Mint to sell data?
Will Mint.com aggregate data and sell it/use it to entice advertisers? They're considering it.
There's a whole ethical vs. not ethical debate going on. A lot of people make wild acusations about how they are going to delete their accounts if Mint starts to do this. A) most people won't realize mint sells their data - I mean really, who actually reads those agreements? and B) people - you're stupid and don't know the meaning of the word aggregate nor apparently can you look it up.
On this blog post, Matt from Thrive commented. Basically saying as a company they decided it with unethical to sell people stuff when they are trying to help people not spend as much.
Clearly, this is not a problem for mint in terms of their philosophy b/c from the begining they've tried to make money by advertising to their customers. Their message has been pretty clear, buy stuff - but be smart about what you're buying, and know where your money is going. Buy less crap. They say this by directing you to accounts that will save you/ make you more money. So, for them, the selling of data isn't really an ethical debate about trying to sell the consumer stuff or not, it's more a marketing and biz case debate. If too many consumers feel "sold out" then any potential financial gain will be off set.
I've used mint for a while, and I've never felt "sold to" on their site. I've always felt as if any of the advertisements are helpful. Just because they advertise a new savings account doesn't mean I'll take the bait, and generally they're trying to offer me accounts that offer better interest rates than my current ones. I don't see how making more money is a bad thing. People will put up with some advertising feel to get a good product. Fortunately with mint, I get a good product, targeted ads that make sense for me, and on top of that, I don't feel like I'm getting bombarded with crap I don't care about (generally why people hate ads - b/c products don't apply to them == waste of time.)
Therefore, Mint, I'm recommending that you sell aggregated data. Am I worried about having my name on it? No. Because I understand both the denotation and conotation of the word aggregate. It would be good for Mint's bottom line. It would ultimately be good for me?
What what what??? You say? How would it be good for me? Because by helping the advertisers better understand their target market (me and my spending habits) they can better target advertisements to me, and ultimately increase competition for my banking business. Better targetting = better offers and products that fit my lifestyle, will help banking move into internet age, will help increase competition. Increased competition generally leads to lower margins for the advertisers, lower margins for them means the less money I have to pay them for same job.
Just because I open a credit card or savings account doesn't mean that I will spend more money or save more money. An account doesn't change a spending habit. Savings accounts don't create money - but a higher interest rate creates more money in my account + more capital for that bank to use. The banking market is already pretty competitive, by targeting an audience better they can understand what I want and how I use things and change their policies appropriatly so that they can find a way for it to be good for me (and I use their product instead of someone elses) and good for them (they make money.)
Do people forget that banks need customers to use their services so they have capital to lend out? And customers need banks in order to borrow money when they need it? There's no such thing as free lunch, both parties need to get something out of a business transaction.
In this case, Mint provides aggregated data, and I get better interest rates on my savings accounts b/c there is more competition for my cash.
I like competition. Bring it on bitches.
Comments
So I can feel the part about being frustrated when people get the wrong idea about what Mint is selling. The issue here isn't privacy, in the sense that this is your name attached to something, being sold to folks that will use it to hijack your credit card. That sort of argument seems, to me, to be missing the point.
But I do think the aggregated data issue is still a moral issue, not just a business one. It isn't just about users feeling sold: after all, the best advertisements don't make you feel that way. But they are still advertisements and they are still designed usually to create a desire for a product not by displaying the product's features, but by targeting whatever you want to be or think as specifically as possible, then convincing you that the product will bring you closer to that.
Your primary supposition seems to be that more targeted advertising is better. But to me, I would think that depends on what kind of advertising it is: advertising that shows you a product you might actually want, that fills a real need in your life, versus advertising that creates a need, or makes you want something that won't actually bring you any actual pleasure, health, or satisfaction.
Brief aside: in a very real way, we know that convincing people to open credit cards makes them spend more money. An experiment with children, for example, paid them for being in an experiment either in the form of a credit card or actual money, which they could then take away or spend at a "candy store" in the lab. Credit card kids spent more than money kids did.
Does that automatically mean that if you get a credit card, you'll spend more? No, any more than smoking cigarettes means you will get cancer. It just means it increases the chances that you'll spend more, just like smoking will increase your chances of getting cancer.
And I don't think credit cards are quite the right way to understand what may happen if people start selling your aggregated transaction and account data. A better example is the product concept you seem to use.
Yes, aggregated data can help create better products - certainly we use data-centric design here at Thrive, where we look at what people are doing so that we can make sure that we are providing the best possible advice to help manage or change those behaviors. And Mint may sell your data for a company to do that.
The trouble is, they also may be selling your data so that companies can do more of that second type of advertising, simply to sell you more stuff. And it is tempting, I know, to say "doesn't matter, because I wouldn't be affected by that kind of advertising." The trouble is in the very model you suggest: advertising wouldn't exist unless it made companies money that second way.
That having been said, I do think it is a sticky issue, hence the reason we talked about it as a team. One way or another, Thrive and others have to make money and there are better and worse ways to do that. As I said in the linked post, this is a decision every company will have to make for itself and I think they are very real reasons why some may choose to do it, just to keep afloat and generate revenue. We'd just prefer to do that in ways that are a little less compromising of our core mission: to improve the financial health of people.