The security of personal data on the Internet is questioned by a large part of the respondents, the opportunities to get information on personal data stored appears unsatisfactory and the respondents want more influence on the storage and usage of personal data. There is ground to be made up with regard to a consumer‐friendly, transparent display of information about consequences and framework of web activities. However, when looking at many business models and the documentation of processes and conditions, it appears that transparency and traceability are of limited desirability for many companies. Possibly, this has to do with not wakening “sleeping dogs” and reinforcing consumers’ mistrust and thus maybe even deter them from using online offerings. But when looking at the findings it could also be assumed that digital applications have become a key part of everyday life anyway, widely used despite existing security concerns. Thus, committing to more transparency (expressly wanted) and consumer‐orientation could be perceived positively and may well be appreciated in the competition.
It can be also observed that the importance and function of data protection, privacy, and informational self‐determination with regard to the Internet are changing significantly, not least across generations. What was deemed private in the pre‐Web 2.0 period, the smartphone era respectively, has today become normal or common in social networks, blogs, chats, and tutorials and considered part of the consumers’ social analogue as well as digital identity and personality (on the use of social networks at the work place see [16]). Against this background the question is whether privacy, data protection, and also digital self‐determination need fundamental re‐consideration [17]. In any event, the perception of the consumers, of the younger digital natives generations in particular [18], with its characteristics of experience, decision, and behavior, need to be taken into account in both regulatory policy decisions and responsible corporate actions.
With regard to the perception of risks related to personal data one explanation may be that consumers either do not understand the risks at all or make incorrect assumptions or lack the technical skills to take appropriate protective measures. However, the findings at hand give reason to confirm the above‐mentioned “Privacy Paradox” insofar as there is awareness of (poor) data security and there are respective concerns, yet rather simple measures such as reading the terms and conditions are not taken (against better judgment).
Possibly, experience and behavior on the Internet are influenced by the same psychological effects that are at work in the analog world, such as present‐orientedness, the focus on “short‐term betterment” respectively [19], the illusion of control or over‐optimism, a tendency towards over‐estimation respectively. These are well known from psychological consumer research [19, 20] and it is only with difficulty that their impact can be reduced by means of information and education. For instance, the frequently encountered focus on the consent for transactions does not seem very useful against this background, since this consent is or should primarily be based on voluntariness and knowledge. While the respondents consider themselves quite competent in reaching their goals on the Internet, they also state deficits in understanding (partly background) processes and a desire for a better level of information. At the same time, and this is where the de facto relevance is, even a well‐informed and cautious consumer apparently does not read text‐heavy terms and conditions, as is clearly substantiated by the study results. It appears that conventional tools of data security and self‐determination based on this, such as consent, opt‐outs, and anonymization cannot really meet the requirements of the multi‐facetted construct of digital self‐determination and the consumers’ ambivalence. Simple, supporting measures could be helpful here, that take into account the decision‐making structure of consumers, which is based on complexity‐reduction, habits, and cognitive “short‐cuts” [19, 21].
A large majority also requested transparency in the application and ease‐of‐use. A corresponding reduction of complexity in this context should not be interpreted as patronizing but rather as a measure that does not palm off to the consumers the entire responsibility for processes and consequences, which cannot be overseen by them anyway. Simplicity in this context means the opportunity to having to make only few, ideally no, resource‐binding decisions in a comprehensible decision space. If a proposed or preset alternative reliably is the secure one, this will not only reduce unexpected negative consequences, but will also help to increase trust in web interactions and transactions thereby reducing the frequently expressed mistrust in companies’ data storage and data usage.
Also, access rights may be derived from the desire to know what happens to one’s own data on the Internet and beyond. For this, however, the legal framework also needs to be reviewed and amended to motivate providers to offer the technologies and services necessary for making the routes and value of their data clear to consumers. Due to the severe competitive pressure among digital services providers those companies that could take a competitive advantage from a carefully interpreted privacy policy or provisions to safeguard digital self‐determination might be encouraged to move towards the desired consumer‐oriented direction [22].
Greater transparency, higher comprehensibility, and more control over their own data: Nothing more and nothing less is what consumers want. And that is how digital services providers can gain trust and secure a significant competitive advantage.
References
1.
C. Linnhoff-Popien, M. Zaddach und A. Grahl, Marktplätze im Umbruch – Digitale Strategien für Services im Mobilen Internet, Heidelberg: Springer, 2015.
2.
M. Culnan und P. Armstrong, Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation, 1 Hrsg., Organizational Science, 1999, pp. 104–115.
3.
Bitkom, “44 Millionen Deutsche nutzen ein Smartphone,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.bitkom.org/Presse/Presseinformation/44-Millionen-Deutsche-nutzen-ein-Smartphone.html. [Accessed 15 08 2016].
4.
B. Bloching, L. Luck und T. Ramge, Data user – Wie Kundendaten die Wirtschaft revolutionieren, München: Redline Verlag, 2012.
5.
P. Norberg, D. Horne und D. Horne, “The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors,” in The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 1 Hrsg., 2007, pp. 100–126.Crossref
6.
Y. Moon, “Intimate Exchanges: Using Computers to Elicit Self-Disclosure from Consumers,” in Journal of Consumer Research, 4 Hrsg., 2000, pp. 323–339.Crossref
7.
R. O’Harrow, No Place to Hide, New York: Free Press, 2005.
8.
J. Phelps, G. Nowak und E. Ferrell, “Privacy Concerns and Consumer Willingness to Provide Personal Information,” in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 1 Hrsg., Bd. 19, 2000, pp. 27–41.Crossref
9.
P. Han und A. Maclaurin, Do Consumers Really Care about Online Privacy?, 1 Hrsg., Marketing Management, 2002, pp. 35–38.
10.
S. Sayre und D. Horne, Trading Secrets for Savings: How Concerned Are Consumers about Privacy Threat from Club Cards?, 1 Hrsg., Advances in Consumer Research, 2000, pp. 151–155.
11.
S. Spiekermann, J. Grossklags und B. Berendt, “E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-Commerce: Privacy Preferences vs. Actual Behavior,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commernce, 2001, pp. 38–47.
12.
D. Hallinan, M. Friedewald und P. McCarthy, Citizens’ perceptions of data protection and privacy in Europe, 28 Hrsg., Bd. 2, Computer Law & Security Review, 2012, pp. 263–272.Crossref
13.
B. Krahn, User Experience: Konstruktdefinition und Entwicklung eines Erhebungsinstruments, Bonn: GUX, 2012.
14.
S. Ba
rnes, “A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States, First Monday,” 2006. [Online]. Available: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312. [Accessed 15 08 2016].
15.
M. Mertz, M. Jannes, A. Schlomann, E. Manderscheid, C. Rietz und C. Woopen, Digitale Selbstbestimmung – Cologne Center for Ethics, Rights, Economics, and Social Sciences of Health (CERES), Cologne, 2016.
16.
C. Rietz, A. Knieper und B. Krahn, Soziale Netzwerke am Arbeitsplatz: Eine Bestandaufnahme, 18 Hrsg., Bd. 1, Wirtschaftspsychologie, 2016, pp. 46–54.
17.
M. Hotter, Privatsphäre – Der Wandel eines liberalen Rechts im Zeitalter des Internets, Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag, 2011.
18.
M. Prensky, Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1, On the Horizon, Bd. 5, 2007, pp. 1–6.
19.
E. Kirchler, Wirtschaftspsychologie, Göttingen: Hogrefe, 2011.
20.
R. Thaler und C. Sunstein, Nudge – Wie man kluge Entscheidungen anstößt, Berlin, 2015.
21.
M. Grubb, “Overconfident Consumers in the Marketplace,” in Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4 Hrsg., 2015, pp. 9–36.Crossref
22.
G. Spindler und C. Thorun, “Eckkpunkte einer digitalen Ordnungspolitik,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://sriw.de/images/pdf/Spindler_Thorun-Eckpunkte_digitale_Ordnungspolitik_final.pdf. [Accessed 15 08 2016].
Footnotes
1The right to informational self‐determination “grants the individual’s general authority to decide for themselves on the disclosure of their personal data. The right to informational self‐determination is part of the general right of personality, protected by Article 2 (1) in conjunction with Article 1 (1) of the German Constitution. Therefore, it has constitutional status and constitutes an essential characteristic of human dignity and of the general freedom of action” (cf. http://www.bmi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Verfassung/Datenschutz/Informationelle-Selbstbestimmung/informationelle-selbstbestimmung_node.html).
2cf. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, BDSG, p. 6, see https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bdsg_1990/gesamt.pdf.
3cf. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf.
4Determinants include autonomy and overall self‐determination, but also factors from the technical, socio‐cultural, and person‐related areas.
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, Ralf Schneider and Michael Zaddach (eds.)Digital Marketplaces Unleashedhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8_8
8. Digitally Mature? Ready for the Digital Transformation?
Maik Romberg1
(1)Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG, Munich, Germany
Maik Romberg
Email: [email protected]
8.1 What Does the Digital Transformation Do to Us? What Do We Gain from the Digital Transformation?
Are we mature in handling digital media, and able to form our own opinion? What decides our action and our decisions in working with smart phones, tablets, apps and IoT? Accordingly, with which criteria do we click our way through an ever more digital world? Are we self‐determining, and, if so, to what degree, or do we allow ourselves to be led by cleverly programmed algorithms through a world which we don’t understand ourselves anymore? Can we really actively structure the digital change, or are we being overwhelmed by the digital revolution? And if we, the inhabitants of this digital modern time, do not want to accept this disruptive transformation as a force of nature, how can we have an influence on it?
8.1.1 Our Conscious and Unconscious Motives Accepting Digital Achievements
In order to answer these questions I believe a differentiated view is necessary – a close look at our conscious and unconscious actions within the spreading digital development around us. It is a view at our true motives, either to accept digital achievements with enthusiasm or to reject them with a high degree of skepticism. A view at required political measures for a socially and humanely justifiable transition into the digital age 4.0. Along with this, we take a view at our changing working world. How will we work in future? How do we want to work in future? Does digital work 4.0 offer us the chance for individual fulfillment or does it mean an increase in external control and exploitation? In order to approach these questions we firstly have to clarify why, and to what extent, we interact with digital achievements today.
8.1.2 How Does Our Association with Digital Media Function?
It was Aristoteles, who put forward the thesis that happiness was the highest asset and ultimate goal of every action, in “Nicomachean Ethics”. According to latest findings in brain research Aristoteles was not only right, but our decisions are made even before we realize it, in the orbitofrontal cortex. If no reward is recognized there is no positive decision. The reward principle describes the influence of positive reinforcement, according to psychology. This is one personality trait of the human, which also works in the digital world. If users receive an answer to a question, support or help in everyday life and the working world, it is felt as a reward – Aristoteles would have called this happiness. It is an important reason why only applications, which produce genuine added value for the user, can be successful: they reward the user. We immediately recognize the advantages of digital communication and collaboration, if they facilitate our analog daily life. We are rewarded by not having to go to supermarkets, not having to take our shirts to the laundry, and being able to book our tickets online.
8.1.3 Key Success Factors
We won’t have to go to the travel agent anymore or to line up at a desk, admission tickets will not have to be printed anymore or to be picked up at the ticket agency, etc. … the further development of these digitally organized services will escalate rapidly. In this development it will be exciting to see which innovations really ease our daily life, reward us by using them, and therefore soon become a part of the digital achievements which have an above average half‐life value. An essential success factor of the generation of measurable digital added value will be the finesse of usability through which we are literally enticed to move from the well‐worn analog trail to the new, alluring, and convenient digital path. Applications such as, for example, Airbnb, succeed in giving, with apparent ease to the user – whether it be guest or host, a responsive user interface so that one is positively seduced to join the Airbnb community by one click, s. Fig. 8.1.
Fig. 8.1Number of guests staying with Airbnb hosts during the summer
There is nothing which hasn’t already been considered by the makers and integrated into the UI design. This is not meant to sound deprecatory – quite the contrary. In this instance, it has been possible to successfully reproduce the real world and its complexity in a digital process. The interaction with other users turns into social collaboration. In spite of heterogeneous user structures a homogeneous entity is produced for those who participate, who receive their personal and individual advantages, who are rewarded and would like to continue.
A successful application, such as Airbnb, attracts other services like a magnet. In the periphery surrounding the practical everyday function, which renting out private living space brings with it, a number of add‐on services have been created or have smartly docked onto the success. These are, of course fully digitalized, cleaning and housekeeping services, car and bike sharing services, delivery services of different flavors, etc. … This momentum is, on the one hand, stamped by economic interests, and, on the other hand, shows how important suitability of digital applications for everyday use has become. Practicable use is in the foreground. The user wants to be positively sanctioned fo
r his digital action – at best, immediately and noticeably.
In this connection, the pragmatic use of new media technologies has become second nature to most people for quite some time. They are happy to use mobile devices and apps, especially in view of the fact that they not only become more attractive, but also more user‐friendly with every innovation and new version. Besides the joy of gained time, new application areas, the esthetics of new media, and one’s own gain of multimedia competency, the digital revolution also brings with it complex challenges to the inhabitants of modern digital life – mentally, socially and psychologically.
Digital Marketplaces Unleashed Page 10