.png)
.png)
.png)
Trust in a
post-cookie
digital landscape
Trusted sources need a trademark
It's our pleasure to have a start-up enterprise with so much promise as the future of addressable advertising inform us how the industry changes are affecting consumer trust. Please, start by telling us your first discovery to help inform our 2022 Trust report.
My first new contribution of knowledge about trust in personalised advertising in a post-cookie and post-privacy world is that generation z wants a tool, a trademark of sorts, to help them identify which online ads they feel assured have come from a trusted source. Marking the difference between trusted and non-trusted brands creates an acknowledged differentiation. This acknowledgement proved necessary for generation z to want to interact with personalised ads that use their private data.
While I explored the concept of Ad for Good as a trademark, it quickly became clear this wasn’t something the user could dictate based on personal preferences. From the consumer perspective, all ads look the same with the space they can inhabit, and the personalisation features they can use. Therefore, I discovered that a user-controlled marker that indicates whether an ad is from a pre-approved and trusted source can build generation z trust in personalised advertising.
.png)
.png)
That's a really interesting concept. Where did you first gain inspiration for the insight?
.png)
Tom first identified this issue during the first laddering interview. “Trashy websites have the same [cookie] messages as trusted ones”. Lynn built on this sentiment, explaining she will typically ‘reject all’ cookies or attempt to avoid pop-ups. However, on web pages that were insistent and “totally disables” use, she would not accept cookies and purposely leave the page in retaliation. But it becomes hard to monitor this behaviour. She ultimately found it is, unfortunately, easier to "just select allow all" to cookie requests, remaining oblivious to what private data is collected.
Later in our conversation, I proposed an idea to Tom. I asked if he could better mark trusted sources according to his preferences, then would he be more likely to interact with personalised ads. He agreed it would help. As it stands, the state of digital advertising trust, according to my participants recounting their experiences, was a guessing game. For Mae, it was gut instinct. For Lynn, it was just retaining as much control as she could until the page stopped allowing her to interact. And for Tom, it was simply accepting all because he could not identify one trustworthy data collection source from another.
.png)
"trashy websites have the same [cookie] messages as trusted ones"
Did you find it hard to convert that insight into a practical idea that is now part of Social Bubble?
What helped me make sense of the necessity for a trusted trademark was breaking down its needs into two categories. The first was consenting to a brand webpage to access your data. The second was viewing a personalised advert as a result of the data collection. While these were separate moments in a user’s online experience, the pairing of the two was important. I considered an experience where users could trace ads back to the origins of data collection that inform the personalised aspects. Since it appeared trust had become a guessing game for my participants, I wanted to de-mystify this process. As such, I aimed for the symbol of the Social Bubble to represent a trademark of trust. For users, when they view a personalised ad with the Social Bubble logo in the bottom corner, they are assured in the knowledge the private data that went into the making of the ad was consensually shared.
.png)
Fascinating. It seems like there were a lot of elements for you to consider simultaneously. Was this something you experienced?
Exactly, from an object-oriented ontological perspective, trust-building online between brands and generation z involves a broad array of objects functioning independently without human subjectivity[1]. While the bubble trademark to indicate a trusted source was important, it was the need for multi-faceted control, relating to my privacy discovery, that led to the creation of Social Bubble’s user-facing control centre. If generation z were able to monitor and exert more control over the different actants involved in personalised ads, would it reduce their confusion in identifying trusted brands?
I felt inspired by Indra’s net and its multiplicity of reflecting and refracting jewels that illustrate a network of objects. With Social Bubble, I quite literally sought to place the consumer at the heart of Indra’s net[2]. The idea of Social Bubble is a mesh, where preferences for trusted sources are webbed together to build an entirely personal accumulation of actants. Building a network of trusted sources that carry the Social Bubble trademark of trust sought to take the guesswork out the process for the generation z group.
.png)
And how did your respondents respond to these ideas?
In the prototype testing workshops, I was able to provide further evidence to support my discovery. When I asked my participants whether trust impacted the brands they would select to include in their brand bubble, I heard a unanimously agreeable response. Mae built upon this positive sentiment, comparing Social Bubble’s trademark for trust status to the existing cookies, explaining: “we just don’t normally have the time or inclination to say which ones you want and those you don’t want”. By simplifying the process and taking the guesswork out of identifying which brands to trust and share data with, internet users will feel less in the dark about the origins of personalised advertising. It’s through the identification of trusted sources generation z gain the assurance to want to share private data with brands. This idea of a trademark for trust is a new discovery in the realm of personalised digital advertising technologies.
Trust can be leveraged by purpose
Now did you find that brand purpose influenced generation z trust?
My second finding regarding trust was how brand purpose could leverage generation z willingness to share private data. While in the literature, it is not new news that brand purpose can help build trust, my discovery confirmed a new dimension. For generation z, they feel comfortable sharing private data if they are rewarded, in partnership with the brand, by contributing toward a cause they feel passionately about. Mutual purpose helps attach the feeling of doing good in cooperation with brands. Building a brand ally ignites a more trusting relationship, consequently inducing less reluctance in consumers sharing their private data for a worthy reward.
So what is the role of brand purpose in trust?
During the brand experience workshop, my participants commented on a superficiality of being rewarded for interactions with cashback or monetary vouchers. This style of financial incentive was perceived as a device used by powerful actants to manipulate consumer private data collection. Tom mentioned based on previous experience, cashback sites would “immediately ask for my email” but not specify how it would be used. It raised the question: “what’s the catch”? As a result, my participants placed the browser extension voucher code site, Honey, at the 'not trusted' end of the brand experience map.
Alternately, Just Giving and Good-Loop were positioned at the 'trusted' end of the scale in response to their perceived do-gooder status. Despite this, Mae also highlighted that brand purpose does not automatically imply trust. “Donating 1 per cent doesn’t wow me, it may be more of a PR box tick, so that’s why I’m slightly less trusting”. The generation z participants had a critical eye when it came to determining the authenticity and generosity of brand purpose. Greenwashing was amongst the issues that had created scepticism that these brands were “all talk” and “tokenistic”.
.png)
"donating 1% doesn't wow me, it may be more of a PR box tick so that's why I'm slightly less trusting"
.png)
It must be hard to find the balance between authentic purpose and being considered "all talk", how did you find that middle ground?
To eradicate the concern of a brand's purpose being tokenistic or not making an actionable difference, which was harmful to generation z trust, I wanted to create a device that would create a partnership between the consumer and brand, allowing them to collaboratively grow their good. With Social Bubble, I wanted to put the decision of which purpose is supported into the hands of the user. As I found during stage one research, simply planting a tree, or donating 1 per cent would not be deemed a worthy reward for sharing private data.
What would be considered a worthy cause I understood would be a subjective decision. As such, the user would be able to receive monetary support from the brands they feel comfortable sharing their data with, to help make an actionable difference to a purpose they feel passionately about. “Personalisation to me would be something that reminds me of me, and I believe that represents me,” Mae explained during her laddering interview. Social Bubble, therefore, enables users to create brand allies who help them in achieving a philanthropic goal they, the consumer, cares deeply about.
And what did your market research reveal to be the result?
During the final feedback stage, James, was fascinated by the idea of his favourite clothing brand Carhartt being able to champion his marathon fundraiser. Social Bubble tells a more intimate story of a mutually rewarding relationship between the brand and the trusting consumer. “It makes me feel that I’m in partnership with my brand”, explained Tom who had previously complained about being “targeted too heavily” by non-consensually personalised ads. “I’m actually having the opportunity to make a positive contribution towards bettering the world” he summarised.
This partnership induced a cognitive shift from perceiving brands who send personalised ads as profit-hungry, to socially and ethically responsible. “Your money is going somewhere that you can trust instead of being flittered away…not just filling the pockets of billionaires,” said Mae with Tom building, “rather than just making companies money by giving away your data”. My discovery demonstrated that when generation z felt as though they were working with a brand to create a purposeful impact that they felt passionately about, these users would willingly share private data used for personalised ads.
"it makes me feel that I'm in partnership with my brand"
.png)
[1] Harman, G., 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics
[2] Morton, T., (2010). The ecological thought. Harvard University Press