Balancing Consumer Privacy With Personalized Experiences
Bill Bruno is CEO of Celebrus.
Consumers are more aware than ever of how their data is collected and shared—and they're not happy about it. High-profile revelations about government data access and evolving privacy regulations are fueling distrust, making it harder for brands to deliver the personalized experiences consumers still crave.
Data shows that consumers want personalized interactions. Yet, those same consumers express concern over data misuse. This paradox places brands in a bind: Deliver meaningful personalization and risk alienating privacy-conscious consumers.
In industries like retail and finance, where data powers customer engagement strategies, this tension is especially pronounced. Consumers want seamless, tailored interactions, but brands must prove they can deliver these experiences without compromising privacy.
Navigating privacy laws is complex. A California shopper visiting a European website may expect California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) protections, while that same retailer must also comply with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules. The resulting confusion increases the risk of regulatory missteps, hefty fines and lost consumer trust.
Privacy regulations like GDPR and CCPA aim to enhance transparency and consumer control, but inconsistencies across states and countries make compliance difficult. Brands must account for overlapping regulations, jurisdictional ambiguity and technical complexities in data collection.
The challenge is compounded by fragmented data ecosystems—spanning websites, mobile apps, point-of-sale systems and customer service platforms—that make it difficult for brands to track, secure and govern data effectively. Even businesses with robust privacy programs face hurdles in adapting to new regulations.
In this uncertain environment, proactive communication and transparency are essential. Brands that educate consumers about their data practices foster loyalty and trust. To provide clarity, brands should communicate:
• Where data is collected, so consumers understand what's being tracked
• How it's secured, to demonstrate commitment to data protection
• Who has access, to reinforce accountability
• How preferences are managed, to empower users to control their data
By offering clear explanations on these points, businesses can differentiate themselves in a climate of growing skepticism.
For brands, the challenge lies in finding the right balance between privacy and delivering the personalized experiences that consumers still expect. Businesses must adopt a "privacy by design" approach, ensuring data security and governance are embedded into every aspect of their systems. Achieving this requires conducting comprehensive data audits to understand what information is collected, where it resides and how it's used. Equally important is ensuring that partnerships with vendors and third-party providers include stringent data protection measures. Strong encryption protocols, multifactor authentication and secure APIs are critical in safeguarding sensitive consumer information.
The complexity of data privacy and personalization often leads brands to establish dedicated compliance teams. These teams, typically composed of CIOs, security leaders, privacy officers and legal advisors, work together to create policies that balance risk management with business outcomes. In sectors like healthcare, which is governed by HIPAA in the U.S., businesses must also navigate differing interpretations of data policies. This underscores the importance of establishing clear internal frameworks that translate regulatory ambiguity into actionable steps.
As privacy concerns grow, brands that adopt transparency and proactive protection strategies are more likely to thrive. Those that fail to meet evolving expectations risk losing consumer trust and their competitive edge. Building a culture of responsible data practices isn't just good ethics—it's good business. In a world where consumer skepticism continues to rise, trust will become the ultimate differentiator.
Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
China to fast-track applications for rare-earth minerals to US, EU
A rare earth mine is in Ganxian county in central China's Jiangxi province. Photo by EPA-ESE June 7 (UPI) -- China has agreed to fast-track approvals for the shipment of rare earth minerals to the United States and some European Union nations. U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke Thursday about easing trade tensions. On Saturday, China's Minister Seceary Wang Wentao said his nation is "willing to establish a green channel for qualified applications to speed up approval." Details weren't given, including the speed of the process and which EU nations are included. China controls 90% of the global processing of rare earth minerals. Major deposits also are found in the United States, Australia and Russia. Smaller amounts are in Canada, India, South Africa and Southeast Asia. Rare earth minerals are in the Earth's crust, making them difficult to extract. They include lanthanide, scandium and yttrium, all on the Periodic Table of Elements. Some major minerals that contain rare earth elements are bastnasite, monazite, loparite and laterite clays. The first rare-earth mineral was discovered in 1787 -- gadolinite, a black mineral composed of cerium, yttrium, iron, silicon and other elements. U.S. needs rare earth minerals The minerals are critical to American industries and defense, including use in cars and fighter jets. Batteries contain the minerals Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday "there should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of rare Earth products." On April 29, the United States and Ukraine created a Reconstruction Investment Fund that includes rare earth mineral rights in the European nation. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were originally set to sign the minerals deal on Feb. 28, but the plan was scrapped after a tense exchange between them in the Oval Office in which Trump accused him of "gambling with World War III." The United States wants access to more than 20 raw materials in Ukraine, including some non-minerals, such as oil and natural gas, as well as titanium, lithium, graphite and manganese. The Chinese commerce ministry confirmed some applications have been approved without specifying industries covered. Some Chinese suppliers have recently received six-month export licenses, the American Chamber of Commerce in China said Friday, but it noted that there is a backlog of license applications. In a survey of member companies conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China late week, 75% say their stock would run out within three months, CNN reported. Jens Eskelund, the chamber president, said member companies were "still struggling" with the situation. "I hadn't realized just how important this rare earth card was before. Now the U.S. side is clearly anxious and eager to resolve this issue," he said a video on Thursday. "But of course, we'll link this issue to others -- the U.S. is restricting China on chips and jet engines, then China certainly has every reason to make use of this card. "As for whether China will change its rare earth export control policy, that probably still needs to be negotiated in more detail," Jin added. Trump said Xi and himself "straightened out" some points related to rare earth magnets, calling it "very complex stuff." The U.S. federal government said China had reneged on its promise made in Geneva on May 12. Delegations from Beijing and Washington plan to meet in Great Britain on Monday for trade negotiations. At the height of tariff war, China had imposed export restrictions on some minerals on April 4. Trump two days planned a 120% "reciprocal" tax on top of 25% levy on Chinese goods. But one week later it paused the bigger tariffs, including on other countries for 90 days. European nations' needs China's commerce ministry pledged to address the EU's concerns and establish a "green channel" for eligible applications to expedite approvals. He went to Brussels, Belgium, earlier this week and met with European Union's trade commissioner, Maros Sefcovic. It's a problem for China and the EU. Sefcovic said the pause was slowing deliveries for manufacturers of a wide range of items from cars to washing machines. Wang urged the EU to "take effective measures to facilitate, safeguard and promote compliant trade of high-tech products to China." On Friday, the European Chamber, a Beijing lobby group, warned progress had "not been sufficient" to prevent severe supply chain disruptions for many companies.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Elon Musk's feud with Trump means for Tesla shareholders
For Tesla investors, Elon Musk's involvement with Donald Trump has been a car wreck that's unfolded in two chapters, one in slow motion, the next on dizzying fast-forward. During Musk's 130 days running DOGE, a crusade whose dogged aggression virtually defined the administration's mindset in the early months, the EV chief infuriated European customers by backing far-right politicians, and as sales dropped in the likes of Germany and France, and severe competition shrank its market share in China, neglected tackling Tesla's mounting problems by doubling down by famously battling to slash departments and headcount from the White House. In his absence, Tesla's stock and earnings tanked. Bad as that episode proved for Tesla, it at least provided a potential upside. 'Even before DOGE, Musk clearly had too many spoons in too many pots through SpaceX, Neuralink, X and his other ventures, then he got even more preoccupied by putting another spoon in another pot,' says Eric Talley, a professor of law and business at Columbia University. 'But being in the White House also included a bit of an insurance policy for Tesla….sitting close to the seat of decision making was a big potential advantage.' Now, says Talley, Musk has singlehandedly turned that 'insurance policy' into a liability—the threat that the administration will penalize the EV-maker, or at best do nothing to protect it. When Musk departed DOGE on May 30 amid the fanfare of Trump's Oval Office sendoff, Tesla shareholders still had little to toast, since the CEO wasn't offloading his empire's myriad duties to refocus on the troubled manufacturer. Then, the Musk-Trump feud that exploded on June 5th, triggered by the former's lacerating takedown of the President's signature budget bill, put Tesla overnight into a spot where it's threatened not only by poor finances but the insults unleashed at his former sponsor that both invite retaliation by Trump and endanger Musk's survival as the enterprise's leader that's so critical to its gigantic valuation. 'The thing that's different in the last 24 hours,' says Talley, 'is that Musk not only walked away from an insurance policy of having a CEO situated high in government. He took out an anti-insurance policy. Any moment could erupt in a flameout from either side over social media that puts a target on Tesla's back.' He notes that Tesla's rivals are confronting the same headwinds from the wind-down in EV subsidies to purchasers subsidies proposed the so-called 'Great Big Beautiful Bill,' but the the overhang from antagonizing the president 'is a target its competitors don't have.' Indeed, the day it detonated, the blowup sent Tesla shares reeling 14.3% in a freefall that erased $153 billion in market cap, the biggest one-day drop in the company's history. Though it clawed back around a third of those losses the following day, the stock's still sitting 40% below its recent summit in mid-December. Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, and one of the leading experts on the rules and ethics governing boards, told Fortune that in any other major public company but Tesla, Musk would be gone—and the dumping would have happened well before the new hurricane. 'If his name had been Joe Dokes, he'd be gone in a nano-second,' says Elson, 'given the reputational damage he did alienating a good number of customers by going into politics at DOGE. It's a mess. No other board would have let a CEO get involved in that way. You don't have time to be a CEO!' What keeps Musk in the job is his iron grip on the board, says Elson. He notes that Musk controls 30% of the shares, and that his influence extends beyond the power of that stake due to the loyalty built, in part, by awarding directors large options grants that made many of them extremely rich. Elson reckons that it would be extremely difficult for disgruntled shareholders to prevail in lawsuits versus board members that might work toward forcing out Musk. 'The road to winning liability cases against directors is a twisting, bumpy one,' he avows. 'That Tesla re-incorporated from Delaware to Texas makes it much tougher. That's why Tesla moved to Texas. It was a race to the bottom and they ran all the way to the bottom of the barrel.' For Elson, Musk can't be forced to leave, and won't go unless he wants to, 'and there's nothing anybody can do about it.' Nevertheless, the size of Musk's ownership stake that's the source of his control, and his attachment to Tesla going forward that's attached to that position, are being tested by a landmark decisions in the Delaware courts. The rulings, handed down last year, negated the $56 billion stock package awarded by the board in 2018 that accounts for two-thirds of Musk's holdings. Tesla's now appealing to get that comp restored. If the Delaware Supreme Court upholds the decision, Tesla's certain to attempt getting that compensation reinstated. But that route courts much higher risks now. According to Talley, the board under Texas law could either attempt to restore the package unilaterally, or put the issue to a shareholder vote. He reckons that the former, more direct approach is now looking a lot less attractive to the directors than a few days ago. 'The board may prefer now to go with a shareholder vote,' he says, given the potential backlash from rewarding Musk so royally when Tesla's struggling, mainly because of his own actions. 'It might appeal to the board to go that way and count on a rejection,' he adds. A turn down raises another potentially ghoulish outcome. 'If they have a shareholder vote, and it goes negative, then you have a succession problem. You don't want a CEO to take vengeance on the company,' a path the mercurial legend could take. It's also unclear how Musk will react if the Delaware Supreme Court rules against him—same upshot, he owns far less of Tesla, and his incentive to rebuild his the greatest source of his wealth would be greatly diminished. Tesla enjoys a gigantic premium courtesy of Musk's iconic status and the serial promises of delivering self-driving technology that will transform Tesla from a metal-bender into a fabulously lucrative tech player. As I detailed after Tesla reported Q1 results, it actually lost money selling cars and batteries and only managed a tiny profit through the sales of regulatory credits. Its 'hardcore,' repeatable earnings from the auto and battery franchises over the previous four quarters totaled just $3.5 billion, down from $12 billion in 2022. At a PE of 30 that's three times the auto industry average, Tesla—based on bedrock fundamentals—might be worth $100 billion. But even after the recent selloff, its valuation stands at $960 billion. Hence, the difference of well over $800 billion arises from what I'll call the 'Musk magic premium,' created by his promises of epic innovations to come. If Musk were to depart, a big part of that magic premium exits with him. It may be fading already. So for Tesla shareholders, it's bad either way. Musk leaves and a hands-on leader arrives, but the genius' halo no longer shields the stock, or he stays and keeps starting fights that undermine the brand and spreads his time among half a dozen pioneering ventures that he may find more riveting. As Elson puts it, 'Anyone else would be fired after this but he feels he can't be. He has this aura that makes him feel untouchable. He's got a cult status that seems to follow him and make folks think it's okay that he doesn't operate in a normal way.' But, Elson cautions, as Musk's behavior gets more and more outrageous, the burden he's heaping on Tesla, now and what investors increasing perceive is looming, is catching up with him. We've just seen a shocking example of how fast that can happen, and how rapidly the myth can dissolve. This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
6 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Ford's Hot Hatch Is Now Officially History
The end is here for Ford's last hot hatch as the company confirmed to Motor1 that every factory build slot for the Focus ST is spoken for. "All Focus ST factory orders until the end of production have now been reserved," European communications manager Finn Thomasen said. Dealers across the Continent may still have a few unclaimed cars hiding in back lots, but once those are gone-and when Focus production stops in November-the book will officially close on Ford's 45-year hot-hatch chapter. The Focus joins a growing list of Ford passenger cars already in the rear-view mirror. The Fiesta bowed out in 2023, the Mondeo in 2022, and the tiny Ka back in 2020. Without them, Ford's European portfolio is dominated by crossovers such as the Puma and Kuga. The shift has taken a bite out of sales: through April, Ford moved 149,601 vehicles in the EU, U.K., and EFTA markets-down 2.2% year-over-year and less than a third of Volkswagen's haul over the same period. Even Hyundai and Kia have pulled ahead, underscoring how much ground Ford has ceded without its affordable hatchbacks. Yes, the seventh-generation Mustang still flies the performance flag, but it's hardly a volume play. EU taxes punish engines bigger than two liters, dogging the 5.0-liter V-8, while the smaller 2.3-liter EcoBoost was pulled from European order books at the end of 2020. The pony car, therefore, lives on as a niche halo, not a substitute for the daily-drivable, budget-friendly thrills once delivered by ST-badged Fiestas and Focuses. Whether Ford ever revisits the hot-hatch formula likely depends on batteries, not boost pressure. Former Ford of Europe boss-now VW sales chief-Martin Sanders has hinted that the Blue Oval could tap further into Volkswagen's MEB electric platform, the foundation for the forthcoming Explorer and Capri EVs. VW has already promised an electric GTI; a battery-fueled Fiesta ST or Focus ST revival isn't unthinkable if the economics line up. For now, though, enthusiasts must look to the used market or pivot to rival brands still flying the internal-combustion hot-hatch flag. The Fiesta Supersport of 1980 lit the fuse; the Escort RS, Fiesta XR2, and decades of ST variants kept the fire roaring. With the Focus ST's curtain call, the combustion-powered Ford hot hatch becomes history. What replaces it, if anything, will almost certainly hum rather than howl. Until that day arrives, the faithful will remember the glory years and, if they're lucky, snag one of the last STs before they're gone. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
