Don’t Blame Personalization After Messing It Up

In late 2019, Gartner predicted “80% of marketers who have invested in personalization efforts will abandon them by 2025 because of lack of ROI, the peril of customer data, or both.” But before giving up because the first few rounds didn’t pay off, shouldn’t marketers stop and think about what could have gone wrong?

personalization efforts

In late 2019, Gartner predicted “80% of marketers who have invested in personalization efforts will abandon them by 2025 because of lack of ROI, the peril of customer data, or both.” Interesting that I started my last article quoting only about 20% of analytics works are properly applied to businesses. What is this, some 80/20 hell for marketers?

Nonetheless, the stat that I shared here begs for further questioning, especially the ROI part. Why do so many marketers think that ROI isn’t there? Simply, ROI doesn’t look good when:

  1. You invested too much money (the denominator of the ROI equation), and
  2. The investment didn’t pay off (the numerator of the same).

Many companies must have spent large sums of money on teams of specialists and service providers, data platforms featuring customer 360, personalization software (on the delivery side), analytics work for developing segments and personas, third-party data, plus the maintenance cost of it all. To justify the cost, some marginal improvements here and there wouldn’t cut it.

Then, there are attribution challenges even when there are returns. Allocating credit among all the things that marketers do isn’t very simple, especially in multichannel environments. To knock CEOs and CFOs off their chairs – basically the bottom-line people, not math or data geeks – the “credited” results should look pretty darn good. Nothing succeeds like success.

After all, isn’t that why marketers jumped onto this personalization bandwagon in the first place? For some big payoff? Wasn’t it routinely quoted that, when done right, 1:1 personalization efforts could pay off 20 times over the investment?

Alas, the key phrase here was “when done right,” while most were fixated on the dollar signs. Furthermore, personalization is a team sport, and it’s a long-term game.  You will never see that 20x return just because you bought some personalization engine and turned the default setting on.

If history taught us anything, any game that could pay off so well can’t be that simple. There are lots of in-between steps that could go wrong. Too bad that yet another buzzword is about to go down as a failure, when marketers didn’t play the game right and the word was heavily abused.

But before giving it all up just because the first few rounds didn’t pay off so well, shouldn’t marketers stop and think about what could have gone so wrong with their personalization efforts?

Most Personalization Efforts Are Reactive

If you look at so-called “personalized” messages from the customer’s point of view, most of them are just annoying. You’d say, “Are they trying to annoy me personally?”

Unfortunately, successful personalization efforts of the present day is more about pushing products to customers, as in “If you bought this, you must want that too!” When you treat your customers as mere extensions of their last purchase, it doesn’t look very personal, does it?

Ok, I know that I coveted some expensive electric guitars last time I visited a site, but must I get reminded of that visit every little turn I make on the web, even “outside” the site in question?

I am the sum of many other behaviors and interests – and you have all the clues in your database – not a hollow representation of the last click or the last purchase.  In my opinion, such one-dimensional personalization efforts ruined the term.

Personalization must be about the person, not product, brands, or channels.

Personalization Tactics Are Often Done Sporadically, Not Consistently

Reactive personalization can only be done when there is a trigger, such as someone visiting a site, browsing an item for a while, putting it in a basket without checking out, clicking some link, etc. Other than the annoyance factor I’ve already mentioned, such reactive personalization is quite limited in scale. Basically, you can’t do a damn thing if there is no trigger data coming in.

The result? You end up annoying the heck out of the poor souls who left any trail – not the vast majority for sure – and leave the rest outside the personalization universe.

Now, a 1:1 marketing effort is a number’s game. If you don’t have a large base to reach, you cannot make significant differences even with a great response rate.

So, how would you get out of that “known-data-only” trap? Venture into the worlds of “unknowns,” and convert them into “high potential opportunities” using modeling techniques. We may not know for sure if a particular target is interested in purchasing high-end home electronics, but we can certainly calculate the probability of it using all the data that we have on him.

This practice alone will increase the target base from a few percentage points to 100% coverage, as model scores can be put on every record. Now you can consistently personalize messages at a much larger scale. That will certainly help with your bottom-line, as more will see your personalized messages in the first place.

But It’s Too Creepy

Privacy concerns are for real. Many consumers are scared of know-it-all marketers, on top of being annoyed by incessant bombardments of impersonal messages; yet another undesirable side effect of heavy reliance on “known” data. Because to know for sure, you have to monitor every breath they take and every move they make.

Now, there is another added bonus of sharing data in the form of model scores. Even the most aggressive users (i.e., marketers) wouldn’t act like they actually “know” the target when all they have is a probability. When the information is given to them, like “This target is 70% likely to be interested in children’s education products,” no one would come out and say “I know you are interested in children’s education products. So, buy this!”

The key in modern day marketing is a gentle nudge, not a hard sell. Build many personas – because consumers are interested in many different things – and kindly usher them to categories that they are “highly likely” to be interested in.

Too Many Initiatives Are Set on Auto-Pilot

People can smell machines from miles away. I think humans will be able to smell the coldness of a machine even when most AIs will have passed the famous Turing Test (Definition: a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human).

In the present day, detecting a machine pushing particular products is even easier than detecting a call-center operator sitting in a foreign country (not that there is anything wrong about that).

On top of that, machines are only as versatile as we set them up to be. So, don’t fall for some sales pitch that a machine can automatically personalize every message utilizing all available data. You may end up with some rudimentary personalization efforts barely superior to basic collaborative filtering, mindlessly listing all related products to what the target just clicked, viewed, or purchased.

Such efforts, of course, would be better than nothing.  For some time.  But remember that the goal is to “wow” your target customers and your bosses. Do not settle for some default settings of campaign or analytics toolsets.

Important Factors Are Ignored

When most investments are sunk in platforms, engines, and toolsets, only a little are left for tweaking, maintenance, and expansion. As all businesses are unique (even in similar industries), the last mile effort for custom fitting often makes or breaks the project. At times, unfortunately, even big items such as analytics and content libraries for digital asset management get to be ignored.

Even through a state-of-the-art AI engine, refined data works better than raw data. Your personalization efforts will fail if there aren’t enough digital assets to rotate through, even with a long list of personas and segments for everyone in the database. Basically, can you show different contents for different personas at different occasions through different media?

Data, analytics, contents, and display technologies must work harmoniously for high level personalization to work.

So What Now?

It would be a real shame if marketers hastily move away from personalization efforts when sophistication level is still elementary for the most.

Maybe we need a new word to describe the effort to pamper customers with suitable products, services and offers. Regardless of what we would call it, staying relevant to your customer is not just an option anymore. Because if you don’t, your message will categorically be dismissed as yet another annoying marketing message.

 

Author: Stephen H. Yu

Stephen H. Yu is a world-class database marketer. He has a proven track record in comprehensive strategic planning and tactical execution, effectively bridging the gap between the marketing and technology world with a balanced view obtained from more than 30 years of experience in best practices of database marketing. Currently, Yu is president and chief consultant at Willow Data Strategy. Previously, he was the head of analytics and insights at eClerx, and VP, Data Strategy & Analytics at Infogroup. Prior to that, Yu was the founding CTO of I-Behavior Inc., which pioneered the use of SKU-level behavioral data. “As a long-time data player with plenty of battle experiences, I would like to share my thoughts and knowledge that I obtained from being a bridge person between the marketing world and the technology world. In the end, data and analytics are just tools for decision-makers; let’s think about what we should be (or shouldn’t be) doing with them first. And the tools must be wielded properly to meet the goals, so let me share some useful tricks in database design, data refinement process and analytics.” Reach him at stephen.yu@willowdatastrategy.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *