As a marketing strategist, nothing bugs me as much as clients who don’t--or won’t--test.
I have yet to meet a veteran marketer (or to read an article by one) who does not espouse testing for addressable communications as a blanket concept. I have yet to hear a marketer who’s employed testing for email, on-site messages or catalogs tell me that he or she didn’t learn anything. Yet, even among some of the most sophisticated clients, testing remains terra incognita.
There seem to be two main reasons for not testing. Thankfully, simple reasoning can undo either of them.
Above the line marketing. Below the line marketing. Why is there a line in the first place? Translinear explores what would happen if direct, interactive, social and brand marketers cooperated more closely.
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2012
Monday, July 9, 2012
The Unified Field Theory of Creepy
When marketers discuss using consumer data to drive content or offers in addressable communications such as email, apps or on-site messages, sooner or later the word “creepy” comes up. Front-and-center stand such examples as the New York Times’s infamous “father learns of daughter’s pregnancy via direct mail” article.
However, even ordinary consumers in ordinary situations may feel that a marketer has violated some form of privacy when it reveals too much about what it knows in an email or SMS.
However, even ordinary consumers in ordinary situations may feel that a marketer has violated some form of privacy when it reveals too much about what it knows in an email or SMS.
My former colleague Tim Suther used to use this image as a prime example of when marketers use data that they shouldn’t
We all agree that we want to avoid creepiness, but I don’t think we marketers, as a group, have established a working definition of creepy. While no one would deny the creepiness of the lubricant example above, would an offer for sports equipment or kitchenware have raised an eyebrow? How can we create a standard for what kinds of data are off-limits?
In another dimension--time--how long can a marketer hold onto data without looking like a stalker? I suspect that most consumers wouldn’t think twice about seeing items browsed the previous day in the “recently browsed items” column of a retail site. However, would that customer look askance at the column if it featured something browsed a month ago? Three months ago? A year?
My favorite football columnist, Gregg Easterbrook, has coined the term “the Unified Field Theory of Creep” to parody the tendency of retailers to move all holidays forward, such as when Target puts out back-to-school merchandise in early July. So I suggest, ladies and gentlemen, a Unified Field Theory of Creepy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)