Given the debates (and rows) that took place at the main political parties’ conferences this year, you’d be forgiven for thinking that little else but Brexit was discussed.
While exiting the European Union was without doubt the main topic of conversation, there was a distinct interest on the fringes of both Labour Conference in Brighton and the Conservatives’ gathering in Manchester in the issue of data.
It’s clear that data has many meanings to many people – a fact that was reflected in the wide-ranging nature of the discussions, from marketing to public services. As a result, agendas and solutions become conflicted.
Data has become integral to our personal lives and our engagement with institutions, as has the debate on its ethical use. At Labour Conference, the conversation focused on its use by institutions like the NHS and by the state; but of course, the collection and application of data by platforms and advertisers is a key concern. Whoever the recipient of their data, people definitely worry about their data being shared; but they often aren’t clear which data it is they are concerned about.
Of course, data about us is used in different ways to many different ends. Sensitive personal data differs to anonymised data. People do care about their own rights to use data and they care about the way corporates utilise their data to communicate with them. We’ve seen this reflected in our work on trust in advertising, where people feel bombarded by obtrusive advertising but, in general, still see it as a good thing... with some downsides.
The debate is around how much longer that fragile tolerance continues. Across several fringes, questions about what constitutes the ethical use of data were consistently raised, from the next steps post-GDPR to the way in which our health information might be used to tailor treatments and services. Also raised were the lack of understanding around data regulation, the control (or lack thereof) you have as an individual, and the way that adverts are served to you.
The debate on data is underway and complex. Brexit may well be all-consuming at the moment, but government has a duty to elevate the data debate (indeed, questions about data couldn’t be separated from Brexit, even if we wanted to). Politicians cannot be afraid to champion the positives of a better-informed data society, at the same time as equipping individuals to protect sensitive personal data.
For advertisers, the challenge is in ensuring that you use data well – not to impact on scale, but to deliver value. If we hear one more story of a toilet seat or shed advert following someone around the web...