Businesses have spent years being told that data is their most valuable asset.
They have invested heavily in cloud storage, data warehouses, cybersecurity, access controls, compliance teams and governance frameworks. They have built sophisticated systems to store and protect first-party data.
Then, when they want to use it, they have to move it somewhere else.
That is the contradiction at the heart of today’s data strategy. Companies work hard to keep their data safe, only to export it into third-party platforms when they need to activate it for advertising, analytics, monetization or customer engagement.
The issue is that too much of the ecosystem still ignores ‘data gravity’. To put it simply, data gravity refers to who owns the data and where it lives. If customer data sits inside a brand’s platform or another controlled cloud environment, the starting point should always be respect for that environment.
Forcing the brand asset outside of its own atmosphere invites a leakage problem. As with every movement or duplication, there is risk.
Expectations of data movement
The industry has become resigned to the fact that data has to travel in order to be useful. Want insight, activation, measurement or personalization? The default answer is almost always to export it to a third party and then pay them for the privilege of analysing your own data.
But every export, upload, sync, copy or transfer creates a risk opening. It means another vendor to trust, another contract to manage, another access policy to audit. Put simply it means another place where something can go wrong.
The issue is not whether businesses should use their first-party data. Of course they should. It is direct, proprietary and built from real customer relationships. The issue is that using it should not require constantly duplicating it or shipping it away.
Every transfer is a new risk
When large volumes of first-party data leave a company’s controlled environment, the risk increases. Data that is protected inside carefully managed IT infrastructure is suddenly passing through another system with completely different permission structures and potentially more lax security.
That does not mean third-party platforms are careless, as we know most are highly sophisticated. But network and internet security is not only about the strength of one organisation. It is also about how many places the data exists, how many systems must be trusted and how many people can access it.
For cybercriminals, sensitive customer and commercial data is incredibly valuable. The more copies that exist, the more targets there are – and the more opportunities to intercept, compromise, ransom or otherwise misuse that data. A business may have excellent internal controls, but once the data leaves its environment, it is relying on someone else’s controls too.
This is also where governance has to move upstream. As data activation and interoperability become bigger priorities, organizations need to bring legal and InfoSec teams into the design of the solution.
Far too often, any work in the data activation journey has been built around workarounds and that simply does not scale. A better model is to use those governance functions as enablers, so that activation can become usable and auditable from the start.
Leakage and corruption
When people hear “data leakage”, they often think of a major breach. But one of the more common risks is quieter: data corruption caused by constant movement between platforms, warehouses and third-party systems.
Every time data is exported, reformatted, matched, duplicated or re-imported, something can change. Fields can be mapped incorrectly, definitions can shift, permissions can be misapplied and outdated versions can keep circulating.
After enough movement, businesses can lose confidence in which dataset is accurate, who has touched it, where copies sit and whether the analysis of this data represents anything remotely valuable to the company.
That matters because first-party data is valuable precisely because it is accurate and collected with user consent. Keeping it in one controlled environment is safer for consumer privacy and better for data integrity. The more it is moved and manipulated, the greater the risk that businesses turn a trusted asset into a liability.
Bring the software to the data
For years, businesses have accepted constant data movement as the cost of progress. But that model is starting to look outdated. First-party data is more valuable, regulation is tighter, cybercrime is more sophisticated and customers are more privacy-conscious.
The future should not require businesses to choose between using their data and protecting it. The smarter model is to respect data gravity and activate data where it already lives.
That requires bringing software to the data by building activation around governance and control from the onset. It’s more than an ideal, it’s a necessity and the businesses that benefit most will be those that respect the needs of data owners. As ultimately the asset belongs with them.
We’ve featured the best data migration tools.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
