BEARNE ON MEDIA
Behavioural targeting needs to raise its game
Share
Behavioural targeting is a multi-million-pound industry, so why, when there’s so much data available about me, do I see so much irrelevant advertising?
At last week’s IAB Engage event, new media age editor Justin Pearse asked panellists why he’s served so much advertising obviously not based on his behaviour.
The answer wasn’t totally satisfactory, with Specific Media’s UK VP Ian Dowds saying, “Some say that with behavioural targeting you’ll get the nirvana of never seeing another irrelevant ad again. That isn’t the case.”
But with so much data about me available and patterns surely showing I like researching restaurants, looking for travel deals and finding cheap rail fares to the North, I rarely see ads based on my behaviour.
When so many publishers work with a behavioural targeting specialist and the likes of Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL have their own behavioural technology, why is so little of their inventory targeted at me?
Instead I’m inundated with ads to get dental surgery, credit scoring or the latest car model, none of which reflects my online behaviour.
Of course, not every campaign includes behavioural targeting in the media plan nor has every publisher embraced the technology. But I’m still surprised that in 2009, when the ad format is far from new, it still seems like early days for the technology.
Explanations for why the it hasn’t fully taken off could include advertisers cutting spend, lack of knowledge within media agencies and privacy concerns over controversial ISP-based technologies.
Another reason could be lack of research on the technology, because when The Guardian’s business development manager Neil Dulake and Specific Media’s Dowds spoke at Engage about successful targeting campaigns with their clients, they were examples I’d heard before.
It’s embarrassing that when behavioural targeting experts have such a platform to promote the technology, they use rehashed campaigns. Surely they could have provided more recent and different examples?
With online advertising set to grow by over 7% in 2010, according to EIAA research this week, the industry needs to shape up to persuade marketers to increase spend on more targeted advertising.
Ratings of the Top 100 interactive agencies
Directory of all Marketing Services companies
Readers' comments (5)
Joanna | Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:58 pm
I wish that we could ban all irrelevant advertising from tv but that would be impossible as what is irrelevant to me is relevant to other people. there is no way to satisfy all audiences. The journey to do this may be through universal and nowadays homogenized usage of social networking sites. But do we really want agencies do use the information we share with our friends to target us for products? do we really want to be part of endless databases that state our hobbies, our aspirations and our wants? this may seem a bit harmless in the near future but there is a very thin line between peoples' privacy and the info in their facebook account. isn't it a bit dangerous to have access to this information? and what are the boundaries..? furthermore isn't this exploitation having in mind that this info is for friends? How do agencies plan to do this without violating peoples rights?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 17 Nov 2009 1:17 pm
Was creative build and application not discussed in any part of this? Your report 'complains' that even with masses of data you are still not served relevant adverts - perhaps it's a disconnect between what targeting is available online and creative agencies / advertisers application of these options. Heightened targeting needs likewise heightened application, or in terms of relevancy specific/dynamic messaging.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 17 Nov 2009 2:09 pm
I think the relentless focus on relevance isn't everything. Only a fraction of people who see a car ad go on to buy that car - but everyone who sees a car has a perception of it which has been shaped to a greater or lesser extent by advertising. That's branding. The digital sector's obsession with relevance seems to overlook how brands are built - and then we turn around and moan that we get so little brand spend.
And is this purely a problem of technology? It's also to do with advertiser sentiment. No behavioural technology can serve up relevant ads if brands themselves aren't supplying the inventory.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Marks | Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:20 pm
Part of the problem is the technology and how it is implemented. Just because you visit a certain type of site it doesn't necessarily mean you are in the market for associated products.
If I visit a car website there may be a 50% chance I'm in the market for insurance. If I've just bought a car the relvance increases considerably.
The most accurate guage of your lifestyle is what you buy, not where you visit or what you talk about.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 18 Nov 2009 5:05 pm
Yes but by the same token your lifestyle is not wholly about buying things. I agree that what you buy is, in the final analysis, the best gauge of your lifestyle, if you adhere to the principle that you spend money on what matter s to you. But that's not the be all and end all. People are not in a permanently transactional mode while they consume media. Does advertising doesn't have to be directly relevant to you every single moment of the day?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment