU governing body is currently in the process of reforming the 1995 directive, taking into account the new realities of public data on the Web and the blurring of personal and anonymous data. To get a sense of the EU’s new thinking on personal data, refer to this work-in-progresspaper.

And there are also rumblings of change in the US along the same lines as the EU reforms.


Homayoun Hatami: How companies use Big Data to find sales growth Mckinsey

October 24, 2012

McKinsey partner Homayoun Hatami cites examples of how companies used Big Data to drive growth. To take advantage of these opportunities, companies have to put big data at the heart of their sales organization — from recruiting talent to processes. Based on the book Sales Growth. Learn more at the Sales Growth site. [http://salesgrowth.mckinsey.com/]


Will Big Data Kill All But the Biggest Retailers?

October 8, 2012

Increasingly, the largest retailers in markets across the country are employing sophisticated personalized marketing and thereby becoming the primary shopping destination for a growing number of consumers. Meanwhile, other retailers in those markets, once vigorous competitors for those loyalties, are being relegated to the role of convenience stores.

In this war for customers, the ammunition is data — and lots of it. It began with transaction data and shopper data, which remain central. Now, however, they are being augmented by demographic data, in-store video monitoring, mobile-based location data from inside and outside the store, real-time social media feeds, third-party data appends, weather, and more. Retail has entered the era of Big Data.

Virtually every retailer recognizes the advantages that come with better customer intelligence. A McKinsey study released in May 2011 stated that, by using Big Data to the fullest, retailers stood to increase their operating margins by up to 60% — this, in an industry where net profit margins are often less than 2%. The biggest retailers are investing accordingly. dunnhumby, the analytics consultancy partnered with Kroger in the US market, employs upwards of 120 data analysts focused on Kroger alone.

Not every retailer, however, has the resources to keep up with sophisticated use of data. As large retailers convert secondary, lower-value shoppers into loyal, high-value shoppers, the growth in revenue is coming at the expense of competing retailers — all too often, independent and mid-market retailers. This part of the retail sector, representing an estimated third of total supermarkets, has long provided rich diversity in communities across the United States. But it is fast becoming cannon fodder.

Within the industry, the term used for this new form of advantage is shopper marketing, loosely defined as using strategic insights into shopper behavior to influence individual customers on their paths to purchase — and it is an advantage being bankrolled by consumer goods manufacturers’ marketing funds. A recently released study [pdf] by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) estimates annual industry spending on shopper marketing at over $50 billion, and growing.

The growth in shopper marketing budgets comes as manufacturers are reducing the spending on traditional trade promotion that has historically powered independent retail marketing. Past retail battles were fought with mass promotions that caused widespread collateral damage, often at expense to the retailer’s own margins. Today’s data sophistication enables surgical strikes aimed at specific shoppers and specific product purchases. A customer-intelligent retailer can mine its data searching for shoppers who have purchasing “gaps of opportunity,” such as the regular shopper who is not purchasing paper products, and targeting such customers with specific promotions to encourage them to add those items to their baskets next time they’re in the store.

A 2012 study by Kantar Retail shows manufacturer spending on trade promotion, measured as a percentage of gross sales, at the lowest level since 1999. But even this does not tell the whole story; it is the changing mix of manufacturer marketing expenditures that shows what is occurring. Trade promotion accounted for 44% of total marketing expenditures by manufacturers in 2011, lower than any other year in the past decade. This decrease is driven by a corresponding increase in shopper marketing expenditures.

As shopper marketing budgets have exploded, the perception has taken hold within the industry that a disproportionately large share of that funding is directed to the very largest retailers. That’s not surprising when you consider what Matthew Boyle of CNN Money reported recently. He noted that the partnership of Kroger and and dunnhumby “is generating millions in revenue by selling Kroger’s shopper data to consumer goods giants … 60 clients in all, 40% of which are Fortune 500 firms.” It is widely understood that Kroger is realizing over $100 million annually in incremental revenue from these efforts.

The Kantar Retail report goes on to say:

Manufacturers anticipate that changes in the next three years will revolve around continued trade integration with Shopper Marketing to maximize value in the face of continued margin demands. Manufacturers, in particular, expect to allocate trade funds more strategically in the future, as they shift to a “pay for performance” approach and more closely measure program and retailer performance.

 

The same report calls out that the future success model will involve deeper and more extensive collaboration between the retailer and brand, with focus on clear objectives and performance accountability. What needs to be recognized is that this manufacturer business model skews heavily to the capabilities of the largest retailers. It’s simply much easier for the brands to execute by deploying entire teams of people against a Safeway or Target or Walmart. It is much harder to interact with hundreds or thousands of independent retailers. Manufacturers’ past model of reaching independent retailers via wholesalers, who aggregated smaller merchants for marketing purposes, worked well in an age of mass promotion but not in an age of shopper-specific marketing. Wholesalers do not have shopper data, and do not have sophisticated technologies or expertise in mining the data. Meanwhile, they have a challenging record of promotion compliance, and in many cases lack the requisite scale for deep collaboration with brands.

Personalized marketing is proving to be a powerful tool, driving increased basket size, increased shopping visits, and increased retention over time. And if you’re one of the largest retailers, you get all these benefits paid for by CPG shopper marketing funds. But for everyone but those very large retailers, the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory. Independent retailers are keenly aware of the competitive threat and desperately want to engage, but they have not had the tools or scale to do so. The brand manufacturers are frustrated by increasing dependence on the very largest retailers even as they cave in to their inability to effectively and efficiently collaborate with a significant portion of the retail industry.

It would seem that the brand manufacturers’ traditional business model for marketing interaction with the independent retail sector is ripe for disruption. Growing consumer expectation for relevant marketing, the potential for gain if customer intelligence could be brought to the independent sector, and desire to mitigate the growing power of the largest retailers all provide powerful incentive to brand manufacturers. Independent retailers are savvy operators and are eager to join the fray if given the opportunity. Conversely, maintaining the status quo means the largest retailers continue to leverage personalized marketing to outpace smaller retailers, threatening the very diversity of the retail industry.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/will_big_data_kill_all_but_the.html

 


StreetPong: Play Pong At The Traffic Lights

September 11, 2012

So you’re a pedestrian, standing at a busy intersection, waiting to cross the road… Boring right? Well, not any more. Introducing StreetPong, which is creating urban interactions between random strangers on opposite sides of the road! The game screen shows how long the traffic lights have before changing colour, and when the lights change to red, people on either side of the road can play each other directly in a real-time pong challenge! And when the lights go green… the person with the most points wins and the next player steps up! Very cool… via PSFK.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 746 other followers