Just the sheer sound of the phrase sounds repugnant. Targeting? Like I’m some sort of wild game to be hunted down. No. Not hunting ME down, that would be too personal. It’s my behavior. From an article today on Mashable:
Data points amass as you click your way from site to site, taking note of what you buy, what you read and what you search for. The more time goes on, the more data is collected.
Data collection, in itself, is not an awful thing. As the article states, it can be quite useful for personalizing one’s web experience. It helps us filter out stuff that we probably aren’t interested in and increases the chance of discovering cool, new stuff. But the part of this I’m not so down with is the one-sidedness of this relationship. Since when should we be cut out of the process? Didn’t the advent of the web allow for some sort of customer say…or even participation in this process?
Yes. The web, unlike media the previously existed like television and radio, allows for TWO-WAY communication. Even as TV has allowed for more control from the user (DVR, TiVO, etc) it’s still, essentially, a one-way medium. Content is produced by someone and the ‘watcher’ chooses what he/she wants to consume. The way we, as consumers, influence the programming is indirect – through what we choose to watch. A show survives based on large numbers. One of my favorite programs of all time – Arrested Development – didn’t survive this test because it didn’t reach a mass market, yet amongst my group of friends, it is incredibly popular. TV works in mass numbers, so it was canceled, but on the web, AD would have found a permanent home in a strong, vocal niche.
Q. So…why are advertisers looking at an incredibly personal medium (the web) through a mass market (television) lens?
A. Because they still don’t understand how to unlock the powerful potential of the web…by putting the consumer in the driver’s seat!
Q. And why can’t they wrap their heads around this idea?
A. Because being in control and the center of attention is a very difficult thing to let go of.
It’s really very simple and very complicated at the same time. Behavioral targeting is the practice of still trying to guess at what a person desires by gathering more and more information on them and trying to get smarter about it, then serving up answers based on that guesswork.
If I was to put this in a relationship metaphor, I’d say it was like being a stalker. You sit on the sidelines watching a person intently through your own fantasy lens and thinking you know them you create a fantasy world that suits YOUR needs for them. You objectify the person. This rarely works as a relationship tactic.
What would be better is to have some conversations and get to know one another a bit better. Figure out if you ‘fit’. Ask questions about what he/she wants from a relationship and life. Understand him/her for what he/she is and what he/she wants. As you get to know one another, you bond and figure out how to make one another happy.
As you know by being a Buyospherian (or thinking about it), we are trying to achieve the latter type of relationship between customers and brands. A two-way relationship. The ability for consumers to ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THEY WANT instead of some robot spider algorithm behaviorally targeting us based on bits and bobs of our digital trails. A way for us to:
- TALK BACK
- KNOW WHAT WE’RE SAYING (and edit it if we don’t agree)
- KNOW WHO WE’RE SAYING IT TO
- MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS BASED ON MEANINGFUL CONNECTIONS AND CLEARER CHOICES
That’s it. And that starts with the individual consumer having control and insight into THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR. Not a bunch of robots guessing and projecting. That’s inefficient and, frankly, creepy.
We want our cookies and to eat them, too. 
