Re: Selling personal data -- an experiment

Iain Henderson

Hi James, I think that particular one is around complexity. They know that they cannot serve the needs of those looking for complex products very well with only a single white box to fill in. So they make more money by doing that hand-off to someone who is more geared up to do so.

Google have dabbled in the space over the years with various ‘offers’ services or comparison shopping but they are not as yet that big in those areas.


On 8 Sep 2020, at 08:09, James A (One.Thing.Less) <James@...> wrote:

@Iain and others – why do you think that the big players (Google, Facebook etc.) are not (yet) doing too much in those spaces and leave quite some money on the table for intermediaries? Reputational concerns, regulatory concerns, complexity…?
From: <> on behalf of "Iain Henderson via" <iain.henderson@...>
Reply to: "" <>
Date: Saturday, 25 July 2020 at 20:45
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Me2BAlliance] Selling personal data -- an experiment
Agreed James, although I suspect the steady state for ‘considered purchases’ won’t need/ benefit from intermediaries. Individuals (demand) will have standardised API’s as will the manufacturers, distributors and retailers (supply).
If you look at considered purchases in more detail, Google, Facebook and Amazon don’t actually try to do too much in those spaces other than hand off to sector level experts after the search phase. For example, if you do a google search for ’new car’ you get intermediaries at the top of the list as below. Behind the scenes the manufacturers are happy to let the intermediaries separate the wheat from the chaff (unless the search mentions them specifically).

On 25 Jul 2020, at 12:06, James A (One.Thing.Less) <James@...> wrote:
I agree with Iain‘s example below. One of the most difficult aspects to address though will be how to overcome the market dominance of the established players (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon). Under pressure they could offer a functionality as part of their services where a Me can do better intent casting (potentially also incentivized as they have deep pockets) and at the same time offer the B‘s an integrated solution that tracks the successful conversions.
Concrete example: Google offers a Me looking for a car (based on browsing behavior) USD 10 to participate in a 10-20 question survey regarding the details of the Me‘s car requirement (spec, brands, timing, budget etc.) and consent to share with car manufacturers / retailers. Then Google offers that information and the possibility to hand in an offer for USD 20 to 20 manufacturers and 20 car dealers, making USD 400 in revenues with that bit of information if everyone buys. Google might even use AI to browse the online inventories of manufacturers and retailers to select only those who would love to get a car (working capital) off their lot ASAP... 
It would be very hard (but not impossible with the right financial backing) to compete with the big ones, ending most likely in an acquisition by one of the big players and being integrated in Google search...
My 2 cents.

On 25 Jul 2020, at 01:16, Iain Henderson via<iain.henderson@...> wrote:

I’d disagree, it is very easy to illustrate what is currently happening in the market and how that can be bettered. 
That said, I think selling personal data is the wrong framing; that’s not how it is going to work. It will work through reciprocity - i.e. mutually beneficial relationships.
* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)
I am a mid range, mass market car manufacturer, currently paying a range of intermediaries between £100 and £200 per qualified lead; i.e. people who are actively in the market for things like that which I sell.

* What data do you want to buy from me?
I want to buy the details of your requirement (spec, timing, optional points, price sensitivity)

* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business? 
If you can get me that data either ’same data bit cheaper’, or ‘better data, same price’ or, ‘much more qualifying data at higher price’ then it would be economically stupid of me not to buy from you.

* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))
As above - same date but cheaper, or better data same price; or much better data, higher price 

* How are you avoiding being gamed?
I only pay out when the purchase has been made and verified (either through myself or a competitor)
I could fill in the above very easily for about 30 different sectors in which paying for qualified leads is absolutely business as usual.
This article might be also useful background.

On 24 Jul 2020, at 23:58, Milton Pedraza <mpedraza@...> wrote:
Three aren’t any. It’s up to us to step up and create them for people. 
Milton Pedraza 
Luxury Institute, LLC

On Jul 24, 2020, at 6:51 PM, Johannes Ernst <jernst@...> wrote:

To shed some light about the viability of selling personal data, on a non-trivial scale, by “consumers" to one or more “vendors" — which I think is the scenario being discussed — I suggest a thought experiment.

Let’s say I am willing to sell my personal data (I’m not, but let’s assume I am), any of it, as long as the price is right.

For the purposes of this experiment, let’s also assume that there are no technical hurdles that make this impractical — all relevant data exists in electronic form, is standardized, easily shareable etc.

You are the “vendor” who wants to buy some of that personal data from me:

* Who are you? (Industry, product, …)
* What data do you want to buy from me?
* How is receiving that data from me materially going to improve your business? 
* How is buying that data from me better for you than the alternatives? (e.g. asking nicely :-))
* How are you avoiding being gamed?

I’d love to hear some compelling stories. Because so far I haven’t heard any :-)




Johannes Ernst
Encryption preferred. GPG fingerprint: 106E F92A BEBD 0C31 1DAF 7CD8 5726 2658 070F 1088

Join to automatically receive all group messages.