|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9/30/2009Posted by Mike Brzozowski, Executive Director of CRM, Draftfcb New York
Today’s New York Times article by Stephanie Clifford caught my eye this morning and is bound to be a hot topic in the advertising community as data and analytics have become increasingly important in delivering effective campaigns for clients.
While the study has yet to be released, I did have a few thoughts that were front and center that I wanted to share. Of course, more to come once the actual study has been released and I can read and digest it.
- This study's findings does not mean the end of behavioral targeting. In fact, it validates a core principal about customer management which is -- always be transparent with the use of customer data. Everyone's talking about transparency but few practice it to the fullest extent -- this study is telling us it's time to walk the talk.
- Privacy Rules need to go beyond descriptions of how brands will use customer data to being POVs about how they will interact with their customers with assurances that consumer data is the consumers' property and they hold all the rights to how it's used -- it's more a philosophy or statement of principles if you will.
- There's a difference between "Explicit" and "Implicit" profiling. It appears that consumers are reacting negatively to Implicit profiling, where brands are tracking them as they surf and serving up targeted messages based on that surfing behavior. I think consumers feel that being watched without their knowledge can feel scary and a violation of privacy, especially since they didn't give explicit permission for this activity. Yet everyone wants offers and information that is relevant to them. So how do we balance these conflicting forces?
- To me this speaks to the need to go back to a principle Seth Godin spoke about back in 1999 -- "Permission" Marketing. Permission marketing is "explicit" profiling. If the consumer tells a brand they want XYZ and you give them XYZ there are few consumers who have a problem with this. In fact there's a quote in the New York Times article stating that 51% of respondents said tailored discounts were OK. I think this study is telling marketers that targeting relevant offers and information is still important to consumers. It's the way we go about serving up relevant offers and information that they have an issue with. So relevance needs to be balanced with privacy needs. Hence the focus on Explicit profiling. Explicit profiling relies on an ancient form of human communication -- It's called "dialogue & conversation"!
- Dialogue is something marketers are woefully poor at. Many would rather "Talk at" consumers and hide behind statistical models than engage consumers in a dialogue about what they want, like and dislike. It's strange, because marketers ask consumers what they like all the time in research, but when we launch marketing campaigns, it's mostly about getting "OUR" message out, not listening in real-time to feedback.
- Dialogue is also important because it builds trust and trust will be the new currency in marketing effectiveness in the real-time environment of the web and social media. Marketers may want to spend more time with their colleagues in customer service to learn these dialogue and listening skills.
- Consumers also want control of the behavioral data that is collected about them. Why not? It proves to consumers that a brand's transparency policy is truthful and how can it not build trust between the brand and the consumer?
- Finally, marketers need to get out ahead of this issue now rather than wait for legislation to tell us what we can or cannot do. Chances are that outcome will result in throw ing the baby out with the bath water!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|