I’ve blogged about New Zealand Post’s Lifestyle Survey before. Yesterday I received an email inviting me to participate in their survey. In my opinion it’s still being advertised in a misleading way.
New Zealand Post is offering you the chance to customise the messages you receive from businesses, so they’re more relevant.
If someone doesn’t fill out this survey, no businesses will be sending them messages that they could consider irrelevant. This makes it sound like the businesses being given the person’s contact details already have a relationship with the person.
The information you supply may be provided to organisations from New Zealand and overseas, on commercial terms to help tailor their communications to your interests.
The information will be provided to other organisations because that’s the whole point of the survey. Commercial terms does make it a little clearer that the information is being sold.
Most importantly, only your name and address is provided to any participating organisation and subsequently your information is protected.
Clearly a name and address isn’t worthless though. Case in point being this survey where companies are buying “only” names and addresses off of New Zealand Post.
Also, blue on blue is an interesting colour combination for the explanation of the survey:
Today in the post we received New Zealand Post’s “lifestyle survey”, a controversial data collecting tool that’s recently been in the news because the information collected is used to market your address to other companies. The survey is sent to 800,000 households by post and 125,000 by email and asks 56 questions about various things, split into sections on your interests, vehicles, home, finances, shopping habits and travel. New Zealand Post sells names and addresses of respondents, “but not the information they provided in the survey”, for companies to use once. Information is also used to furnish New Zealand Post’s direct marketing tool named Genius which says it helps clients “gain deeper insights and understanding into your customers, particularly around wealth, life stage and lifestyle”.
Reports ordered by the Privacy Commissioner concluded that the 2009 version breached privacy principles and violated marketing industry standards for not providing “adequate, non-misleading information about the survey’s (primary) nature and/or purpose” and asking respondents to answer questions about their partners”. Professor Malcolm Wright, head of communications, journalism and marketing at Massey University say that it shouldn’t be called a survey but “an opportunity to join a direct mail database”. Auckland University former marketing lecturer Linda Hollebeek says that a lot of people won’t be aware that New Zealand Post is shifting into a more commercial strategic direction including the compiling of databases for on-selling to marketers.
Wave around a chocolate bar (or $15k) to get what you want
Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff argues that people are often dazzled by competitions and giveaways and might foolishly give away personal information. I think this has been shown to be true by numerous research projects where people are happy to hand over their passwords for a chocolate bar, pen or for the chance to win a trip overseas. Close Up in conjunction with NetSafe offered a Moro bar up for grabs for anyone on Auckland’s Queen Street who was willing to answer a short survey, of which the first question was “what is your password?”. 59% of people gave their password (about half of people use the same password everywhere) and those conducting the survey said that the answers to other questions suggested the majority of passwords were legitimate. You can watch the full video here (apologies if it’s blocked in your country). The shorts for tonight’s episode of Fair Go (22nd June 2011) shows a man on the street asking people personal questions, which I’m guessing most people answered. If you’re interested in the New Zealand Post survey it will probably be interesting to watch.
New Zealand Post thinks they’re being clear
John Tulloch, New Zealand Post’s communication manager said the survey states numerous times that it’s optional and the information “could be used by other companies”. I call bullshit.
(I’ve uploaded the full version of the survey here (pdf).)
Spot where New Zealand Post states “numerous times” that the information could be used by other companies. Hint, about once.
The top paragraph states: “New Zealand Post wants to help you receive more relevant mail. We invite you to complete this voluntary survey and tell us about you and your household, so we can help tailor the messages that you receive. These messages will be from companies with products and services related to your interests” (emphasis is theirs).
I’m not counting this one because I don’t think this is clear that companies will actually be given your information. For example, Fly Buys forwards material on behalf of places you’ve shopped at, but the shops never see your personal information. Nor am I counting the text at the bottom of the page: “in addition to receiving selected offers addressed to you through the mail…” as this doesn’t state at all that those offers won’t be from New Zealand Post.
The one time I’m counting (and only other time in the whole form sharing of information is mentioned) is the fourth small print bullet point under “Here’s how it all works” which states:
Privacy: If you participate in The New Zealand Lifestyle Survey, your name, address and other information you supply (including your email and telephone numbers if you tick the boxes below), may be provided to companies and other organizations from New Zealand and overseas to enable them to provide you and/or your household with information about products and services relevant to your responses to this survey. New Zealand Post may also use that information for the same purpose.
Sure I’ll give them that they’ve made it clear that the survey is voluntary (mentioned about four times on the front page). But they only say that information may be provided to other companies, even though that’s the primary purpose of the survey. There is no mention of the information being sold in the whole form.
“Total cost for services: $10,500.00 U.S. A beautiful woman to sleep with at night, kiss in the morning, and love all day long, for so little–less than an economy car.”
“Win a trip to beautiful Ukraine for 12 nights and meet eastern European hot lady who maybe one day you marry.”
The winner of the most recent controversial New Zealand radio promotion (renamed from “Win a Wife”) has been selected. Greg gets free flights and accommodation for about two weeks in Ukraine, where he will get his pick of Endless Love’s ladies (side note: count how many Yulia’s, Nataliya’s and Elena’s there are).
I am sure The Rock know that they have an obligation to make sure both parties involved in the competition are happy to actually go through with anything more than meeting each other, so my problem with the competition is more the fact that The Rock is promoting mail-order brides as a good way to find a woman to marry.
I am not sure how much thought The Rock and Mediaworks put into it, but promoting mail-order brides seems like a bad idea. Poor English, financial dependence on the husband and a lack of social networks in the other country seem like it is a recipe for disaster for the woman.
In 1999, Equality Now did research on international marriage brokerage screening processes. A researcher posing as someone with a violent history (pleading “guilty to disorderly conduct in response to criminal assault charges brought by two ex-wives”) was accepted by 59 out of the 66 agencies that responded. Four requested more information. Only three out of 66 agencies refused to accept the fictitious customer.
Some disturbing responses were received from some agencies, including:
“As far as bitches go, I think I understand. They assert that ‘No’ means ‘No’ except when they’re nagging, in which case, ‘No’ means, ‘Keep nagging and try to get beaten.’ I think the language barrier actually helps here; it’s hard to squawk through a language barrier.”
“…some of the email responses from IMBs advised the fictitious customer not to disclose his abusive background in communications with his potential mail-order bride, and others advised him to reveal his background voluntarily, but none stated that they would provide the women with this information, or that the man must disclose this information in order to use their services.”
This is not like NZDating. The consumer-husband is the one with the power. Depending on the agency, little information about the potential husband is passed on to the woman. Or only what he chooses to disclose. That is what a 1999 INS Report found. The agency The Rock is using has the following in their promo material (hosted on The Rock’s site here (.doc), Google Docs version here):
“When a lady is chosen by a client her profile is removed from the available ladies list and no other man is able to view her profile or write to her. With Endless Love Agency you will not be competing with other men, what other agency in the world offers this?”
This seems unfair to the women. I am guessing if the woman does not want to go any further with the potential husband they will be re-listed, but taking a profile down after being “chosen” seems like it is expected that the women will follow through.
The Edge, one of The Rock’s sister stations has done a similar promotion where two strangers get married (which, maybe surprisingly, works out well for the couples). This promotion just seems like it is trying to compete to have the craziest marriage based competition.
In related news, the cost of a slave has gone down to a historic low. This actually aired on CNN (via @zzap).
Quotes from: Kelly, Linda. “Marriage for sale: the mail-order bride industry and the changing value of marriage.” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice Fall 2001: 175-195. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.