Skip to main content

Gigya Survey: 88% Of U.S. Consumers Say They Have Used Social Logins


What them worry?

Despite ongoing concerns about companies’ use of their online data, U.S. consumers are increasingly using social media credentials to sign into websites and apps, according to a report released today by Gigya.

Gigya found that 88% of 2,000 consumers surveyed by OnePoll in April said they have used social logins to connect with sites and apps. That’s 11 percentage points more than the results from a similar Gigya survey last year and a 35 percentage-point increase from the 53% of people who said the were social login users in 2012.

Gigya, a Mountain View-based digital consumer management firm, is one of the leading providers of the social sign-in plugins in question, so it’s not a disinterested observer. Even so, the trends over time provide an interesting benchmark of consumer attitudes about sharing social data.

And convenience continues to be the primary driver of adoption. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they used social authentication to avoid having to fill out online registration forms; 43% said they did it so they wouldn’t have to remember another user name and password. The next highest result — at 25% — was: “I like being able to use the same identity on all of my devices and websites to get a more personalized experience.”

Such considerations apparently continue to outweigh concerns about online privacy. The Gigya survey also found that 96% of respondents are either somewhat concerned (46%) or very concerned (50%) about data privacy and how companies use customer data. In the United Kingdom, where Gigya commissioned an identical survey, 33% were very concerned and 58% were somewhat concerned. Self-reported use of social sign-ins in the U.K. was also less than in the U.S., with 66% of the 2,000 people there saying they use social sign-ons.

The survey also looked into the conditions under which consumers are willing to share their data via social sign-on systems, finding that more than half of U.S. respondents were more apt to share if companies are clear about how the information will be used and that the companies make assurance that they won’t share the data with third-parties.


The upshot, according to Gigya?

“Although data privacy concerns are seemingly at an all-time high, it’s evident that consumers are prepared to share their personal information with businesses if presented with a clear value exchange and a high level of transparency,” Gigya CEO Patrick Salyer said in a release. “In addition, as consumers continue to embrace advanced authentication methods, brands must equip themselves to handle an increasing volume and variety of rich identity data in order provide truly relevant 1:1 experiences.”

What’s Next?

Gigya’s report — The 2015 State of Consumer Privacy & Personalization — also looked into consumer attitudes regarding new methods of authentication — “Identity 3.0″ — and found that consumers appear to be receptive to innovation. In the U.S. survey, 59% of the people said they were somewhat likely or very likely to log-in to a site or app with a PayPal or Amazon ID if they could pay using that same ID.

People would be similarly receptive if Apple were to make Apple ID a third-party login provider — 57% said they would be likely to use Apple ID to log in to sites and 50% said they would be likely to pay on sites if they had the option.

Perhaps providing more evidence that people really hate passwords, even biometric authentication — thumbprints or face/eye scans — was relatively popular in the survey with 41% of people saying they would be comfortable signing into sites or apps that way. Only 26% said they would be uncomfortable doing that while 33% were undecided.

Download the full report (free with email registration).

Gigya_Infographic_2015PrivacyPersonalization copy_1

via Marketing Land


Popular posts from this blog

6 types of negative SEO to watch out for

The threat of negative SEO is remote but daunting. How easy is it to for a competitor to ruin your rankings, and how do you protect your site? But before we start, let’s make sure we’re clear on what negative SEO is, and what it definitely isn’t.Negative SEO is a set of activities aimed at lowering a competitor’s rankings in search results. These activities are more often off-page (e.g., building unnatural links to the site or scraping and reposting its content); but in some cases, they may also involve hacking the site and modifying its content.Negative SEO isn’t the most likely explanation for a sudden ranking drop. Before you decide someone may be deliberately hurting your rankings, factor out the more common reasons for ranking drops. You’ll find a comprehensive list here.Negative off-page SEOThis kind of negative SEO targets the site without internally interfering with it. Here are the most common shapes negative off-page SEO can take.Link farmsOne or two spammy links likely won’…

Another SEO tool drops the word “SEO”

This guest post is by Majestic’s Marketing Director, Dixon Jones, who explains the reasons for their recent name change.
Majestic, the link intelligence database that many SEOs have come to use on a daily basis, has dropped the “SEO” from it’s brand and from its domain name, to become Since most people won’t have used Google’s site migration tool before, here’s what it looks like once you press the “go” button:

In actual fact – there’s a minor bug in the tool. The address change is to the https version of (which GWT makes us register as a separate site) but that message incorrectly omits that. Fortunately, elsewhere in GWT its clear the omission is on Google’s side, not a typo from the SEO. It is most likely that the migration tool was developed before the need for Google to have separate verification codes for http and https versions of the site.
The hidden costs of a name change
There were a few “nay sayers” on Twitter upset that Majestic might be deserting it…

What will happen to influencer marketing if Instagram ‘Likes’ go away?

In April, app researcher Jane Manchun Wong discovered Instagram was testing removing “Like” counts on posts. At the time, an Instagram spokesperson told TechCrunch it was not a public test, but an internal prototype and that the company was “exploring” new ways to reduce pressure on Instagram.The possibility that Instagram – a primary platform for influencer marketing – may potentially eliminate “Likes” could impact the influencer community, causing brands to question whether or not an influencer has enough sway to contribute to the brand’s marketing efforts. Without an outward facing metric such as “Likes,” influencers would have to rely on other resources to prove their content is worthwhile – once such resource: influencer marketing agencies.Good news for agencies“I do see it as a good thing for influencer marketing agencies and platform providers,” said Leah Logan, VP of media product strategy and marketing for Collective Bias.Logan’s influencer marketing agency works with a numbe…