Which is Better: Targeted to You or Made by You?

You can say neither, but I wouldn't believe you.

Imagine if companies actually used the data they gather about you. I mean, what would happen if they actually surprised you with messages and promotions targeted to your taste and prior purchases. Wouldn't it be great if next time you go to the Benetton store, they could figure out that you're a good customer to me by sales volume and items purchased? And if they actually stocked sizes on the basis of seasonal purchases by their frequent customers.

But I digress with possibilities. Personalization is about to hit the runway big time. According to David A. Kenney, the CEO of Publics Groupe unit Digitas in a recent article by The New York Times, it's only a matter of time before nearly all ads around the world are digital.

“Our intention with Digitas and Publicis is to build the global platform that everybody uses to match data with advertising messages,” Mr. Kenny said. “There is a massive transformation happening in the way consumers live and the data we have about them, but very few companies have stepped up to it yet.”

The idea is to move away from mass advertising to mass personalization. Does that mean that (1) I will only see elegant Toyota, Maserati and BMW car ads in my mailbox? Or does it mean that (2) I will see the elegant parts of every other product on the planet as interpreted by the people behind data gathering and extracting? Somehow scenario number two seems to be more likely.

The article cites the response to competition among Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft as partly the reason for the move into digital by Publicis. The agency bets on these companies wanting to remain in the medium vs. getting into the agency business. The bets so far seem to be headed towards online advertising. regardless. Google with DoubleClick and Microsoft with aQuantive.

If personalization is the name of the game, then learning as much as possible about people has a point -- it will be used to target versions of messages. According to an article on Information Week (IW), the same three suspects, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are in fact working on developing next-generation technologies that automate and personalize information search.

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and dozens of search specialists, including those catering to business customers, are racing to develop next-generation technologies that do a better job of getting people the information they seek. With emerging tools, people will no longer have to dumb down their queries with the pidgin language understood by first-generation search engines. They'll be able to ask questions in English and other languages--or pose no question at all and automatically receive results based on their earlier queries or the applications they're using.

Ah, but the data can also be used to target advertising better. iGoogle, do you? That's how the company continues to learn about my reading preferences thus extracting topics, names of companies, products, etc. And of course we have social bookmarking and tagging, shared searches and shared systems -- think of Yahoo and its new acquisition Deli-cio.us. Tagging and bookmarking so far have their drawbacks as they attract spammers and (apparently) SEO abusers.

One of the comments on the IW article makes a lot of sense: it will be a while before computers can accurately judge the meaningfulness of page content -- determining a site ranking based solely on number of page views is just not useful. How long people stay on a site's pages as Nilesen/NetRating has switched to measuring when ranking sites, may be more meaningful. Well, I know I ask a lot of my readers and many do spend an average of 4:30 minutes on my blog, according to Google Analytics and view 1.5 pages.

If meaning takes precedence then what about consumers creating their own ads? I met the folks at XLNTads while at blog|Philadelphia. They offer a combination of brand guidance and creative community interaction for video ads. Companies may guide the creative process by making available the brand assets they define as well as creating participation guidelines. Consumers (ad creators and site visitors) will have opportunities to learn from the brand and professional advertisers and to interact with one another.

This would steer towards high-quality submissions on one hand and the best chance to get the attention on a company selected brand. On the other, peer ratings of ads, ideas and tips offered by producers and film and ad educators may provide the desired incentive to do great work.

The best of both worlds?  You tell me. Which is better: targeted to you or made by you?

[Image of Times Square uploaded to Flikr by Tjeerd Wiersman from Amsterdam]

Comments

[Cam Beck]

I don't see why we can't have both, since they each represent different consumer goals and motivations, depending on their situation. If someone is inclined to create an ad for you, they're probably already a customer (or an anticustomer, but I'll ignore that segment for now) and would dig in deeper on your side if they're just shown a little appreciation for their efforts. At any rate, this represents less than 1% of your audience (though people who watch such ads might be larger).

Targeting done right is about relevant discovery and motivation, which also has a big part place in the pantheon of digital experience. Since it requires less effort, it also represents a much larger segment of the audience. However, it needs to be made more seamless and exact than it currently is.

[Valeria Maltoni]

You hit it just right, Cam. In the NYT article there is an embedded multimedia example of what such an ad might look like with call out explanations for differences -- none of it spoke to me.

My curiosity revolves around what personalization may mean to me, the consumer. Will it be the products I am already thinking and talking about or will it be just those features I seem to be preferring across the board?

[Cam Beck]

Valeria - I have the same reservations you do about the ad they showed. In the end, take away the "personalized" messaging garnish, and it's still just a typical broadcast ad targeted at "working mothers between 30 and 45."

So what? The only targeting that is taking place that makes use of today's technology is how many times they've seen the ad.

Perfectly targeted ad delivery requires relevance to the specific needs of the consumer AT THAT MOMENT, shown at a time when she is most open to seeing and interacting with it. The most widely available opportunity we have to deliver that type of message is when we've been invited to do so.

I suspect the technology exists to make our targeting more specific (something made more likely since Google's acquisition of DoubleClick), but it will be awhile before we figure out how to make efficient use of it.

[Valeria Maltoni]

The key word in it, Cam, is "mass". Every time you do anything on a mass scale, we lose the custom piece. Someone thinks it's a good idea to put people's names in mailers, others see it and now everyone does it. it's not any more "personal", yet some may believe it is.

Relevance at the specific time it is warranted would be amazing -- do you know how many times I am at a loss for what choice to make? I'm sure I'm not alone.

[Cam Beck]

You're certainly not alone... I'm right there with you! :)

And I suspect the heavy hitters recognize this, too, as they have a vested interest in making search results and advertising more effective.

How I love competition!

The key, I think, can be found in the Information Week article above, which stated, "Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and dozens of search specialists ... are racing to develop next-generation technologies that do a better job of getting people the information they seek."

If they are seeking information, then they are inviting relevant results from whatever source it may come. As long as you offer something they actively seek, you're in good position to attract their business.

It's still a challenge for the ad servers, search engines, and the advertisers to develop content and ads that make use of the data that we do have in order to deliver more meaningful results.

We can always collect more data (which frightens consumers), or we can continue wasting 90% of our advertising budgets, not knowing which 90% (which frightens marketers).

[Valeria Maltoni]

I love it, this has become a Cam Beck interview ;-) Actually the idea for this post came right out of that IW article. Search and permission are closely related -- although I still believe the consumer should be in charge of pulling the information in the end.

And there is a danger that, once again, the lazy people (spammers, SEO abusers, etc.) would confuse the signal.

[Cam Beck]

"And there is a danger that, once again, the lazy people (spammers, SEO abusers, etc.) would confuse the signal."

Exactly. And they do! Which, sadly, muddies up the results. This is why the community must insist on making social and business pariahs of the spammers and abusers.

It's an interesting dynamic to examine, because the heavyweights become extragovernmental enforcers -- transcending national borders in order to deliver results that attract people and businesses on their own volition. Their vested interest in delivering better results than their competitors may be our best chance of winning this thing for both businesses and consumers. Government can't do it, because their is no singular government authority controlling the Internet (or else I wouldn't *still* be getting invitations from Nigeria and South Africa to hold their $25 million in my bank account for safe keeping).

[Lewis Green]

Hate to interrupt but of course we want both (at least the three of us). I am going to trackback to your post Valeria, because for the second time in the past year I received a Starbucks surprise, both targeted and made for (by) me.

[Lewis Green]

Damn. For three months I have not been able to trackback to other Typepad accounts. Typepad only response is that they are working on it. Here's the link to The Starbucks Surprise: http://lgbusinesssolutions.typepad.com/solutions_to_grow_your_bu/2007/08/the-starbucks-s.html

[Valeria Maltoni]

Lewis,

How do you see personal online? Your case as my comment to you is an example of physical stuff showing up in your mailbox. How could something delight us the same way online?

[Vera]

Hi Valeria,

I personally think that we're quite a long way from real personalization, which I posted about in more detail a couple of days ago.

If by 'made by you' you mean that the consumer is enabled and incentivized to create their own profile, say for their favorite retailers and in exchange for some specific incentive, then I do believe that's an approach worth considering, providing it truly does mean sharing personal data control with those consumers.

Vera

[Mark Goren]

"Which is better: targeted to you or made by you?"

Depends what "targeted to you" means, because it can be interpreted differently.

It could mean, "targeted at you", which is no way to talk to someone.

"Targeted with you in mind" – better, because it recognizes my needs, wants, etc.

Are these two interpretations the difference between what a traditional agency tries to do vs. what an agency like Digitas is trying to do? In my opinion, "with you in mind" is more relevant every time.

"Made by you"? A different strategy altogether – or dumb luck, depending on the circumstances. And that's where I agree with you and Cam – a combination of "with you in mind" and "made by you" is probably where you'd like to be as a brand.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Vera -- the data control is one issue everyone is watching. When cashiers ask me for my zip code or phone number I usually push back. No, I'm not going to give it to you (they have it anyway with the credit card info) because you will give me no value in return *and* I have no idea of how secure your data is. Are you in compliance? Visa just put in place a merchant compliance system that would go a better way to ensure our data is safer.

Mark -- definitions, yes. I meant created for you rather than by you. Combinations are a good idea, like pull and push. Smart combination like with me and by me are even better ;-) Thank you for stopping by.

[gmttzy]

Nice site.. Wishing you a Happy Sunday! Keep the articles coming!