The Weakest Link Series

ADMA’s “Am I the weakest link: Privacy edition” explores the idea that the privacy data chain is made up of six main parties – the marketer, the consumer, the platform, the agency, the government, and the board – all with the potential to be ‘the weakest link’. However, each of these parties contribute in different ways to the standard of data practices in Australia’s economy. Can we really point the finger at any one party?

In this article series, we will deep dive into each of the links in the chain, assess the areas for improvement and how marketers can help strengthen the chain overall through their own roles. 

The Agency

Whether it be media, creative, digital, or data-centric, agencies play an essential role in how data is interpreted, activated, and operationalised across the marketing ecosystem. Agencies often act as an executional extension of a brand’s marketing team, and in doing so, they regularly handle personal and/or sensitive consumer information. 
However, this proximity to data also places agencies in a position of great responsibility when it comes to consumer privacy. Therefore, making agencies another critical link in the data privacy chain. 

In this article, we will explore three key weaknesses agencies contribute to the privacy chain including fragmented accountability, a culture of speed over security, and inconsistent data handling standards. Each of these challenges introduces risks that marketers and agencies must urgently address to protect the integrity of the chain.

Fragmented accountability

One of the most persistent and problematic privacy chain weaknesses for agencies is their issue with fragmented accountability. This occurs when multiple teams or individuals handle data without clear ownership or defined responsibilities, leading to gaps, miscommunication, and increased risk of privacy breaches. For agencies, from creative to media planning and performance analytics, it is not always clear who is responsible for ensuring privacy compliance at each stage.

This decentralisation often leads to miscommunication and gaps in governance, particularly when teams are siloed or client-agency relationships are layered further with subcontractors. When data obligations are not clearly assigned, mistakes are more likely to slip through the cracks. Some likely mistakes include sending data to the wrong party, failing to anonymise sensitive fields, or overlooking regulatory consent requirements/assuming consent has already been obtained at another stage.

The solution to address this issue lies in refining and implementing data governance frameworks with clearly defined data ownership roles and privacy obligations. Agencies must build and maintain a culture of shared accountability, with cross-functional teams trained to understand their responsibilities in the privacy chain. Designating a privacy lead or embedding privacy-by-design protocols into workflows can also help close the gap and reduce risk.

A culture of speed over security

Agencies are under relentless pressure to keep costs low from restricted budgets, hit campaign KPIs and stay ahead of the next trend. All while delivering responses at pace.

However, this culture of urgency often comes at the cost of privacy. Quick data uploads, inadequate audience segmentation, or unvetted third-party tool usage can all expose weak points in the data privacy chain. This is not due to a lack of care by agencies, but rather a misalignment of priorities. Security and compliance are often seen as blockers to creative and media agility. When speed becomes the default mindset or priority, robust privacy practices are often sacrificed. Whether that be skipping privacy protocols or defaulting to convenience over consent.

To remedy this, agencies should consider including privacy as a performance metric. Just as campaign delivery times and ROI are monitored, so too should privacy obligations. Secure data transfers, correct consent usage and documentation, and adherence to data minimisation principles should become standard and expected client deliverables.

Inconsistent data handling standards

Agencies often work with a wide range of clients, platforms, and technology stacks. While this diversity is a much-loved feature by agency employees, it can also create inconsistency with data handling practices. When there’s no standardised approach to data collection, storage, transfer, or deletion across different clients and tools, the result is a patchwork of privacy practices.

This inconsistency is especially concerning as agencies often inherit data from brands that may have already been poorly collected or incorrectly consented from the outset. If that data is then shared or used further by vendors or platforms without due diligence, agencies risk perpetuating the privacy problems they inherited.

What’s needed is a unified data handling policy by agencies that applies across clients, platforms, and projects. Agencies should develop baseline data privacy standards that comply with the Australian Privacy Act and even international regulations like the GDPR depending on the scope of their clients’ work. Then agencies will need to ensure all staff and subcontractors adhere to them. Conducting regular privacy audits and insisting on standardised data handling processes across client engagements will go a long way in both safeguarding agencies and their clients, as well as mitigating this weakness in the data privacy chain.

Strengthening the agency link

Agencies are strategic partners to marketing teams. However, their access to consumer data also makes them potential points of weakness in the privacy chain. Fortunately, the issues of fragmented accountability, speed over security prioritisation, and inconsistent data handling standards can be addressed. By investing in training, building out privacy governance structures, and embedding compliance into everyday practice, agencies can not only meet growing legislative expectations but also become true champions of consumer trust.

For marketers working with agencies, this means asking tougher questions and demanding transparency. For agencies themselves, it’s an opportunity to lead by example, adopt privacy-by-design principles, and turn data responsibility into a competitive advantage. 

Next in the Weakest Link series, we’ll delve into the Government and what weak points they are contributing as an active party in the data privacy chain and provide solutions as to how these weaknesses can also be remedied. 

Want to sharpen your privacy and compliance skills?

Check out our regulatory course offering with a range of options to suit your needs. From our online short courses to our more comprehensive Privacy and Compliance for Marketers course, ADMA has your regulatory upskilling needs sorted. 
 

To explore the full Weakest Link series, click here.