Monthly Archives: August 2015

What erodes trust in digital brands?

Larry Ponemon

Larry Ponemon

CMOs know that website performance in turn drives marketing performance. While marketers
control some of the factors that sharpen the online experience—accurate content and prudent
use of banner ads, for example—the more technical factors are in the hands of colleagues in IT.
Ideally, Marketing and IT collaborate to deliver excellence. Doing that means knowing what visitors like, and don’t.

The purpose of this research, conducted by Ponemon Institute and sponsored by Neustar is to understand the online experience from the customer’s point of view. What expectations do
consumers have for the reliability of the website, security of information they share, and
availability of information? What is the tolerance or tipping point for problems like unavailable
sites, slow-loading pages, or inscrutable navigation?

We surveyed 761 consumers in the United States between the ages of 18 and 65+. On average,
respondents spend 59 hours per week online mostly doing email, shopping, and social
networking. Some respondents do more advanced activities such as posting blogs and creating
websites.

The findings reveal that consumers expect a high level of website performance—and their
frustrations are aimed at marketers and engineers alike.

Perceptions about a website’s security can decide whether consumers stay or go. As
shown in Figure 1, 78 percent of respondents say slow load times cause
them to worry about security. However, just over half of respondents (54 percent
of respondents) are concerned about the reliability of slow loading web pages. The
findings in this research also reveal that 69 percent of respondents have left a
website because of security concerns. Other concerns, but to a lesser extent, are
annoyance with feature ads that interfere with content (55 percent of respondents)
and feature ads that redirect them to different sites (52 percent of respondents).

Seventy-one percent of respondents say that data breaches negatively impacted their perception of company’s brands. On average, respondents have received two notifications from
organizations telling them that their personal information was lost, stolen or compromised. Even after more than a year, 24 percent of respondents say they still do not perceive those companies’ brands in a positive light.

Overall, fifty-five percent of respondents believe security is important to the perception of a
company’s brand and 50 percent say the same about privacy (protection of identity and other
personal information). Not surprising, respondents overwhelmingly expect financial sites to be
secure (95 percent of respondents).

A bad experience is measured in dollars, not just performance metrics. Sixty-one percent of
respondents say they would be willing to give a website that goes offline only two chances before giving up. Consumers are most likely to discontinue using unavailable sites in financial services (80 percent of respondents) and retail (59 percent).

They are also willing to wait no more than an average of 10 seconds to wait for a website to load.

In fact, seventy-eight percent of respondents are very concerned about the security of web pages that load longer than expected. Forty-one percent of respondents say response time is most important when making a payment (at checkout) and navigating to other web pages within the site (23 percent).

Read the full report at Neustar.

Most consumers are worried their cars might be hacked; many say they'd pay for car 'anti-virus' protection

Charlie Miller, who helped find the flaw, installing the patch. Click for Twitter feed.

Charlie Miller, who helped find the flaw, installing the patch. Click for Twitter feed.

Bob Sullivan

Bob Sullivan

Consumers are becoming more and more aware that hacking isn’t just a gadget nuisance any more.  Computer security problems, like viruses, increasingly come with real-world consequences — like the potential to screw with an airplane’s flight system, or more recently, a car.  Wired’s Andy Greenberg last month revealed to the world the latest hacking horrible — security researchers were able to “kill” a Jeep while he was in it.

“Though I hadn’t touched the dashboard, the vents in the Jeep Cherokee started blasting cold air at the maximum setting, chilling the sweat on my back through the in-seat climate control system,” Greenberg wrote. “Next the radio switched to the local hip hop station and began blaring Skee-lo at full volume. I spun the control knob left and hit the power button, to no avail. Then the windshield wipers turned on, and wiper fluid blurred the glass.”

Later, the hackers demonstrated they could stop and steer the car remotely using a software vulnerability.  Yikes.

The digital carjacking incident incident was a huge embarrassment for Jeep maker Fiat Chrysler, which recalled 1.4 million cars to fix the software.

But pity poor Chrysler, which just happened to be the first car maker to end up with egg on its face.  Increasingly, cars are run by computers, and increasingly, that means hacks like this are inevitable.

Consumers  seem to implicitly understand this.  Kelley Blue Book jumped at the news to churn out a survey of users showing that, yes, they all know about the Jeep incident, and yes, they all (Ok, 4 out of 5) think car hacking will be a problem within the next three years. Much to my surprise, many even said they’d pay for hacking protection services, with $8 a month being the preferred cost.  I smell a marketing opportunity for antivirus makers!  I also smell a rat — why should consumers have to pay extra to keep computer criminals out of their cars?  (And while I’m at it, could I make a final, fruitless plea to save at least some dashboard gauges and knobs?  I *hate* digital displays.)

On to the results:

  • 72 percent said they are aware of the recent Jeep Cherokee hacking incident.
  • 41 percent said they will consider this recent vehicle hacking incident when buying/leasing their next car.
  • 78 percent said vehicle hacking will be a frequent problem in the next three years or less.
  • 33 percent classified vehicle hacking as a “serious” problem; 35 percent classified it as a “moderate” problem.
  • 58 percent do not think there will ever be a permanent solution to vehicle hacking.
  • 41 percent think pranking is the most common reason for hacking a vehicle; 37 percent think theft is the most common reason for hacking a vehicle.
  • 81 percent think the vehicle manufacturer is most responsible to secure a vehicle from hacking; only 11 percent consider themselves most responsible to secure a vehicle from hacking, and 5 percent see it as the responsibility of their wireless provider.
  • 64 percent would prefer to go into a dealership to get a vehicle’s security patch installed; only 24 percent would prefer to do it wirelessly, and a mere 12 percent would prefer to have the software mailed so they could install it themselves.
  • 47 percent said they would go to a dealership “immediately” if they knew they had to install a security patch to protect their vehicle from hacking; 31 percent said “within a week,” and 17 percent said “within a month.”
  • 44 percent would prefer to be notified via mail, and 41 percent would prefer to be notified via e-mail, in the event their vehicle was recalled.  Only 11 percent preferred notification via a phone call, and 5 percent preferred text.
  • 52 percent indicated they would be willing to pay for a monthly subscription to ensure that their vehicle would be completely protected from hacking, with $8 being the average respondents would be willing to pay each month.

“Technology offers a wide range of enhanced convenience for today’s new vehicle buyers, but it also offers the increasing potential for unauthorized access and control,” said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.  “Cyber-security is still a relatively new area of specialization for automakers, but it’s one they need to take seriously to ensure they are ahead of the curve.  If automotive engineers find themselves playing catch-up in this field, it could have disastrous results for both consumers and the industry.”

Most consumers are worried their cars might be hacked; many say they’d pay for car ‘anti-virus’ protection

Charlie Miller, who helped find the flaw, installing the patch. Click for Twitter feed.

Charlie Miller, who helped find the flaw, installing the patch. Click for Twitter feed.

Bob Sullivan

Bob Sullivan

Consumers are becoming more and more aware that hacking isn’t just a gadget nuisance any more.  Computer security problems, like viruses, increasingly come with real-world consequences — like the potential to screw with an airplane’s flight system, or more recently, a car.  Wired’s Andy Greenberg last month revealed to the world the latest hacking horrible — security researchers were able to “kill” a Jeep while he was in it.

“Though I hadn’t touched the dashboard, the vents in the Jeep Cherokee started blasting cold air at the maximum setting, chilling the sweat on my back through the in-seat climate control system,” Greenberg wrote. “Next the radio switched to the local hip hop station and began blaring Skee-lo at full volume. I spun the control knob left and hit the power button, to no avail. Then the windshield wipers turned on, and wiper fluid blurred the glass.”

Later, the hackers demonstrated they could stop and steer the car remotely using a software vulnerability.  Yikes.

The digital carjacking incident incident was a huge embarrassment for Jeep maker Fiat Chrysler, which recalled 1.4 million cars to fix the software.

But pity poor Chrysler, which just happened to be the first car maker to end up with egg on its face.  Increasingly, cars are run by computers, and increasingly, that means hacks like this are inevitable.

Consumers  seem to implicitly understand this.  Kelley Blue Book jumped at the news to churn out a survey of users showing that, yes, they all know about the Jeep incident, and yes, they all (Ok, 4 out of 5) think car hacking will be a problem within the next three years. Much to my surprise, many even said they’d pay for hacking protection services, with $8 a month being the preferred cost.  I smell a marketing opportunity for antivirus makers!  I also smell a rat — why should consumers have to pay extra to keep computer criminals out of their cars?  (And while I’m at it, could I make a final, fruitless plea to save at least some dashboard gauges and knobs?  I *hate* digital displays.)

On to the results:

  • 72 percent said they are aware of the recent Jeep Cherokee hacking incident.
  • 41 percent said they will consider this recent vehicle hacking incident when buying/leasing their next car.
  • 78 percent said vehicle hacking will be a frequent problem in the next three years or less.
  • 33 percent classified vehicle hacking as a “serious” problem; 35 percent classified it as a “moderate” problem.
  • 58 percent do not think there will ever be a permanent solution to vehicle hacking.
  • 41 percent think pranking is the most common reason for hacking a vehicle; 37 percent think theft is the most common reason for hacking a vehicle.
  • 81 percent think the vehicle manufacturer is most responsible to secure a vehicle from hacking; only 11 percent consider themselves most responsible to secure a vehicle from hacking, and 5 percent see it as the responsibility of their wireless provider.
  • 64 percent would prefer to go into a dealership to get a vehicle’s security patch installed; only 24 percent would prefer to do it wirelessly, and a mere 12 percent would prefer to have the software mailed so they could install it themselves.
  • 47 percent said they would go to a dealership “immediately” if they knew they had to install a security patch to protect their vehicle from hacking; 31 percent said “within a week,” and 17 percent said “within a month.”
  • 44 percent would prefer to be notified via mail, and 41 percent would prefer to be notified via e-mail, in the event their vehicle was recalled.  Only 11 percent preferred notification via a phone call, and 5 percent preferred text.
  • 52 percent indicated they would be willing to pay for a monthly subscription to ensure that their vehicle would be completely protected from hacking, with $8 being the average respondents would be willing to pay each month.

“Technology offers a wide range of enhanced convenience for today’s new vehicle buyers, but it also offers the increasing potential for unauthorized access and control,” said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.  “Cyber-security is still a relatively new area of specialization for automakers, but it’s one they need to take seriously to ensure they are ahead of the curve.  If automotive engineers find themselves playing catch-up in this field, it could have disastrous results for both consumers and the industry.”