Yeah, But That's Different
The Observation
We require identity verification on the website: a picture of your ID and a selfie. A few customers a week call and say, there's no way I'm giving you my ID.
Almost always, the reason is identity theft. So I ask them, what do you think they do with that stolen identity? They target businesses that aren't doing identity checks like we do. To that, they almost always go, "Oh, I've never thought about that side of it." Almost selfishly, if you ask me. They've only ever pictured themselves as the victim, never the business that gets stuck with the bill.
Then I always ask, have you ever been to a live auction? What did they ask you for at the clerk's table? They say, well, an ID. And then the clerk copies it or takes a picture of it for their records. Then, almost every time, right after: "yeah, but that's different."
So I run a different check. That one takes what they typed into their profile and checks it against public records, the aggregated identity data that already exists about them. They don't upload anything or take a picture, and in my opinion that makes it creepier. It goes and finds out who they are instead of letting them show us.
I don't hide that. I tell them I'll do another check, and it's something they should be more concerned about than the selfie. They accept it anyway.
It's so frustrating to me. The check they agree to is the one they can't see, even after I've told them it's the worse one.
The Implication
The identity theft point gets a real reaction. The live auction question doesn't. Which tells me the objection isn't really about handing over an ID. They've already done that, in a barn, to a clerk with a copier.
The fix they accept is the one where they hand over less, not more. It isn't that they don't know what it does. I warn them, and they still take it, so giving them more information isn't going to change their answer.
That runs against what I've seen with simulcast auctions, where people distrust the process they can't see. Here the visible process is the one they fight. The camera on their own phone feels like the risk, and they hardly think about the lookup running in the background.
My guess at "different" is the clerk. I think it's almost a fallacy: we trust people we can see because we think our eyes don't deceive us. You eyeball the cashier or the clerk and decide they're trustworthy, so handing them your license feels safe. The research doesn't back them up on that. In Bond and DePaulo's 2006 review of lie-detection studies, people sorted lies from truths about 54% of the time, barely better than a coin flip, and they did worse with what they saw than with what they heard. Willis and Todorov found people form a trustworthiness read on a face in a tenth of a second and don't change it with more time, which tells you the read is quick, not that it's right. The clerk's face is doing the work, and the face is the part that tells you the least.
Open Questions
- What do they mean by "different"? My guess is the face across the table. Is it, or is it the selfie, or not knowing where the file lives?
- They accept the records check even after I tell them it should concern them more. Is it that nothing leaves their hands, or that they never have to watch it happen?
- Should I stop asking the live auction question on these calls and just offer the records check sooner?
- If the warning doesn't change the answer, what is the objection actually about?
- They're worried about identity theft, and the check they accept runs on the aggregated identity data that's already out there about them. Do they see that?