Got an email from a bank saying my account has been put in a restricted state because they have been unable to reach me. Their emails reach me fine. They rarely send paper mail but when they do I can see that they have the correct address on file.
Then I looked closer at their email, examined the HTML, and found that they insert a tracker pixel in their messages. So if I were to use a graphical mail client with default configs, they would surreptitiously get a signal telling them my IP (thus whereabouts) and time of day every time I open my email from them. I use a text client so the tracker pixels get ignored.
Would a bank conclude from lack of tracker pixels signals that they are not reaching a customer, and then lock down their account?
I’m not going to call them and ask… fuck them for interrupting my day and making me dance. I don’t lick boots like that. I just wonder if anyone else who does not trigger tracker pixels has encountered this situation.
I did not think of the marketing angle – although even then, knowing the times that each individual opens their mail and their location has value for personalized marketing.
We are talking about banks in the case at hand. It’s unclear how many people have not come to the realization that bankers are now doing the job of cops. KYC/AML. In this particular sector, anonymization is unlikely. Banks have no limits on their snooping. They have a blank check and no consequences for overcollection. No restraint. When they get breached, they just sign people up for credit monitoring and any overcollection has the immunity of KYC law.
At best, perhaps a marketing division would choose some canned bulk mailing service which happens to give them low resolution on engagement. But even that’s a stretch because anyone in the marketing business also wants to market their own service as making the most of data collection.
I work in the digital security sector and I’m not this paranoid.
Banks are about making money, full stop. It does not serve their interests or the interests of their investors to proactively spy on customers for the state unless they are a state-controlled organization like you’d find in places like Russia and China. Will they respond to requests from law enforcement? For sure. They want to maintain good relationships for help with things like fraud and other financial crimes. But they are not in the business of doing the cops’ work for them for free.
There are so many reasons why organizations conduct various forms of user research unrelated to marketing too.
As another user mentioned, A/B testing a mail format is one example. Measuring click-through rates on various types of messages to track what works and what doesn’t is always valuable. There’s also value in getting browser/device statistics - how many people open emails on their mobile device vs web browser vs desktop email client, etc. And so on, and so on, and so on.
Banks are about making money. User research helps companies make money by making data-informed decisions that drive profitability. It’s really that simple.
And again, tracking pixels are extremely fragile. They really only work in aggregate over a large population for statistical analysis. They’re way too unreliable for much else. There are lots of better ways to achieve the same and better results if your goal is monitoring individuals
I’m not trying to discourage you from protecting your privacy by blocking trackers. I do it myself in various ways because it is a good practice to protect your privacy, identity, etc.
I’m just telling you that they didn’t freeze your bank account because of the tracking in emails.
I’ve done quite a bit of work implementing abandoned property analytics and escheatment processes at multiple large finance firms, and marketing engagement isn’t part of the criteria.
Banks want to keep your money at all costs, so even seeing that an email didn’t bounce back is enough of a sign of life to try to justify not escheating your assets to the state, which is part of the reason why marketing data isn’t part of the criteria.