Marginally Better S01E08: The Privacy Paradox

July 30, 2025
Marginally Better, Podcast
15 min read

What do your customers really want: personalization or privacy? In this episode of Marginally Better, Joe Taylor, Jr. explores the “Privacy Paradox” reshaping modern business. We’ll unpack why 81% of consumers now believe data collection risks outweigh the benefits, and how innovative companies are building trust by collecting less, not more. Plus: how to design digital experiences that serve both humans and AI bots, and why the role of “designer” is being redefined in an era where AI can handle the basics. If you’re navigating the future of CX, this episode is a must-listen. 

Episode Links:

Transcript:

Announcer: From the global headquarters of Johns and Taylor in beautiful New Jersey, it’s Marginally Better. Here’s your host, Joe Taylor Jr. 

Joe Taylor, Jr: How do you create amazing customer experiences when the rules of the game keep changing? 

Today, we’ll explore the privacy paradox. Can you really serve customers well when you don’t know them? We’ll examine how innovative businesses are respecting privacy while maintaining competitive advantage, and why 81% of consumers say the risks of data collection now outweigh the benefits. 

Then, we’ll tackle the human-bot balance. We’ll learn why your gorgeous website might be invisible to ChatGPT, and how companies are finding ways to serve both human and automated audiences without compromise. 

And finally, we’ll talk about designers. When Shopify dropped “UX” from designer titles last June, it sent shockwaves through the industry. We’ll hear from designers who are redefining their value in an AI-driven world, and explore what it really means to be a designer when machines can handle the basics. 

That’s all after the break on Marginally Better. 

Joe Taylor, Jr: Welcome to Marginally Better, a show about business, innovation, and the American economy. I’m Joe Taylor Jr. 

There’s a paradox at the heart of modern customer experience. According to PwC research cited in CMSWire, 63% of consumers say their trust in a brand increases when they receive personalized experiences. But here’s the twist: 81% of those same customers believe the risks of modern data collection outweigh the benefits. 

So how do you solve a puzzle where customers want to be known without being known? 

Writing in Forbes Business Council, Jim Iyoob—who brings 33 years of experience in the customer service industry—identifies what he calls the “surveillance trap.” It’s the assumption that knowing more always equals serving better.  

Iyoob writes, “Modern businesses have to flip their entire mindset. Instead of asking ‘What can we collect?’ they need to ask ‘What do we actually need to deliver value?'” 

This shift represents a fundamental rethinking of how businesses approach personalization. For years, the mantra has been “collect everything, figure out the value later.” But as privacy regulations tighten and consumer awareness grows, that approach is becoming not just ethically questionable but economically unsustainable. 

The numbers tell a stark story. As Adrian Swinscoe notes in his analysis of customer trust trends, trust levels between consumers and companies have fallen to their lowest point since 2016. This isn’t just about privacy breaches or data scandals—it’s about a fundamental breakdown in the value exchange between businesses and their customers. 

CMSWire’s research on privacy-first personalization reveals that customers are increasingly sophisticated about data collection. They understand the trade-offs and are making conscious choices about what they share. The old model of “collect now, ask forgiveness later” simply doesn’t work anymore. 

Companies that embrace what researchers call the “transparency dividend” are seeing unexpected benefits. When businesses are upfront about data collection and usage, customers don’t just feel safer—they become more valuable partners in the personalization process. 

According to CMSWire’s analysis, this approach—often called “participatory personalization”—turns customers from data subjects into active collaborators. Instead of trying to infer preferences from browsing behavior, companies are finding success by simply asking customers what they want. 

Iyoob’s Forbes piece highlights companies that have turned privacy constraints into competitive advantages. Rather than viewing privacy regulations as obstacles, these businesses see them as opportunities to build deeper, more trusting relationships with customers. 

“Creating tailored, relevant customer experiences without compromising privacy,” Iyoob writes, “is one of the most critical challenges—and opportunities—businesses face in 2025.” 

This isn’t just about compliance. It’s about recognizing that in an era of data breaches and surveillance capitalism, respecting customer privacy is itself a form of customer service. 

One of the most intriguing concepts emerging from this shift is what some companies call “minimum viable personalization.” Instead of collecting hundreds of data points, they focus on the few that actually drive value for customers. 

This approach follows what CMSWire describes as “intelligent minimalism”—using the smallest possible data footprint to deliver meaningful personalization. It’s not about knowing less; it’s about knowing smarter. 

So, let’s examine: Three Takeaways for Your Business 

First: Practice data minimalism. Before collecting any customer data, ask yourself: “Will this information directly help us serve this person better, and would they understand why we need it?” 

Second: Make personalization participatory. Give customers granular control over what they share and show them exactly how their information improves their experience. 

Third: Lead with transparency. Companies that clearly explain their data practices don’t just avoid privacy problems—they create competitive advantages through customer trust. 

The question isn’t whether you can serve customers well without invasive data collection. It’s whether you can resist the urge to know everything about them in order to serve them best. 

So here we are, in this fascinating moment where every website designer is essentially becoming a diplomat—negotiating between two very different audiences. On one side, you have humans who want beautiful, intuitive experiences. On the other, you have an army of bots that just want clean, structured data they can understand. And increasingly, these two wants are pulling in opposite directions. 

Let’s pretend you’re a UX designer at an e-commerce company. Your A/B tests show that users love that sleek, minimalist design with subtle animations and clean white space. But your SEO team is panicking because Google’s AI Overviews aren’t picking up your content properly. Your site is bleeding traffic to competitors who’ve optimized for ChatGPT and Perplexity. 

This is the new reality. According to Akamai’s security research blog, AI scraping now accounts for 600 million requests daily across their network alone. That’s not some distant future scenario—that’s happening right now. And here’s what’s really striking: OpenAI’s crawler scrapes websites 1,700 times for every one referral it sends back, while Anthropic’s Claude scrapes an astounding 73,000 times per referral. Compare that to Google, which scrapes 14 times per referral, and you start to see the scale of this new challenge. 

Writing in UX Magazine on Medium, UX researcher Kristine Kalnina captures the fundamental tension: “SEO is about making things simpler for the machine, while UX focuses on making things simpler for human readers. These might sound like two contrasting aspects, and this is why most marketers, and indeed UXers, struggle in finding the right balance.” 

But here’s what’s fascinating—and maybe counterintuitive. The companies that are winning this balance aren’t treating it as a compromise. They’re finding ways to make both humans and bots happy simultaneously. 

According to Cloudflare’s analysis of web crawlers in 2025, we’re dealing with a surprisingly primitive landscape when it comes to AI bots. Among major AI crawlers, only Google’s Gemini and AppleBot currently render JavaScript. That gorgeous interactive product configurator built in React? Most AI systems can’t see it at all. 

This technical limitation has profound implications for design. As Search Engine Land’s Aleyda Solis explains in her guide to optimizing for AI search bots, companies need to ensure their key content renders server-side and uses semantic HTML that both screen readers and bots can easily parse. 

This is where Sarah Goodman from inclusive design consultancy 829 Studios, writing in CRM Buyer, offers a crucial insight: “Inclusion and accessibility together are the digital equivalent of what in architecture is called universal design.” 

Think about it—when you design for people with visual impairments, you create clear content hierarchies, descriptive headings, and logical navigation structures. These same elements are exactly what AI crawlers need to understand your content structure. When you optimize for screen readers, you’re simultaneously optimizing for AI systems. 

The numbers tell a compelling story. According to Computer Weekly’s coverage of Zendesk’s research, 59% of consumers expect AI to completely alter how they interact with businesses. Meanwhile, Forrester’s 2024 Customer Experience Index, as cited in the same analysis, found that CX quality among US brands is at an all-time low after declining for three consecutive years. 

We’re caught in this tension between declining human experiences and rising AI expectations. But companies that get this balance right are seeing real results. As Tom Eggemeier from Zendesk told Computer Weekly, CX leaders investing in human-centric AI report significant boosts in customer satisfaction and loyalty. 

Google just rolled out AI Mode, powered by their new Gemini 2.0 model. As described on the Google Blog, it can issue hundreds of searches simultaneously, reason across disparate information, and create expert-level reports in minutes. The feature is already driving over 10% increases in usage for queries that show AI Overviews. 

What does this mean for businesses? If your content isn’t structured for AI consumption, you’re effectively invisible to this growing segment of search behavior. 

This is where Martin Reeves’ research, published in Harvard Business Review, becomes crucial. Reeves warns against “dataism”—the false belief that gathering more data and feeding it to algorithms alone can uncover truth and create value.  

“Human decision-making,” Reeves writes, “provides irreplaceable value through strategic thinking, context awareness, ethical judgment, and creative problem-solving that AI simply cannot replicate.” 

This applies directly to UX design. The most successful companies aren’t letting AI or SEO requirements drive all their design decisions. They’re using human insight to create experiences that serve both audiences intelligently. 

So what does this look like in practice? Based on the research from Lyssna on balancing SEO and UX, here are three key strategies: 

First, embrace progressive disclosure. Design clean, fast-loading pages with clear HTML structure that bots can easily crawl. Then layer on interactive elements and animations that enhance the human experience without breaking bot accessibility. 

Second, implement what Search Engine Land calls “AI Search Content Optimization.” Use descriptive headings, structured data markup, and ensure your key content renders server-side. Create content that answers questions naturally—the way humans actually ask them. 

Third, think about agent-responsive design. As Google and OpenAI build AI agents that can navigate websites on behalf of users, design your site so these agents can easily understand and interact with your content, just like you’d design for any other assistive technology. 

Here’s the beautiful paradox we’re discovering: the future of digital experience requires becoming both more seamless with technology and more human in our approach. The companies winning this balance aren’t choosing between humans and bots—they’re creating experiences that serve both by focusing on clarity, accessibility, and genuine value. 

As EY Studio’s analysis puts it: “AI should be in service to humans, and help companies understand and better connect to their customers as individuals.” That’s not just a philosophy—it’s a practical design strategy. 

The next few years will separate the companies that see this as a technical challenge from those that see it as a design opportunity. Because ultimately, good design has always been about understanding your audience and serving their needs elegantly. Now we just happen to have two very different, but equally important, audiences sitting at the same table. 

You know, there’s this moment that every designer seems to face at some point in their career. It’s not about a bad client or a missed deadline. It’s deeper than that. It’s that moment when you look around and wonder: “Do they actually value what I do?” 

Sam Jayne Burden captured this feeling perfectly in her piece for Medium’s Design Bootcamp. She describes her journey from marketing to UX product management to UX/UI design—what seemed like the perfect career trajectory. But then reality hit. 

She wrirtes, “Despite my enthusiasm for UX, I eventually found myself at a crossroads. I thought I had failed because I didn’t enjoy being a UX Designer as much as I had anticipated, and the constant comparison to others made me question my path.” 

Sound familiar? Burden’s story captures something that’s happening across the design world right now. The field that promised creative fulfillment and good salaries is shifting beneath our feet and the numbers tell a story. 

According to data from ADPList tracking over 640,000 design professionals, as reported by Chris Abad, the job market has transformed dramatically over the last few years. In 2022, about 60% of designers found new jobs within 60 days. By 2024, that number dropped to below 50%. We’re all taking longer to land positions, facing more competition, and dealing with increasingly selective companies. 

And then, this past June, something happened that sent shockwaves throughout the design community. As reported by UX Playbook, Fast Company, and multiple design publications, Carl Rivera, Shopify’s Chief Design Officer, announced on X: “We just dropped UX as a title at Shopify. Same for Content Design. If you design, you’re a Designer. If you write, you’re now a Writer. Simpler. Better.” 

The reaction — intense. Some designers felt validated—finally, a return to design as unified craft. Others felt erased. The debate raged across design forums and social media. 

Rivera’s thinking, as reported in these articles, is that AI has fundamentally changed the designer’s role: He says, “AI enables anyone to make things usable. Our job is to make them unforgettable.” 

It’s a provocative idea—that baseline usability is no longer the designer’s job, it’s a machine’s job. What matters now is taste, intuition, the ability to create something that moves people. 

This shift is forcing all of us to think differently. Not just about our titles, but about our value proposition. 

Burden figured this out. Instead of staying stuck at that crossroads, she had what she calls an epiphany: “There are numerous alternative career paths within the UX domain that utilize the skills and knowledge I had acquired.” 

Writing in another Design Bootcamp piece about alternative UX careers, she describes how she pivoted to web management, where she could leverage her UX background while pursuing work that brought her genuine fulfillment. The article details numerous paths designers are taking: content strategy, brand management, digital marketing, product management—roles where design thinking becomes a competitive advantage. 

The key insight? As Jahan Hosenally writes in his piece for Toptal about thinking like a strategist: “A design strategist is responsible for understanding the business problems a customer is facing and then aligning the design process to be in lockstep with the objectives.” 

This is backed up by hard data. McKinsey’s research on the business value of design shows companies that score high on their Design Index grow revenue 32 percentage points faster than competitors. But it’s not because they make prettier interfaces—it’s because they solve the right problems with solutions that are desirable, feasible, and viable. 

The design industry is worth $43.4 billion globally and growing 4.4% annually, according to McKinsey. There are opportunities everywhere—but they might include career paths that do not look like traditional UX roles anymore. 

Burden’s advice for anyone facing their own crossroads? “True success is not merely about conforming to external standards, but about finding genuine happiness in your chosen field.” 

So maybe the question isn’t whether businesses value design. Maybe it’s whether we value ourselves enough to evolve, to expand our definition of what it means to be a designer, and to find new ways to create meaningful impact. 

Because design thinking—that human-centered approach to solving problems—that’s not going anywhere. It’s just finding new expressions. 

Thanks for listening to Marginally Better. If you like what you heard, please help us out. Leave a quick review on Apple podcasts. It will help us spread the word about the show to people like you who care deeply about great customer experiences. 

If you want to get behind the scenes notes from me and the rest of the team, go to marginallybettershow.com or follow the link in our show notes. 

Marginally Better is a Calufrax radio production. Our producer is Nicole Hubbard with research by Connie Evans. 

I’m Joe Taylor, Jr. 

After a decade in broadcast media, Joe developed early online platforms for NPR, PBS, and AOL. Today, he helps our clients tell compelling brand stories through audio, visuals, and software.

You may also like

Get Expert Website Help