Re: Branding?

From: Randall Rensch <randy_at_rensch.com>
Date: Sat 11 Mar 2000 06:40:35 -0500

NICK WREDEN WROTE:
> violating their trust with "cookies"
> and other such nonsense

I take and agree with Mr. Wreden's larger point about
branding being the building of trust, but having just
seen a news report that used the word "cookies" in an
equally shorthand fashion, it's time to point out that
cookies themselves are not the problem.

The real problem, as Mr. Wreden points out, is data
*gathering*. It depends on what information is stored
in cookies, how that information is used by site owner
and advertisers, and whether the information is
aggregated in ways that immediately or potentially
identify or link to individual users.

Cookies themselves DO NOT and CANNOT identify users,
unless the cookie stores personal information (which is
most likely very fragmentary) and that information is
retrieved, stored and related to other fragmented
and/or personal information available to the site
owners or those the owner deals with. Some cookies do
not even persist past the user's current browser
session. And, theoretically at least, one domain's
cookie cannot be read by another.

Far from being nonsense, there are many uses for
cookies that we -- including consumers -- should all
agree are legitimate. Examples: Storing shopping cart
information; simplifying the user experience, such as
offering a shopping cart set-up only if the shopper
doesn't already have one; giving coherence to a
multiple-server visit thus aiding the determination of
conversion rates and such; collecting non-personal
information for aggregation, such as "How many of our
customers are JavaScript compatible". Note that while
these functions are important, maybe even vital to the
user experience, none of them fall into the more
personal "Would you like to see some new shirts to
match the tie you bought last time?" category, which
itself may be seen as innocuous or helpful by most
users.

Depending on site, user and software, sometimes there
are practical alternative ways of doing such things.
Sometimes not. Encouraging users to turn off cookie
acceptance permanently (something I myself do sometimes
when visiting a questionable site) and to mistrust
every site's cookie request is not constructive.

Yes, it would be nice if, when you've configured your
browser to accept cookies only with permission, the
site would stop attempting them after the first
refusal. It would probably be helpful if software would
give a greater range of cookie acceptance options. It
would be comforting if a cookie would itself tell you
(in plain language) what information it is writing. And
concerns over the collection, distribution and use
(note that I'm not even saying "*mis*use) of personal
information are ENTIRELY justified.

But cookies themselves are not the problem, only one
mechanical part of the system. Consumers do not
begrudge a marketer for putting a media key code in the
corner of a coupon, and we don't ban matches because
they light cigarettes. To equate "cookies" per se with
violation of trust does a disfavor to consumers, site
owners, and the very concept of trust-based marketing
itself.

Randall Rensch
marketing communication concepts and copywriting
randy_at_rensch.com www.rensch.com







Received on Sat Mar 11 2000 - 05:40:35 CST