Most retailers gather a lot of information about
their customers – some of it with their consent and some of it implicitly. The
question of ethics can be tackled over a broad array of topics ranging from
invasion of privacy to incorrect representation of collected data. As of today, there are no formal code of
ethics that organizations or individuals gathering information are bound to
adhere to. The diagram below summarizes
how the advent of information technology is affecting social, political and
individual levels. There are a multitude
of questions surrounding what are the boundaries of information sharing and
gathering? What are an individual’s
rights with respect to data sharing or copying? Who should be held accountable
for violations?
Without even being aware of it, we leave a trail
online – intimate information that can literally trace our every move is freely
available to a lot of companies. Credit card purchases, browsing history,
search history etc can easily indicate your preferences, intentions and habits.
To retailers, this may be invaluable data, but to what extent should marketers
gather such information, is there truly a need to conduct research just because
it is easy to obtain information? Even if they do, how far can they really
extrapolate it to build implications that might not be true for a larger
population?
The major players in this discussion are – the
researcher, the respondent, the client and the general public. I would like to
look at the different types of ethical issues that one typically encounters and
try to understand how to resolve them.
A. Invasion of privacy: Gathering information with the
consent of the respondents, by informing them of the reasons for collecting the
data and what you (the researcher) intend to do with it might not be treated as
an invasion of privacy. But, if your browsing information or cell phone
conversations were collected without your knowledge, it would be viewed as
deceit. It is ethical behavior to allow the respondent decide which questions
they view as too personal and would choose not to respond to.
B. Deceiving respondents: Maintaining clarity in the
questionnaire given to respondents can be a gray area. Asking a certain
question in a certain way because you know how most respondents might respond
will not only lead to biased results, but will also not reflect the true
desires of customers. A simple example of this type of manipulation was a
question on the driving license form – “Do you
want to be an organ donor?”. As it turns out, respondents in Denmark,
UK, Germany were not too keen on being organ donors – compared to Austria,
Belgium, France where close to 100% of the respondents were willing to be organ
donors. Could this be attributed purely to respondents desire to do good?
As it turns out, it was not so much the intentions of
the form respondents, but the way the form had been created. People had to
actually check the box to opt out of the organ donation program on the license
forms in countries with close to 100% organ donation program adoption.
In my opinion, this is clearly a manipulation
technique – which does not represent true desires of the public and therefore
should not be considered reliable. Although this particular example of data
collection might not be considered unethical by most – the implications would
be drastically different if the same technique was used to understand brand
preferences.
Push polling is another technique employed by
marketing researchers that might yield swayed results.
source: Dan AIrely , Ted Talk
C. Misrepresentation of results : “He uses statistics as
a drunken man uses a lamppost - for
support rather than illumination” – Andrew Lang6. The responsibility of sharing accurate research results falls on both
– the researcher and the client. An example mentioned by Zikmund and Babin in
their book ‘Essentials of Marketing Research’ is about a cigarette
advertisement that indicated that 65% of the respondents preferred the
advertised brand. When in fact, a very small percentage of the total
respondents had even indicated a preference. The claim though, leads the public
to believe that 65% of the overall population prefers the advertised brand.
D. Conflicts of interest: Researchers need to avoid
conflicts of interest in terms of the clients they take on as well as their own
stake in the research.
The long term implications of unethical behavior are
tremendous for all parties involved. Misleading advertisements or invasion of
privacy might lead to loss of brand credibility and trust with your customer
base. As a marketing researcher, if your research is biased or gained through
unethical means – it damages your credibility.
I believe, a marketing researcher, trying to gain
insights should always keep the following points in mind:
a. Honestly represent data collected from responders /
contributors
b. Do not manipulate data to reach desired conculsions
c. Leave out prejudices or biases while gathering
information and while trying to understand it
d. Ensure conflicts of interest are resolved or avoided
e. Maintain confidentiality of respondents
6.
Essentials of Marketing Research, 5th ed., William G. Zikmund, Barry J. Babin
Hi Nisha - I really like the framework for what you've considered here. And I'll have to use that Dilbert cartoon in the future - you're the second student I've seen post it and it's a good one. I'll also have to check out that Dan Ariely Ted Talk - that's a great example of manipulation in data collection. This one is just a bit shorter than the guidelines, but good overall.
ReplyDelete