The privacy-personalisation trade-off: are we trading too much for convenience?
As businesses race to personalise experiences through AI and behavioural data, a question emerges: are consumers knowingly or unknowingly giving up too much in the name of convenience? At a recent panel discussion on privacy in the digital age, three experts tackled this tension head-on.
Michael Agius, CPO at Deloitte, believes consumer attitudes have shifted over time. “About a decade ago, people were excited saying, ‘Wow, the platform, the programme knows what I like.’ It felt impressive,” he said. “But then during COVID, when people were spending more time on their devices, they started to realise just how much data was actually out there. That raised new concerns.”
Now, he explained, “we’ve reached more of an acceptance phase. People have become comfortable with a certain level of data being processed especially if it helps make future transactions smoother and more seamless.“
Talking about consent
Consumers often give consent for a certain level of data use but is that truly informed consent?
“You need to be smart about your legal grounds,” explained Agius. “Most companies rely on contract or legitimate interest. But if you’re using consent especially for marketing it has to be real. That means the user must be able to understand it, give it knowingly, withdraw it easily, and re-consent later. That’s difficult to manage, so your communication has to be crystal clear.“
“Take the Google case,” he added. “One of the key tests regulators used was: how many clicks does it take to give or remove consent? If it takes ten clicks to unsubscribe and only one to sign up, that’s not a fair balance.”
Consumer choice
Can privacy be traded for a more engaging experience? Is trust and transparency around data collection, storage, and use truly a deciding factor for consumers?
Corey Padveen, partner at t2 Marketing International and moderator of the NEXT.io panel, asked:”Do you think consumers actually choose one brand over another based on transparency?“
Martin Golding, Principal Sales Executive EMEA at IntentHQ, didn’t mince words:
“Who cares? It’s about the experience you’re giving me. Are you picking up on my behavioural cues? Are you building trust and making me feel like there’s a fair value exchange?“
Regulators still watching
While Golding argued that consumers prioritise experience over reading privacy policies, Agius reminded the audience that regulators do care. And keep watch. Referring to the early days of GDPR enforcement, he said: “Those huge fines 20% of revenue put everyone on edge. And today, the focus has shifted more toward trust and clarity.“
The third way: personalisation without compromise?
Moderator Corey Padveen raised a critical question: “Is a VIP-level personalised experience even possible without compromising privacy and security?“
Michael Agius responded: “I wouldn’t use the word ‘compromise.’ But there needs to be an expectation that to get a tailored experience, you do have to give something. Maybe one day AI will be able to tailor everything without user input but today, data is still needed. That doesn’t mean it can’t be secure.“
Martin Golding, whose work focuses on embedding AI into applications, argued that smart design can achieve both personalisation and privacy. “It’s about intelligent design. You can have it all: total privacy, standards, full tailoring.“
He added a technical example from his own work: “We’ve built an AI SDK (a Software Development Kit) that runs within the app, not in the cloud. It only uses the permissions already granted on the phone and starts to build behavioural insights locally. That’s privacy by design. For example, it can infer when someone’s home or what their routine looks like, without ever knowing their actual location.“
