"The Trump campaign disputes the effectiveness of [their] work. And they also worked for Ted Cruz and that didn't seem to help him much."
Catmur said the current outrage regarding the impact of marketing practices on the choices the public makes is also nothing new.
"It's a natural progression of the sophistication of marketing and the current hysteria is similar to that around the launch of Vance Packard's book The Hidden Persuaders in 1957.
"In his book, Packard claimed that consumers were being influenced against their will by companies using sophisticated research techniques. Sound familiar?"
Catmur added that the data techniques employed by Cambridge Analytica are neither novel nor sophisticated in light of the rapid development in the space.
"The notable difference is that toothpaste marketers are not currently suspected of working with the Russians to sway the sales of dental floss."
The reason Cambridge Analytica has hit the headlines is largely due to the affront its actions pose to democracy. But this isn't an issue limited to one firm or one social media platform, according to Simon Bird, the strategy director at media agency PHD.
"Filter bubbles, which exist pretty much everywhere in the digital world, are creating divided societies because people end up only consuming content that affirms their current worldview," Bird told the Herald.
"Serving people more content that they're more likely to respond to is obviously good business for digital companies but clearly it's not without a social cost."
What's perhaps most concerning - and insidious - about the Cambridge Analytica story is that Facebook users handed over their data willingly. Everyone who answered a series of seemingly innocuous questions via the research app agreed to share their data.
No systems were surreptitiously infiltrated and no one stole passwords or sensitive information without permission. To Facebook, the only real violation was the transfer of information collected for "research" to a third party such as Cambridge.
What this really comes down to is our willingness to opt-in, that is to hand over our information without so much as a second thought.
Facebook allows you to look at which apps have permission to access your personal information - and quick look at your personal list will likely reveal that a few less-than-reputable companies have access to your information.
• Go here to find out how much information you're sharing with apps on Facebook.
This really poses the question of whether you really trust the makers of Farmsville enough not to give your details to next iteration of Cambridge Analytica.
While it might be true that users are consenting to their information being handed over, this consent is about as concrete as that given when consumers click confirm under a complex user agreement.
"People are cognitively lazy so burying consent in a long approval form is legally defendable but most people don't know what they're consenting to or how their data is being used so it's a little morally questionable," says Bird.
"Businesses and ergo marketers will always push the boundaries as much as they're legally allowed to. I think the laws will get much tighter."
Bird's prediction seems likely in light of recent legal shifts in Australia, making it mandatory for companies to disclose a data breach as soon as they occur.
There are now also local calls from security experts for similar rules to be applied in this market.
Barry Brailey, a cybersecurity specialist at Aura Information Security, would welcome the introduction of similar laws in this market.
"When someone else holds something of yours that is valuable, they have a duty to look after it," says Brailey.
"They also have a duty to let you know if something happens to it – and that's really what notification laws codify."
And as more data is handed over across digital channels, the onus of this responsibility will only become greater.
