The uncertain element 195
was fair, as they could get an increase in their insurance coverage or use the
eHealth services attached to their policies. Others did not find the trade-off
appealing enough, especially when it comes to financial rewards. This was
discussed by Ossi, a customer service agent in his 30s and Hanna, a project
manager in her 40s.
OSSI: A discount of five euros per year? That won’t do it.
HANNA: I would just be wondering if I am selling my soul for five euros.
Obviously, small rewards neither motivate people to pursue policy goals
nor compensate them for the collection of their data. Furthermore, the
reference to selling one’s soul for five euros vividly highlights the depth of
apprehension and mistrust that people can have towards data collection.
For Hanna, the actual trade-off is not clear. Will she be selling her soul to
the insurance company for a relative pittance and signing up for something
that might harm her?
Along with the modest financial rewards, some customers also criticised
the services included in the policies. Mikko, an engineer in his 40s, said,
‘the data collection is totally fine by me, but they should use it and loop it
back to me so that I could get something concrete in return.’ Here, the issue
is not so much the mistrust placed in the data collection but the lack of a
proper ‘feedback loop’ (Ruckenstein & Pantzar 2017) to build actionable
insights with the data. As the services were not seen as advanced or tailored
enough, the companies’ promises of personalisation remain unfulfilled.
One of the core promises of the data economy fails if the new information
that is disseminated does not reach the customer in a meaningful way. Thus,
instead of truly personalising prices or services, the ‘smart’ features only
appear to help companies stand out from their competitors at the point of
sale (McFall 2019; McFall & Moor 2018). Partly because of their lack-lustre
experiences, a number of our informants had stopped using the policies’
behaviour-based features or used them only in a desultory, unengaged way.
Hence, customers were dropping out of the schemes and becoming traditional life insurance clients or, in some cases, the collection was still occurring through the mobile app without the customers’ active participation or
interest.
Data doubt
As the thoughts about room for bargaining above demonstrate, ideally,
people want to be able to control the insurer–insuree relationship and set
limits on the smart policies. The informants hoped the trade-off would be
beneficial: they required something in return for their data, and some opted
out of the behaviour-based services if these were not sufficiently engaging.
Furthermore, they found it important to retain a sense of autonomy and
feel that they chose the forms in which their data is tracked. Kaisa, a HR
was fair, as they could get an increase in their insurance coverage or use the
eHealth services attached to their policies. Others did not find the trade-off
appealing enough, especially when it comes to financial rewards. This was
discussed by Ossi, a customer service agent in his 30s and Hanna, a project
manager in her 40s.
OSSI: A discount of five euros per year? That won’t do it.
HANNA: I would just be wondering if I am selling my soul for five euros.
Obviously, small rewards neither motivate people to pursue policy goals
nor compensate them for the collection of their data. Furthermore, the
reference to selling one’s soul for five euros vividly highlights the depth of
apprehension and mistrust that people can have towards data collection.
For Hanna, the actual trade-off is not clear. Will she be selling her soul to
the insurance company for a relative pittance and signing up for something
that might harm her?
Along with the modest financial rewards, some customers also criticised
the services included in the policies. Mikko, an engineer in his 40s, said,
‘the data collection is totally fine by me, but they should use it and loop it
back to me so that I could get something concrete in return.’ Here, the issue
is not so much the mistrust placed in the data collection but the lack of a
proper ‘feedback loop’ (Ruckenstein & Pantzar 2017) to build actionable
insights with the data. As the services were not seen as advanced or tailored
enough, the companies’ promises of personalisation remain unfulfilled.
One of the core promises of the data economy fails if the new information
that is disseminated does not reach the customer in a meaningful way. Thus,
instead of truly personalising prices or services, the ‘smart’ features only
appear to help companies stand out from their competitors at the point of
sale (McFall 2019; McFall & Moor 2018). Partly because of their lack-lustre
experiences, a number of our informants had stopped using the policies’
behaviour-based features or used them only in a desultory, unengaged way.
Hence, customers were dropping out of the schemes and becoming traditional life insurance clients or, in some cases, the collection was still occurring through the mobile app without the customers’ active participation or
interest.
Data doubt
As the thoughts about room for bargaining above demonstrate, ideally,
people want to be able to control the insurer–insuree relationship and set
limits on the smart policies. The informants hoped the trade-off would be
beneficial: they required something in return for their data, and some opted
out of the behaviour-based services if these were not sufficiently engaging.
Furthermore, they found it important to retain a sense of autonomy and
feel that they chose the forms in which their data is tracked. Kaisa, a HR