Is Persona-based Targeting Bad?

Is persona-based targeting bad?

‘Persona based targeting may miss the mark’ and ‘what if there are negative consequences of targeted marketing’? How do we avoid this?

Written by Nick Crawford, member of the DMA Email Council and Director and Principal consultant at Twist Consultancy.

Will you use your super powers for good or evil?

The goal of modern marketing is to be as relevant as possible to your audience. However that audience is made up of multiple groups so how best do you understand what’s relevant to each of these smaller sets different.

What I need to know as a prospect is different from a multiple user. Booking a trip for a family is very different than booking for work. Similarly from a contextual perspective, how frustrating is it to receive an offer days after making a purchase for the same item.

Clearly the answer is to profile and then segment these groups. Enabling us marketeers to create an engaging and useful message based on a clearly relevant core offering.

But how about if a bookmaker profiles and then creates segments based on those most likely to want to increase the value or regularity of betting? Or a brewery targets regular drinkers to promote an offer based on drinking even more often. Is this wrong. Is there a corporate responsibility to factor into this process? Does this make targeting a bad thing?

Coupled with this is the ability in direct marketing to increase the frequency of messaging, which in itself can be seen as intrusive or at worst harassment. And it’s a small step from targeting to predictive marketing. Do you want to be prompted about your pregnancy, based on a change in basket items, before you’re ready to share this news?

When you consider these approaches, then perhaps targeting should not be employed as a marketing technique. However, the overwhelming consensus from the Email Council was that targeting based on persona profiling was not in itself a bad thing, but that there is a corporate responsibility in how it is used.

Very simply, is the marketing approach to the benefit of the reader?

Sounds very much like a legitimate intertest balancing test consideration right? And GDPR has definitely helped shine a spotlight on how data is used for good and bad. So perhaps we should use some of these questions to measure the fairness of our approach. Edited from the ICO guidance:

• Is any of the data particularly sensitive or private?
• Would people expect you to use their data in this way?
• Are you happy to explain it to them?
• Are some people likely to object or find it intrusive?
• What is the possible impact (and how big is this) on the individual?
• Are any of the individuals vulnerable in any other way?

A brand is not responsible for the actions of an individual, but should take responsibility for the motivation behind their proposition and approach.

In fact, this governance could lead to profiling and segmentation being used to create a suppression of some content to some of a brands audience.

Profile smartly, be mindful of using a single data point. After all, just because I bought a ‘Hello Kitty’ duvet cover (as a gift) previously, doesn’t mean I want more of the same. As consumers we all know that the one thing worse than no personalisation, is bad personalisation.

If we continue the theme of balance, then any approach should work equally for both recipient and sender. Which means that sometimes too much familiarity from a brand can disengage and so be detrimental to all. A pet insurance company sending an email personalised to your breed of pet increases engagement. An email personalised with your pet’s name, may be a step too far in reader comfort. Though not a sinister intent, sometimes just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

In conclusion…

Our aim as great marketers is to engage through relevance. Profiling and segmentation enable this relevance from personalisation.

Yes this approach is open to abuse, but if used smartly and with the customers best interest (and so to the brands shared success) it is a power for good. A view shared by the Email Council majority.