Do Marketers See You As Special? Nope.
May 9, 2022
I read “Forget Personalisation, It’s Impossible and It Doesn’t Work.” My hunch is that the idea that a zippy modern system would “know” a user, assemble an appropriate info-filter, and display what that individual required has lost traction. I remember Pointcast and Desktop Data which suggested a user could get the information he/she/it/them needed each day. My recollection is that individual information needs in business changed. Fiddling with the filters was a hassle. As a result, the services were novel at first and then became a hassle. Maybe automation via processes tuned to figure out what the user needed would make such services more useful. If memory serves, the increasing costs of making these systems work within budget and developer constraints were not very good. The most recent example is my explanation of how a Google alert is about half right or half wrong when it flags an item I am supposed to need. See this “Cheerleading” article.
The Forget Personalisation write up calls individuation “the worst idea in the marketing industry.” The statement is not exactly a vote of confidence, is it? The article states:
There’s just one little problem with personalisation: it doesn’t make any sense.
I thought marketing types were optimists. I am wrong again.
The article includes some factoids about the accuracy of third party data. These are infobits which allows marketers and investigators to pinpoint behaviors and even identify people. Here’s what the article reports as actual factual:
Spoiler alert: it’s not. Most third-party data is, to put it politely, garbage. In an academic study from MIT and Melbourne Business School, researchers decided to test the accuracy of third-party marketing data. So, how accurate is gender targeting? It’s accurate 42.3% of the time. How accurate is age targeting? It’s accurate between 4% and 44% of the time. And those are the numbers for the leading global data brokers.
I assume that this is a news flash because informed individuals from investigative reporters at the Wall Street Journal to law enforcement administrators assume that data gathered from clicks, apps, and other high value inputs are “accurate.” Well, sometimes yes, but in my experience 50 to 75 percent accuracy is darned good. Lower scores are common. The 95 percent accuracy is doable under certain circumstances.
What’s the fix? Once again marketers have the answer. Keep in mind that many marketers majored in business administration or art history. Just sayin’. Note this solutions from the cited article:
Marketers would be much better off investing in ‘performance branding’; in other words, one-size-fits-most creative that speaks to the common category needs of all potential buyers, all the time. This is a much simpler approach that also happens to be supported by the evidence. Reach is, and has always been, the greatest predictor of marketing success.
I think this means TikTok. What do you think?
And the future? Impersonalization. And how does Marketing Week know this? Here’s the source of the insight:
Gartner predicts 80% of marketers will abandon personalisation by 2025.
Yep, Gartner. Wow. Solid indeed.
Net net: Those marketing types are on the beam. What else does not work in marketing? Smart ad matching to a user query?
Stephen E Arnold, May 9, 2022
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
