One of that advantages in going full digital is to get data and metadata. How do customers use the platform? Which input of KYC policy discourages most prospects from finishing the form? What do auditors look for?
But where is your company stands on the quality of governance? How trusted is your company by customers? I think of it as a three-point system:
- Facebook: they just don’t care about customers, they will sell, resale, and kiss every single ass that’s willing to buy private data and metadata. As professor Scott Galloway said on an episode of the Pivot Podcast:
If he [Mark presumably] found out that somebody has syphilis, and could sell it to the La Roche for a penny, he’d say - “I’m not going to do that, I need to find one hundred million people, who have syphilis so I can make real money.
You don’t want your customers to think of you like Facebook, you don’t want regulators to think of you like Facebook.
Google and Amazon: Somewhere in a middle, we suspect that they sell our data from time to time, but we hope that they anonymised it well, they provide good services I. Exchange of data, and we are ok if suspicious.
Apple: as far as big corporations go - they have the best intentions. They promise to never sell data, and there is no evidence that it happened. They are expensive and posh, and occasionally fuckup with security. They do use the data, but like google and amazon try to provide value back to the customer. But privacy is first. If Google will prioritise value and will infringe on customers privacy, Apple prioritises privacy.
Verdict? Well, we definitely don’t want to be Twitter, to sell data in stupid ways, fuck up their own service, and then have an easy-mode interview on Ted, with self-promoting questions that don’t address anything. So you can use it as a three-point grade, Facebook -> Google -> Apple.