Personal or private? The ethics of fan engagement

Fan engagement comes in many forms, but the end goal is always the same: keep audiences interested because attention breeds earnings. One of the best ways to do this is through hyper-personalised content feeds and targeted advertisements, made possible by swathes of user data. But how can fans be assured their data is handled responsibly and their personal information stays hidden in the process?

“Personalisation is extremely important for delivering an engaging user experience,” begins Steven Kopec, head of service management and information security at Accedo. “Without personalisation,” he contends, “the amount of content viewers have to sift through becomes overwhelming. It’s nearly impossible to find something worth their time.

“It is a hard balance to strike between ensuring high levels of personalisation and maintaining data transparency,” Kopec continues. From establishing what constitutes legitimate use to expelling data-based discrimination and bias, there’s a lot to consider, ethically, for those in the fan engagement field.

A matter of trust

When users hand over private information, they expect companies to treat it carefully. “Trust is vital,” states Kopec. With personalised video streaming, “if a viewer feels they cannot trust a given service with their data, they will simply consume content elsewhere.”

At its simplest, Kopec suggests companies be “clear about what data is collected and how it is used,” including whether they’ll see targeted ads or their data will be shared with a third party. In other words, any benefits (to the user!) gained from sharing information should be made crystal clear – before they agree to it. The same goes for any risks involved.

Refusing to share data means missing out on personalised content – and for some fans, that’s totally fine. It’s a trade-off between tighter control and a more ‘enjoyable’ fan experience, according to Kopec. Most people, he expects, “would be okay with data being gathered to analyse the performance of a given platform and troubleshoot problems. However, personalisation may not always be seen as valid.”

When in doubt, opt out

Any time a user shares their data, they should face two options: opt in or opt out. Companies should never collect information that hasn’t been explicitly given, nor should they coerce consumers into handing anything over – particularly if they don’t offer a way out.

Algorithms are now commonplace, using machine learning to funnel the most relevant content (based on known interests and prior engagement) to individual users. While algorithms streamline the personalisation process, companies must also understand the potential harms they introduce. “Algorithms should not perpetuate existing biases by leading to discriminatory content recommendations,” says Kopec.

Demographic information can give clues to a user’s interests (for example, a woman might be more passionate about women’s sport), but companies should tread lightly. Content that promotes stereotypes, inequities or political echo chambers should be nixed. “We see this a lot in social media feeds,” Kopec continues. “A consumer with a specific view is fed more content to confirm that opinion, rather than getting a balanced perspective.”

Lastly, attention to ethics doesn’t end once a user’s data is in hand. Companies also must ensure it’s stored securely, taking extra steps to avoid hacks, leaks and other threats to user privacy. “Transparency is crucial,” reiterates Kopec, “as is having the right systems in place to keep data secure.”

The rules of engagement

Ethics are subjective; legislation is not.

“There are a number of standards and regulations in place,” says Kopec. The European Union’s GDPR, California’s CCPA, Brazil’s LGPD and China’s PIPL all protect users during personalisation (among other things). “Standards are always changing, so it is vital media companies keep up-to-date,” he argues.

The GDPR, for instance, says companies must have a valid reason, such as legitimate interest, to personalise content. Data collected for one purpose – such as to complete a purchase – may not be used for another. And companies can only harvest data deemed necessary.

The major regulations “function around common principles,” according to Kopec. Besides placing strict limits on what data can be collected, the standards uphold consent and user control, encourage transparency and require “additional safeguards” when automation gets involved.

AI-based automation has made its mark on personalisation. Companies can collect and analyse large sums of data in little time, with little effort. “In some ways,” offers Kopec, “AI should make it easier to adhere to specific standards or internal policies. However, AI is moving faster than legislation,” he notes, creating legal liabilities.

Fans first

While broadcasters, advertisers and teams strive to maximise fan engagement, consumer well-being takes precedence. Several countries have established regulations, but it’s not enough for companies to treat data privacy as an administrative nuisance.

“Compliance requires more than just meeting minimum legal requirements,” argues Kopec. “It demands a fundamental redesign of personalisation architectures to embed privacy as a core principle from the outset, rather than treating it as an afterthought.”

Check out the rest of the February 2026 Signal here.