Targeting & Relevance Abuse
Ok…it’s like this.
Stop abusing the terms targeting and relevance.
Almost every player in the advertising and marketing arena claims that they focus targeting and relevance.
These are the buzz words of the day.
Honestly, I am gonna call it each time I see these terms abused now. Sorry but my hand is going up if your on stage and this abuse is taking place.
It’s gone too far.
Companies like Blyk have highlighted this is what it should be about.
It’s not enough just to use the terms.
Like Blyk tries to do – you actually have to use the methodology – just moving in this direction is success in itself.
At least its pushing the agenda toward the way things will be.
Reports of the demise of such approaches are solely claimed by those with who fear that knowing consumers will mean asking them their opinion…..and that sounds complicated right?
Far easier to damn something and hope it goes away than to admit that your own business is fundamentally screwed.
I think we live in an age where the term targeting is being abused so frequently it will eventually not be trusted by people.
Then, a disruptive company or 3 will show exactly what targeting is and gradually dilute budget from anything that used to be termed as targeted. It blatantly isn’t and one day it will be known it blatantly wasn’t.
I mean really….I am on a car site so you think I want a car advert?
Why?
I am on a car site researching for my dad who cannot use a computer where he is.
I am into skateboards – I don’t care for cars.. How would you know that if you didn’t ask?
Oh – plus I don’t like commercial communication via banners, I want it via messaging. But how would you know that if you didn’t ask?
I am just one of the 95%+ who don’t engage but I WOULD IF YOU GAVE ME THE CHANCE.
Irony is, I would be way more valuable if you sold my inventory as per message rather than as a CPM. But hey ho – its only my experience at stake I guess….just the lowly consumer…last in the ‘value chain’ or whatever you call it.
–
I do not accept that relevance can be claimed if 99% of people do not find something relevant.
I do not accept that targeting can be claimed if assumptions are being made that infer information from questionable sources with limited accuracy. ‘Close enough’ just aint. Sorry.
My concern is that the advertising industry will try and ‘get away with’ this loose definition of targeting and relevance and destroy consumer trust even more. In tandem, marketing makes its way toward the most personal devices ever known.
Can you see it yet?
For Mobile Networks, this will encourage churn and CMOs will realise (eventually) that consumers see their brand as spammers.
Sure – these models may ‘work’ (yeah right..) for the next year but we simply cannot use our feeling that people will tolerate stuff to justify a lower need of extreme relevance and extreme targeting.
This extreme level is the lowest level I believe we need to aim for when talking about mobile devices.
Wanna know when the ‘year for mobile is’ and why it hasn’t happened yet?
Because we haven’t figured out the above is fundamental to mobile marketing working.
The ‘year for mobile’ will be the year that advertisers en masse pull budget from channels which upset consumers.
The ‘year for mobile’ will be when we collectively see blind or (I hate this term) semi-targeted adverts tanking.
Extreme personalisation for extremely personal devices is where we need to point toward.
Let’s set that as a communication ideal. Why not? Scared of failing? No such thing – push the curve. People say your crazy? Change the people around you or change the people around you.
Do it. Now.
The public deserve it.
The industry deserves it.
You deserve it.
Jonathan hi, you make several good points… about abuse of terms… loose definitions… personal mobile devices… you always make good points
.
However.
Targeting for mobile ads is not necessarily based on information from “questionable sources.” Mobile carriers worldwide are their own very dependable source and they have within their databases a plethora of “relevant” information. This data is currently ignored when it comes to mobile advertising, it’s wasted: info about location, about the subscriber’s gender and age. And lots more.
If you’re on a car site, you may indeed not be interested in cars but 9 out of 10 people on car sites are interested in them. If you’re the one guy who saw a car ad when in truth you can’t drive and go around everywhere on your skateboard then you clearly won’t click on it. Most people don’t click on ads even if they are well targeted, they’re on various sites for the content not the advertising. But if some of the 9 people who are interested in cars see our car ad, they will be more likely to click on it than others. And they’ll raise clickthrough rates. And it’ll be a win-win proposition.
As for asking people what they want… that’s a costly process. And many people don’t want to answer. And at Blyk it is offered in exchange for airtime. Most carriers can’t afford to offer discounted rates on voice and data as an incentive for targeted mobile ads because there isn’t enough money in mobile advertising to cover their investment. I hope Blyk grows and prospers and lives long but the numbers behind its value prop aren’t simple.
Finally yes, the mobile is a personal device, but it’s not private and it’s far from being perfect. These are early days and like you say, we do not want to destroy consumer trust. I also agree with you that extreme personalization for extremely personal devices is the way forward. However that does mean trying to use the very basic info every subscriber hands over when he or she buys a new SIM card.
Completely agree on the usage of existing information point. Info handed over at purchase is a great start.
On the other stuff though – I can't help but wondering whether or not this banner+click-thru rate thing is scalable as the primary use of the world's best communication device.
I wonder whether brands would like to join the conversation with people – and whether people would like to talk with brands.
I wonder whether the 9 in 10 that find the car ad relevant (your figures) want to see a car advert even if it fits their hobby.
I wonder whether the people that do not click are actually showing a preference in that (in)action.
Asking people what they want doesn't need to be costly in every case.
I wonder that if people are being asked for information – why not ask for different information?
Even if it were costly, I wonder whether there is such a thing as a revenue stream that is free to unlock.
I think the information carriers have is incredibly useful – especially is it can be accessed, assimilated and translated into inventory for advertisers. So long as:
1. It is 100% accurate
2. The parts that are used is permitted by the customer
3. The format the advertising takes is demanded by the customer
If all 3 are in place I think it is very positive and I fully support it.
The interactive capability of mobile devices however, may offer more than the reach and frequency, display-type advertising we find easier to understand.
If there is more – I wonder whether the rules of monetisation may need to be enhanced by emotional principles such as the ones I outline.
And that….is the point.
Daniella – you are now an editor of The Communication Ideal (if you wish to be)
Check your email
Rocking as usual Jonathan! The post would be comical if it weren't so critical. The industry has to be careful about what is promises here, and you – as usual
– are one of the very few pointing this out. But there is another problem: ad agencies aren't created to micro-segment in the first place (even though the technology is coming online to deliver – I won't use “relevant”! – brand messages individuals are more likely to appreciate…
Hey Peggy
I think we need to fundamentally mature what the agencies do – change is a good thing and I reckon that there will be a natural evolution toward the proposed way forward (well, I hope anyway)…
See you later