I don’t disagree that trust is inherent in any of those things, my point, and perhaps to an extent I’m conflating trust and control here, or I’m taking your Ps a bit too literally, was that trust must be in place before any of those things can take place.

It’s all very well saying “we won’t sell your information”, “we’ll only contact you with newsletters/offers/marketing” or “we’ll only use text messages”, but unless someone is willing to take your word for that, nought will come from it.

There is no denying trust lives in those 3Ps, as transgressions within any of them will quickly decimate any trust anyone has with a provider to safely manage their details. I know I wouldn’t trust the government with my data if I had any say whatsoever in the matter, whereas I voluntarily entrust Tesco with my online browsing history, online and offline purchases and my credit card details on a daily basis.

Perhaps I am being a little over-sensitive with regards to personal data, or applying too much of my personal mores to the manner in which I wish my personal details to be courted from me, but if I’m going to give someone my details, particularly if I’m then going to take extra time to tell them what I want (or, more importantly, don’t want) from them, I want them to put some effort into it, either by offering me something substantial, or by showing, abundantly, that I can trust them to do as I ask.

The thoughts you elucidate above are all permissive actions, conscious choices, manifestations of trust, if there is zero pre-existing trust, the outcome of all three will be nothing. If i trust nobody, my information will be nowhere, I will give nobody any authority to do anything with it, and nothing will happen because nobody knows about me. I’m completely off the grid until someone demonstrates I can trust them with my privacy, permissions and preferences.

Martin. Trust is borne from a number of things, 3 of which are

‘where is my information and how is it being used?’

‘who will i give my authority to so it can benefit me?’

‘what things would i like to happen and via what channel?’

These 3 things are fundamental to building trust. Without trust we have nothing.

Ergo, trust = privacy, permission and preference.

In order to approach, and reap rewards from, mobile contact, concepts far closer to social media need to applied to the platform, and not simply data churning.

Trust is key with social media, and, while Privacy, Permission and Preference are important, they ignore the largest stumbling block which is whether the users actually trust whomever they’re entrusting with their privacy, permission and preference terms. To put the operators in this seat will, in some cases, need a vast investment in brand building and marketing to convince the users that the network is worthy of their trust, and to not brazenly profiteer off the back of their details. To put the brands in this seat, who have already spent millions in some cases building trust, is a natural progression.

The operators aren’t interested, yet, in sitting in that chair – it’s too much hassle. The data generated is a by-product of their industry, the yeast extract of beer making. If they can sell it on to someone who wants to make Marmite out of it, they should, at least in the short term, be perfectly happy to do so, leaving the brands to churn the data, create their own IP and customer relation jumpoffs.

Let’s recall that TV advertising didn’t explode until the “network” evolved from local broadcasting. National brands wanted to buy national audiences. Same problem arose when the Internet first appeared and anyone with a web site created their Ad Sales team and started calling on brands and agencies. Today every operator wants to be and behaves like a local broadcaster or unique web site. Yet, every brand – and it is every brand – is today a global marketer and they want to buy audience globally. Long tail strategies require it. Remember, for brands the key buying factor remains Scale.
It is simply not efficient for a brand or an agency to buy from so many outlets, in such small media quantities, and with so many unique creative units. Note, the example of Blyk – which I completely agree demonstrates success, functions OUTSIDE of the normal operator-led ad sales channel. And, I’d venture to guess that their Operator partners may review Blyk at the Board level as simply a Strategy Test.

Operators do not seem to be serious about creating or participating in the formation of ad networks – they prefer to pretend they are now media companies. When will they learn? But, when you have big-monied CEO’s and deferential industry groups certain that declining ARPU can be made up by taking share from the Advertising pot, what can one expect? Even the industry association promoted test in the UK has gone nowhere. Why? Not because Buyers don’t want it. The reason is that Sellers prefer to chase the Golden Goose on their own.

I believe it is incorrect to chastise brands that under-investment is the problem or to encourage Operators that only if they engage metrics vendors can they demonstrate the valuation possibilities so brands come to the table(s) – those are simply ways to keep a little momentum going for niche vendors and agencies.
Real change will require an industry change. It will be up to a few Telco CEO’s and the MMA, IAG, GSMA, ANA, CTIA and others to engender industry support.

Not an easy feat.