BUSI 424 Week 6 Discussion Board Forum 6 Example

Discussion Board Forum 6: Social, Mobile and Local Marketing and Its Ethical Limits

BUSI 424 E-Commerce, Discussion Board Forum 6 Thread and Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The forum prompt, the coffee chain and the three classmates are composites; the textbook and the research cited are real, and the structure follows Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 424.

Thread

Chapter 7 shows how powerful mobile and local marketing can be: a store can send an offer when a customer walks nearby, tailor a feed to a person's interests and measure exactly which promotions bring people in. Chapter 8 asks what that power costs. Laudon and Traver (2017) describe privacy as the moral right of individuals to be left alone and to control what information about them is collected and used. I want to argue that both chapters are right, and that the line should be drawn at data use customers would expect and consent they actually understand.

The business case for data is strong. Goldfarb and Tucker (2011) studied how the European Union's privacy rules, which restricted how websites could collect and use browsing data, affected online ads. They found that after the rules took effect, display ads in Europe became much less effective at raising stated purchase intent than similar ads elsewhere, especially ads that were small, plain or shown on general websites. Targeting works, and restricting it has real costs.

The costs to customers are also real, though harder to see. Acquisti et al. (2016) reviewed the economics of privacy and found no single answer: shared data can benefit buyers and sellers alike, yet it can also enable price discrimination, manipulation and breach-related harm that shoppers are poorly placed to foresee. The problem is not that data is used, but that customers usually cannot know how it will be used when they agree to share it.

Consider a coffee chain's app. Using location only when the app is open, to find the nearest store and offer a discount, is something most customers expect. Tracking their location all day in the background to sell insights to other companies is not. My rule would be to use data in ways a customer would predict from the moment they shared it, to ask permission in plain words, and to make turning tracking off as easy as turning it on.

Regulation is also moving toward that rule. Several states now give consumers the right to know what data a business holds about them and to have it deleted, and app platforms require apps to ask before tracking users across other companies' apps. A business that adopts the expectation test now will be ready for rules that are likely to tighten further.

Reply to Logan

Logan, your thread made a convincing case for geofenced offers, and your example of a coupon arriving as a customer passes a store shows chapter 7's local marketing clearly. I would add one risk specific to location data. Location histories reveal far more than shopping habits: where a person lives and works, which church or clinic they visit and who they spend time with. Even when a company removes names, a few location points can often identify a person, because few people share the same home and work locations. That makes location data more sensitive than most other marketing data and more harmful if it is leaked or sold. A business using geofencing can reduce the risk by processing location on the customer's phone where possible, keeping only what it needs for the offer and deleting it quickly. Customers also tend to grant location permission for one purpose, such as finding the nearest store, without realizing the app keeps collecting in the background. Asking again for each new use, in plain words, respects the original choice. Clear choices protect customers and the business alike. Deleting old location records on a schedule limits the damage of any breach. Do you think customers who accept location permissions understand how revealing that data is?

Reply to Sophia

Sophia, you argued that privacy is effectively dead because people share so much on social media, and that businesses should not worry about it. I see why you say that, but I would push back respectfully. People choosing to share a vacation photo with friends is very different from a company collecting their location or purchase history without their full understanding. The research I cited found that customers often cannot anticipate how their data will be used, which is exactly why their sharing on social media does not mean they consent to everything. Laws are also moving in the other direction: several states have passed privacy laws giving consumers rights to see and delete their data, and businesses that ignore privacy face legal and reputational risks. I would say privacy is changing rather than dead, and businesses that respect it may gain trust. Younger customers in particular often say they care about privacy even while sharing a great deal, a pattern researchers call the privacy paradox. It suggests people share because the costs are hard to see, not because they do not care, which places more responsibility on businesses to be clear. Transparency, then, is the business's part of the bargain. Would your view change if you saw everything a company knew about you?

Reply to Ethan

Ethan, your point that marketers should be transparent about data use is one I strongly agree with, and I want to extend it to a group the chapters mention only briefly: children and teenagers. Many apps and games used by young people collect data and show targeted ads, and young users are less able to understand what they are agreeing to. In the United States, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act requires parental consent before collecting personal information from children under thirteen, but teenagers have fewer protections. A business that markets to young customers should hold itself to a higher standard than the law requires, for example by not using behavioral targeting for users it knows are minors. That is both an ethical choice and, increasingly, a legal and reputational one. Design choices matter as much as policies here: apps aimed at young users can avoid endless feeds, push notifications late at night and features that reward sharing personal details, which reduces both privacy risk and pressure on young people. Those choices also earn the trust of parents, who decide which apps their children may use. Parents notice which companies treat children carefully. Do you think the protections for children should extend to teenagers?

References

Acquisti, A., Taylor, C., & Wagman, L. (2016). The economics of privacy. Journal of Economic Literature, 54(2), 442-492. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.54.2.442

Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. E. (2011). Privacy regulation and online advertising. Management Science, 57(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1246

Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2017). E-commerce 2016: Business, technology, society (12th ed.). Pearson.