Heineken covertly observing Off-License customers

dod

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2765-1216893,00.html

It seems that they are covertly observing us in the off-licenses now. I have to admit that if I was a regular in Martha’s Vineyard in Rathfarnham (sic) I'd be seriously thinking of moving my custom elsewhere.

Heineken's video snooping angers consumer groups
By Dearbhail McDonald and Muireann Ni Loingsigh

HEINEKEN Ireland, the beer manufacturer and leading sports sponsor, has secretly spied on its customers to analyse their buying habits.

The drinks company installed a CCTV camera in a Dublin off-licence to gather footage of customers buying alcohol. The camera, paid for by Heineken, was installed in Martha’s Vineyard in Rathfarnham.
Although the practice is not illegal, the covert use of cameras for market research has angered consumer groups. They claim the drinks giant is invading consumers’ privacy rights for commercial gain.

Carmel Foley, the director of consumer affairs, said: “I would consider it an invasion of my privacy. It doesn’t come within the legal protection of consumer law, but it is clearly taking advantage of consumers. It is manipulating them.”

Representatives from Heineken Ireland declined to comment on the practice this weekend. A spokesman said the company monitored consumer habits on an ongoing basis through a variety of observation surveys.

Richard Barry, the owner of Martha’s Vineyard, defended his decision to allow Heineken to place a hidden camera in his shop.

“When shoppers are unaware, you can see them in their natural state,” he said. “You can see what promotions they are attracted to, what part of the fridge they will go to first, where in the shop they congregate. It helps if you know whether they are inclined to browse, act on impulse or go direct to a brand of their choice.”

Barry, who has analysed the CCTV security footage to help him redesign his premises, says retailers and manufacturers can learn a lot from consumer watching.

However, experts are concerned that companies are operating in a “grey area”, where the divide between market research and a possible illegal intrusion into privacy is being blurred.

Larry Ryan, the director of Behaviour & Attitudes, an Irish marketing research firm, said filming shoppers without their knowledge “could be a step too far for consumers”.

“Observation studies normally operate on the basis of knowledge and consent by the consumer,” he said. “Undoubtedly there are significant benefits to companies that can observe the natural behaviour of shoppers, but there should be signs explaining that customers may be recorded for that purpose, or at least an exit survey where customers could opt in or out of the exercise.”

Dermot Jewell, chief executive of the Consumers’ Association of Ireland, said: “Monitoring consumer habits without their knowledge and consent is unfair. Some consumers won’t mind, but others take great exception to it.

“Informing the consumer of the fact that they are being monitored for research purposes would make a difference, as it would give customers the opportunity to decide if they want to partake in it or go elsewhere.”

Malachy Murphy of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties said: “CCTV cameras are supposedly there for security reasons. They should at least tell them.”

Wacker

Really, is it that big a deal? It wouldn't bother me at all.

simu

It bothers me. I'd rather not live in a society where I'm constantly being monitored by marketing bots from the second I leave my house.

alleepally

It's like the supermarket clubcards. Yeah, you get some vouchers back, but the information they can glean what what you buy is incredible. I'd be more concerned about that which is why I don't have one of those cards.

These observational techniques are nothing new in the world of marketing. Most of the big department stores do it anyway either through direct observation using a "plain clothes" shopper or simply looking at their cctb cameras.

God it really is a slow news summer for the boys on Fleet Street.

AngelofFire

A Blatant attack on Civil Liberties for the purpose of helping a company to further their profiterring and marketing interests.It has to stop,there should be a law against this sort of thing.

Flukey

It is OK doing it, if they let people know they are!

LegacyUser

hmmm, next thing you know there will be cctv in toilets to let bog roll companies know how and how much of their product you use in a siting

joseph brand

Quote: "you can see them in their natural state"

Did I not hear these words uttered through the mouth of David Attenborough??

Quote: "where in the shop they congregate"

Again, sounds like a herd of cows huddled under some trees during a shower.



I hate ANYONE involved in Marketing of any sort, . . . .CREEPS!

"You are entering a world of pain Donny"

John R

simu wrote:

It bothers me. I'd rather not live in a society where I'm constantly being monitored by marketing bots from the second I leave my house.

Keep working on the time machine then, these fukkers are everywhere. The only good news is that they are not nearly as good at their job as they would like everyone to think.

Sleepy

I wouldn't be happy about this at all. Sure, club cards etc give them far more information about my purchasing habits but I'm seeing something back for that. I've no problems in selling my marketing details to a company, however, they do not have the right to steal it.

Surely this could be taken to court under the Data Protection act as they are storing individual's details (i.e. their behaviour patterns) on an electronic media?

Akula

I think there are limits to the applicability of data protection legislation. I'm far from an expert on it, but I'm guessing they would never rule against such methods as a> its non specific... they don't necessarily record WHO you are. and b> what effect would the ruling have on the ability of a store to use cctv for security.

Fine you could regulate the uses of cctv recordings by commercial companies. But so many premesis use cctv it would MASSIVELY increase the number of companies being regulated. The paperwork alone would swamp them.