Marketing is a constant experiment, and in effect the public are the unwitting guinea pigs of the latest trends, technologies and marketing strategy trials. Brands therefore, owe it to their subjects to be responsible with their adverts, which will of course benefit them in the long run.
Brands must ensure their insights are considered, so their audience’s reaction is ‘ah great!’ rather than ‘argh not that again’.
Looking at targeted ads as an example, if I’m searching for women’s slippers halfway through December they are likely to be a Christmas present, for my girlfriend perhaps? I don’t want to see slippers popping up all over my browser in January, especially since my girlfriend left me after SlipperGate.
Another danger targeted ads pose is public shaming. If I’m showing my colleagues something on my laptop and we have to nip online, the last thing I want to share with them is a targeted ad for athlete’s foot powder. Too much information! Brands have got to find a way to be more sensitive with personal information.
Apple’s CEO Tim Cook recently said that customers have the right to privacy, and the vast majority of customers don’t want brands knowing everything about them. This view is reinforced by Apple Pay (launching soon), which won’t store any personal customer data – an apparent stand against the ‘creepiness’ factor that comes with targeted advertising, with Apple once again making their products consumer-centric whilst also being aesthetically pleasing.
Don’t get me wrong, many brands have improved customer experience through the use of personal data. It’s great when Tesco remembers my favourite groceries and EasyJet sends me offers for frequent travel destinations, but both these examples have been carefully measured. Many other brands haven’t yet progressed past inconspicuously stalking the people who have ever googled their name around the internet.
Research from Adobe suggests that 87 percent of consumers want a "Do Not Track" option in their browser to avoid brand marketing, feeling that currently their privacy is being invaded. However, targeted adverts are proven as being almost twice as effective as non-targeted. Therefore is it reasonable to conclude that effective targeting works for everyone involved, but unspecific targeting benefits nobody?
The effectiveness of targeted advertising is not being questioned – it has revolutionised the way marketers reach the right people. The point being made here, however, is that the criteria must be tighter or marketers risk giving their wider audience a negative brand experience. If this can be refined, it will make ad-spend more efficient and also will help the net view of the brand improve in the public’s eye.
Brands must be able to profile their realistic audience. These are consumers and potential consumers. ‘Potential’ referring to there being a reasonable chance of engagement and purchase, rather than just spamming the wrong people and leaving a bad taste about the brand. The underlying issue here is that marketers must continually learn and adapt so that they consider where to draw the line between engagement and creepiness, or they risk poorly targeting too many people and paying the price both in ad-spend and damaged public opinion.
By Jack Wheeler.
Do you think marketing has become too creepy as brands aim for personalisation perfection? Let us know your thoughts below!
PrivSec Conferences will bring together leading speakers and experts from privacy and security to deliver compelling content via solo presentations, panel discussions, debates, roundtables and workshops.
For more information on upcoming events, visit the website.
comments powered by Disqus