The difference in user profile set-ups on Google and Yahoo is pronounced, and highlights the contrast between brands that get it and brands that don’t.

The first major difference one encounters is that Yahoo requires a birth date. Now, many people are sensitive about supplying their birth date, not only because of age sensitivity (and Yahoo! provides no advance notice that public display of the information is optional), but because of identity theft and other security concerns. Brands looking to advocate the de-cloaking that encourages legitimate personal and professional socialization online should communicate an understanding of security issues and give people a stronger sense of comfort about personal information use.

If you leave the birth date field blank — or even if you attempt to leave out just the year (as if Yahoo! merely wants to send you an e-card on your birthday) — you are informed, complete with a warning icon and an angry red font, that “your full birthday is required.” As you complete this field, a seemingly reassuring message appears beside the entry claiming, “Knowing your birthday lets Yahoo! provide you with a better experience.” Oh, sure. It’s for my benefit… I’m not even halfway through the registration procedure and I already know that Yahoo! is full of crap. If you’re going to provide such a dubious rationale, at least use it as an inducement to fill out an optional field. Then I might buy it.

Google doesn’t even ask for a birth date. (Of course, Google probably has algorithms in place such that after a short period of activity tracking, they can pinpoint not only my date of birth but the time, the hospital, and the name of the attending nurse.)

But the biggest differences in the sign-up sequence is in the degrees of personalization offered the user in the actual profile section. Although Yahoo! is forced to to accommodate digital behemoths by enabling a user’s twitter feed display, for example, it is readily apparent from what is highlighted that Yahoo! wants to encourage users to update, share, and blog directly from the Yahoo! platform itself. There is no enabling for either WordPress.com or self-hosted WordPress feeds, for example, and — in a miss that seems inexplicable even for Yahoo! — no way to even post simple links to any of your other online locations. As is almost always the case with these kinds of inane decisions, there is an obvious but inelegant workaround: Use the Yahoo! sponsored blogging element to post a link to your real blog. The thing of it is: Transparency exists whether brands acknowledge it or not, and the fact that Yahoo!’s preferences are so obviously prioritized over the user’s preferences is plainly and painfully evident.

Google’s profile set-up is a different animal altogether. It has the feel of an open source platform: options instead of requirements; fewer barriers to completion (Yahoo! has not one but two required password recovery questions, plus a captcha code verification). The display area of the Google profile offers the freedom to post links in a simple and well-organized manner. A series of optional questions  also convey a bit of brand personality (“What is your superpower?”), even as they deliver a clear message that your personality is what is valued. Good stuff.

Which approach to the user is likely to succeed over the long term?

When it comes to what is valued, respected, and trusted online, any missed opportunity for user empowerment is a ding on the brand. Transparency and authenticity are not just about resisting the old-school inclinations for hyperbole or pretense, “keeping it real” also means extending to the user, in the form of functional options, an acknowledgment that their choices are vast and only a click away. Any brand that tries to limit user options for the sake of “protecting the brand” — failing, in other words, to not only recognize but facilitate access to potential competitors — is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Users don’t get angry at these naive tactics so much as they pity them.

And clueless is not a particularly valuable brand attribute.

JDKEMU44HHYG