What is to blame for our obsession with targeting?

  by Nigel Hollis

In a recent point of view on Campaign, Rory Sutherland discusses the origins of our “targeting-obsessed scientism” which leads us to focus on ad delivery to the exception of anything else like creative or the recipient’s mindset. Rory calls out Silicon Valley for tricking advertisers, but is this single-minded focus really just the fault of the tech companies?

Rory’s basic proposition is that tech has automated one element of the marketing process but failed to consider the other elements that ultimately make advertising effective. He states,

“By deluding everyone that the whole of advertising is reducible to “the efficient and inexpensive delivery of targeted messages” through the extensive use of data and algorithms, two companies have gained a multi-billion-dollar rent-seeking monopoly over the majority of advertising activity.”

But is it all the tech companies fault? They have automated the one aspect of the advertising process over which they have direct control. We, the marketers, are the ones that have happily defaulted to making ad delivery the apparent be-all and end-all of marketing practice.

And why is that? Is it because most marketers do not actually understand how advertising works? Do they not understand that content and audience mindset matter? I hope not.

My suspicion is that convenient metrics are to blame. Marketers are being asked to prove that they are being effective, and the digital ecosystem provides a host of easy metrics which give the impression of effectiveness even if the likely financial impact is minimal. How often have I seen a 50 percent increase touted as a sign of effectiveness only to find it was an increase in impressions or a click through rate so low as to be laughable?

A couple of weeks ago I posted about the disturbing trends coming out of WARC’s review of the Cannes Effectiveness Lions  where the judges called out entries that sought to use metrics like impressions as proof of effectiveness. As the report noted, you would think that when entering to win an effectiveness award you might want to include some real measures of effectiveness to support your case. You know, like an increase in market share or, better yet, modeling that quantified the impact of the marketing activity.

Ultimately, I suppose it does not matter whether a lopsided focus on ad delivery is caused by tech companies or convenience metrics, the result is the same. Too many ad campaigns waste precious marketing resource with minimal results. But what do you think? Is tech or data to blame for our fixation on ad delivery and does it matter?