Data Deep Dive: The Art of Targeting

Even if you own a sniper rifle (and I’m not judging), if you aim at the wrong place, you will never hit the target. Obvious, right? But that happens all the time in the world of marketing, even when advanced analytics and predictive modeling techniques are routinely employed. How is that possible? Well, the marketing world is not like an Army shooting range where the silhouette of the target is conveniently hung at the predetermined location, but it is more like the “Twilight Zone,” where things are not what they seem. Marketers who failed to hit the real target often blame the guns, which in this case are targeting tools, such as models and segmentations. But let me ask, was the target properly defined in the first place?

Even if you own a sniper rifle (and I’m not judging), if you aim at the wrong place, you will never hit the target. Obvious, right? But that happens all the time in the world of marketing, even when advanced analytics and predictive modeling techniques are routinely employed. How is that possible? Well, the marketing world is not like an Army shooting range where the silhouette of the target is conveniently hung at the predetermined location, but it is more like the “Twilight Zone,” where things are not what they seem. Marketers who failed to hit the real target often blame the guns, which in this case are targeting tools, such as models and segmentations. But let me ask, was the target properly defined in the first place?

In my previous columns, I talked about the importance of predictive analytics in modern marketing (refer to “Why Model?”) for various reasons, such as targeting accuracy, consistency, deeper use of data, and most importantly in the age of Big Data, concise nature of model scores where tons of data are packed into ready-for-use formats. Now, even the marketers who bought into these ideas often make mistakes by relinquishing the important duty of target definition solely to analysts and statisticians, who do not necessarily possess the power to read the marketers’ minds. Targeting is often called “half-art and half-science.” And it should be looked at from multiple angles, starting with the marketer’s point of view. Therefore, even marketers who are slightly (or, in many cases, severely) allergic to mathematics should come one step closer to the world of analytics and modeling. Don’t be too scared, as I am not asking you to be a rifle designer or sniper here; I am only talking about hanging the target in the right place so that others can shoot at it.

Let us start by reviewing what statistical models are: A model is a mathematical expression of “differences” between dichotomous groups; which, in marketing, are often referred to as “targets” and “non-targets.” Let’s say a marketer wants to target “high-value customers.” To build a model to describe such targets, we also need to define “non-high-value customers,” as well. In marketing, popular targets are often expressed as “repeat buyers,” “responders to certain campaigns,” “big-time spenders,” “long-term, high-value customers,” “troubled customers,” etc. for specific products and channels. Now, for all those targets, we also need to define “bizarro” or “anti-” versions of them. One may think that they are just the “remainders” of the target. But, unfortunately, it is not that simple; the definition of the whole universe should be set first to even bring up the concept of the remainders. In many cases, defining “non-buyers” is much more difficult than defining “buyers,” because lack of purchase information does not guarantee that the individual in question is indeed a non-buyer. Maybe the data collection was never complete. Maybe he used a different channel to respond. Maybe his wife bought the item for him. Maybe you don’t have access to the entire pool of names that represent the “universe.”

Remember T, C, & M
That is why we need to examine the following three elements carefully when discussing statistical models with marketers who are not necessarily statisticians:

  1. Target,
  2. Comparison Universe, and
  3. Methodology.

I call them “TCM” in short, so that I don’t leave out any element in exploratory conversations. Defining proper target is the obvious first step. Defining and obtaining data for the comparison universe is equally important, but it could be challenging. But without it, you’d have nothing against which you compare the target. Again, a model is an algorithm that expresses differences between two non-overlapping groups. So, yes, you need both Superman and Bizarro-Superman (who always seems more elusive than his counterpart). And that one important variable that differentiates the target and non-target is called “Dependent Variable” in modeling.

The third element in our discussion is the methodology. I am sure you may have heard of terms like logistic regression, stepwise regression, neural net, decision trees, CHAID analysis, genetic algorithm, etc., etc. Here is my advice to marketers and end-users:

  • State your goals and usages cases clearly, and let the analyst pick proper methodology that suites your goals.
  • Don’t be a bad patient who walks into a doctor’s office demanding a specific prescription before the doctor even examines you.

Besides, for all intents and purposes, the methodology itself matters the least in comparison with an erroneously defined target and the comparison universes. Differences in methodologies are often measured in fractions. A combination of a wrong target and wrong universe definition ends up as a shotgun, if not an artillery barrage. That doesn’t sound so precise, does it? We should be talking about a sniper rifle here.

Clear Goals Leading to Definitions of Target and Comparison
So, let’s roll up our sleeves and dig deeper into defining targets. Allow me to use an example, as you will be able to picture the process better that way. Let’s just say that, for general marketing purposes, you want to build a model targeting “frequent flyers.” One may ask for business or for pleasure, but let’s just say that such data are hard to obtain at this moment. (Finding the “reasons” is always much more difficult than counting the number of transactions.) And it was collectively decided that it would be just beneficial to know who is more likely to be a frequent flyer, in general. Such knowledge could be very useful for many applications, not just for the travel industry, but for other affiliated services, such as credit cards or publications. Plus, analytics is about making the best of what you’ve got, not waiting for some perfect datasets.

Now, here is the first challenge:

  • When it comes to flying, how frequent is frequent enough for you? Five times a year, 10 times, 20 times or even more?
  • Over how many years?
  • Would you consider actual miles traveled, or just number of issued tickets?
  • How large are the audiences in those brackets?

If you decided that five times a year is a not-so-big or not-so-small target (yes, sizes do matter) that also fits the goal of the model (you don’t want to target only super-elites, as they could be too rare or too distinct, almost like outliers), to whom are they going to be compared? Everyone who flew less than five times last year? How about people who didn’t fly at all last year?

Actually, one option is to compare people who flew more than five times against people who didn’t fly at all last year, but wouldn’t that model be too much like a plain “flyer” model? Or, will that option provide more vivid distinction among the general population? Or, one analyst may raise her hand and say “to hell with all these breaks and let’s just build a model using the number of times flown last year as the continuous target.” The crazy part is this: None of these options are right or wrong, but each combination of target and comparison will certainly yield very different-looking models.

Then what should a marketer do in a situation like this? Again, clearly state the goal and what is more important to you. If this is for general travel-related merchandizing, then the goal should be more about distinguishing more likely frequent flyers out of the general population; therefore, comparing five-plus flyers against non-flyers—ignoring the one-to-four-time flyers—makes sense. If this project is for an airline to target potential gold or platinum members, using people who don’t even fly as comparison makes little or no sense. Of course, in a situation like this, the analyst in charge (or data scientist, the way we refer to them these days), must come halfway and prescribe exactly what target and comparison definitions would be most effective for that particular user. That requires lots of preliminary data exploration, and it is not all science, but half art.

Now, if I may provide a shortcut in defining the comparison universe, just draw the representable sample from “the pool of names that are eligible for your marketing efforts.” The key word is “eligible” here. For example, many businesses operate within certain areas with certain restrictions or predetermined targeting criteria. It would make no sense to use the U.S. population sample for models for supermarket chains, telecommunications, or utility companies with designated footprints. If the business in question is selling female apparel items, first eliminate the male population from the comparison universe (but I’d leave “unknown” genders in the mix, so that the model can work its magic in that shady ground). You must remember, however, that all this means you need different models when you change the prospecting universe, even if the target definition remains unchanged. Because the model algorithm is the expression of the difference between T and C, you need a new model if you swap out the C part, even if you left the T alone.

Multiple Targets
Sometimes it gets twisted the other way around, where the comparison universe is relatively stable (i.e., your prospecting universe is stable) but there could be multiple targets (i.e., multiple Ts, like T1, T2, etc.) in your customer base.

Let me elaborate with a real-life example. A while back, we were helping a company that sells expensive auto accessories for luxury cars. The client, following his intuition, casually told us that he only cares for big spenders whose average order sizes are more than $300. Now, the trouble with this statement is that:

  1. Such a universe could be too small to be used effectively as a target for models, and
  2. High spenders do not tend to purchase often, so we may end up leaving out the majority of the potential target buyers in the whole process.

This is exactly why some type of customer profiling must precede the actual target definition. A series of simple distribution reports clearly revealed that this particular client was dealing with a dual-universe situation, where the first group (or segment) is made of infrequent, but high-dollar spenders whose average orders were even greater than $300, and the second group is made of very frequent buyers whose average order sizes are well below the $100 mark. If we had ignored this finding, or worse, neglected to run preliminary reports and just relying on our client’s wishful thinking, we would have created a “phantom” target, which is just an average of these dual universes. A model designed for such a phantom target will yield phantom results. The solution? If you find two distinct targets (as in T1 and T2), just bite the bullet and develop two separate models (T1 vs. C and T2 vs. C).

Multi-step Approach
There are still other reasons why you may need multiple models. Let’s talk about the case of “target within a target.” Some may relate this idea to a “drill-down” concept, and it can be very useful when the prospecting universe is very large, and the marketer is trying to reach only the top 1 percent (which can be still very large, if the pool contains hundreds of millions of people). Correctly finding the top 5 percent in any universe is difficult enough. So what I suggest in this case is to build two models in sequence to get to the “Best of the Best” in a stepwise fashion.

  • The first model would be more like an “elimination” model, where obviously not-so-desirable prospects would be removed from the process, and
  • The second-step model would be designed to go after the best prospects among survivors of the first step.

Again, models are expressions of differences between targets and non-targets, so if the first model eliminated the bottom 80 percent to 90 percent of the universe and leaves the rest as the new comparison universe, you need a separate model—for sure. And lots of interesting things happen at the later stage, where new variables start to show up in algorithms or important variables in the first step lose steam in later steps. While a bit cumbersome during deployment, the multi-step approach ensures precision targeting, much like a sniper rifle at close range.

I also suggest this type of multi-step process when clients are attempting to use the result of segmentation analysis as a selection tool. Segmentation techniques are useful as descriptive analytics. But as a targeting tool, they are just too much like a shotgun approach. It is one thing to describe groups of people such as “young working mothers,” “up-and-coming,” and “empty-nesters with big savings” and use them as references when carving out messages tailored toward them. But it is quite another to target such large groups as if the population within a particular segment is completely homogeneous in terms of susceptibility to specific offers or products. Surely, the difference between a Mercedes buyer and a Lexus buyer ain’t income and age, which may have been the main differentiator for segmentation. So, in the interest of maintaining a common theme throughout the marketing campaigns, I’d say such segments are good first steps. But for further precision targeting, you may need a model or two within each segment, depending on the size, channel to be employed and nature of offers.

Another case where the multi-step approach is useful is when the marketing and sales processes are naturally broken down into multiple steps. For typical B-to-B marketing, one may start the campaign by mass mailing or email (I’d say that step also requires modeling). And when responses start coming in, the sales team can take over and start contacting responders through more personal channels to close the deal. Such sales efforts are obviously very time-consuming, so we may build a “value” model measuring the potential value of the mail or email responders and start contacting them in a hierarchical order. Again, as the available pool of prospects gets smaller and smaller, the nature of targeting changes as well, requiring different types of models.

This type of funnel approach is also very useful in online marketing, as the natural steps involved in email or banner marketing go through lifecycles, such as blasting, delivery, impression, clickthrough, browsing, shopping, investigation, shopping basket, checkout (Yeah! Conversion!) and repeat purchases. Obviously, not all steps require aggressive or precision targeting. But I’d say, at the minimum, initial blast, clickthrough and conversion should be looked at separately. For any lifetime value analysis, yes, the repeat purchase is a key step; which, unfortunately, is often neglected by many marketers and data collectors.

Inversely Related Targets
More complex cases are when some of these multiple response and conversion steps are “inversely” related. For example, many responders to invitation-to-apply type credit card offers are often people with not-so-great credit. Well, if one has a good credit score, would all these credit card companies have left them alone? So, in a case like that, it becomes very tricky to find good responders who are also credit-worthy in the vast pool of a prospect universe.

I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it is like finding a needle in a haystack, but it is certainly not easy. Now, I’ve met folks who go after the likely responders with potential to be approved as a single target. It really is a philosophical difference, but I much prefer building two separate models in a situation like this:

  • One model designed to measure responsiveness, and
  • Another to measure likelihood to be approved.

The major benefit for having separate models is that each model will be able employ different types and sources of data variables. A more practical benefit for the users is that the marketers will be able to pick and choose what is more important to them at the time of campaign execution. They will obviously go to the top corner bracket, where both scores are high (i.e., potential responders who are likely to be approved). But as they dial the selection down, they will be able to test responsiveness and credit-worthiness separately.

Mixing Multiple Model Scores
Even when multiple models are developed with completely different intentions, mixing them up will produce very interesting results. Imagine you have access to scores for “High-Value Customer Model” and “Attrition Model.” If you cross these scores in a simple 2×2 matrix, you can easily create a useful segment in one corner called “Valuable Vulnerable” (a term that my mentor created a long time ago). Yes, one score is predicting who is likely to drop your service, but who cares if that customer shows little or no value to your business? Take care of the valuable customers first.

This type of mixing and matching becomes really interesting if you have lots of pre-developed models. During my tenure at a large data compiling company, we built more than 120 models for all kinds of consumer characteristics for general use. I remember the real fun began when we started mixing multiple models, like combining a “NASCAR Fan” model with a “College Football Fan” model; a “Leaning Conservative” model with an “NRA Donor” model; an “Organic Food” one with a “Cook for Fun” model or a “Wine Enthusiast” model; a “Foreign Vacation” model with a “Luxury Hotel” model or a “Cruise” model; a “Safety and Security Conscious” model or a “Home Improvement” model with a “Homeowner” model, etc., etc.

You see, no one is one dimensional, and we proved it with mathematics.

No One is One-dimensional
Obviously, these examples are just excerpts from a long playbook for the art of targeting. My intention is to emphasize that marketers must consider target, comparison and methodologies separately; and a combination of these three elements yields the most fitting solutions for each challenge, way beyond what some popular toolsets or new statistical methodologies presented in some technical conferences can acomplish. In fact, when the marketers are able to define the target in a logical fashion with help from trained analysts and data scientists, the effectiveness of modeling and subsequent marketing campaigns increase dramatically. Creating and maintaining an analytics department or hiring an outsourcing analytics vendor aren’t enough.

One may be concerned about the idea of building multiple models so casually, but let me remind you that it is the reality in which we already reside, anyway. I am saying this, as I’ve seen too many marketers who try to fix everything with just one hammer, and the results weren’t ideal—to say the least.

It is a shame that we still treat people with one-dimensional tools, such segmentations and clusters, in this age of ubiquitous and abundant data. Nobody is one-dimensional, and we must embrace that reality sooner than later. That calls for rapid model development and deployment, using everything that we’ve got.

Arguing about how difficult it is to build one or two more models here and there is so last century.

Why Model?

Why model? Uh, because someone is ridiculously good looking, like Derek Zoolander? No, seriously, why model when we have so much data around? The short answer is because we will never know the whole truth. That would be the philosophical answer. Physicists construct models to make new quantum field theories more attractive theoretically and more testable physically. If a scientist already knows the secrets of the universe, well, then that person is on a first-name basis with God Almighty, and he or she doesn’t need any models to describe things like particles or strings. And the rest of us should just hope the scientist isn’t one of those evil beings in “Star Trek.”

Why model? Uh, because someone is ridiculously good looking, like Derek Zoolander? No, seriously, why model when we have so much data around?

The short answer is because we will never know the whole truth. That would be the philosophical answer. Physicists construct models to make new quantum field theories more attractive theoretically and more testable physically. If a scientist already knows the secrets of the universe, well, then that person is on a first-name basis with God Almighty, and he or she doesn’t need any models to describe things like particles or strings. And the rest of us should just hope the scientist isn’t one of those evil beings in “Star Trek.”

Another answer to “why model?” is because we don’t really know the future, not even the immediate future. If some object is moving toward a certain direction at a certain velocity, we can safely guess where it will end up in one hour. Then again, nothing in this universe is just one-dimensional like that, and there could be a snowstorm brewing up on its path, messing up the whole trajectory. And that weather “forecast” that predicted the snowstorm is a result of some serious modeling, isn’t it?

What does all this mean for the marketers who are not necessarily masters of mathematics, statistics or theoretical physics? Plenty, actually. And the use of models in marketing goes way back to the days of punch cards and mainframes. If you are too young to know what those things are, well, congratulations on your youth, and let’s just say that it was around the time when humans first stepped on the moon using a crude rocket ship equipped with less computing power than an inexpensive passenger car of the modern days.

Anyhow, in that ancient time, some smart folks in the publishing industry figured that they would save tons of money if they could correctly “guess” who the potential buyers were “before” they dropped any expensive mail pieces. Even with basic regression models—and they only had one or two chances to get it right with glacially slow tools before the all-too-important Christmas season came around every year—they could safely cut the mail quantity by 80 percent to 90 percent. The savings added up really fast by not talking to everyone.

Fast-forward to the 21st Century. There is still a beauty of knowing who the potential buyers are before we start engaging anyone. As I wrote in my previous columns, analytics should answer:

1. To whom you should be talking; and
2. What you should offer once you’ve decided to engage someone.

At least the first part will be taken care of by knowing who is more likely to respond to you.

But in the days when the cost of contacting a person through various channels is dropping rapidly, deciding to whom to talk can’t be the only reason for all this statistical work. Of course not. There are plenty more reasons why being a statistician (or a data scientist, nowadays) is one of the best career choices in this century.

Here is a quick list of benefits of employing statistical models in marketing. Basically, models are constructed to:

  • Reduce cost by contacting prospects more wisely
  • Increase targeting accuracy
  • Maintain consistent results
  • Reveal hidden patterns in data
  • Automate marketing procedures by being more repeatable
  • Expand the prospect universe while minimizing the risk
  • Fill in the gaps and summarize complex data into an easy-to-use format—A must in the age of Big Data
  • Stay relevant to your customers and prospects

We talked enough about the first point, so let’s jump to the second one. It is hard to argue about the “targeting accuracy” part, though there still are plenty of non-believers in this day and age. Why are statistical models more accurate than someone’s gut feeling or sheer guesswork? Let’s just say that in my years of dealing with lots of smart people, I have not met anyone who can think about more than two to three variables at the same time, not to mention potential interactions among them. Maybe some are very experienced in using RFM and demographic data. Maybe they have been reasonably successful with choices of variables handed down to them by their predecessors. But can they really go head-to-head against carefully constructed statistical models?

What is a statistical model, and how is it built? In short, a model is a mathematical expression of “differences” between dichotomous groups. Too much of a mouthful? Just imagine two groups of people who do not overlap. They may be buyers vs. non-buyers; responders vs. non-responders; credit-worthy vs. not-credit-worthy; loyal customers vs. attrition-bound, etc. The first step in modeling is to define the target, and that is the most important step of all. If the target is hanging in the wrong place, you will be shooting at the wrong place, no matter how good your rifle is.

And the target should be expressed in mathematical terms, as computers can’t read our minds, not just yet. Defining the target is a job in itself:

  • If you’re going after frequent flyers, how frequent is frequent enough for you? Five times a year or 10 times a year? Or somewhere in between? Or should it remain continuous?
  • What if the target is too small or too large? What then?
  • If you are looking for more valuable prospects, how would you express that? In terms of average spending, lifetime spending or sheer number of transactions?
  • What if there is an inverse relationship between frequency and dollar spending (i.e., high spenders shopping infrequently)?
  • And what would be the borderline number to be “valuable” in all this?

Once the target is set, after much pondering, then the job is to select the variables that describe the “differences” between the two groups. For example, I know how much marketers love to use income variables in various situations. But if that popular variable does not explain the differences between the two groups (target and non-target), the mathematics will mercilessly throw it out. This rigorous exercise of examining hundreds or even thousands of variables is one of the most critical steps, during which many variables go through various types of transformations. Statisticians have different preferences in terms of ideal numbers of variables in a model, while non-statisticians like us don’t need to be too concerned, as long as the resultant model works. Who cares if a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice?

Not all selected variables are equally important in model algorithms, either. More powerful variables will be assigned with higher weight, and the sum of these weighted values is what we call model score. Now, non-statisticians who have been slightly allergic to math since the third grade only need to know that the higher the score, the more likely the record in question is to be like the target. To make the matter even simpler, let’s just say that you want higher scores over lower scores. If you are a salesperson, just call the high-score prospects first. And would you care how many variables are packed into that score, for as long as you get the good “Glengarry Glen Ross” leads on top?

So, let me ask again. Does this sound like something a rudimentary selection rule with two to three variables can beat when it comes to identifying the right target? Maybe someone can get lucky once or twice, but not consistently.

That leads to the next point, “consistency.” Because models do not rely on a few popular variables, they are far less volatile than simple selection rules or queries. In this age of Big Data, there are more transaction and behavioral data in the mix than ever, and they are far more volatile than demographic and geo-demographic data. Put simply, people’s purchasing behavior and preferences change much faster than family composition or their income, and that volatility factor calls for more statistical work. Plus, all facets of marketing are now more about measurable results (ah, that dreaded ROI, or “Roy,” the way I call it), and the businesses call for consistent hitters over one-hit wonders.

“Revealing hidden patterns in data” is my favorite. When marketers are presented with thousands of variables, I see a majority of them just sticking to a few popular ones all the time. Some basic recency and frequency data are there, and among hundreds of demographic variables, the list often stops after income, age, gender, presence of children, and some regional variables. But seriously, do you think that the difference between a luxury car buyer and an SUV buyer is just income and age? You see, these variables are just the ones that human minds are accustomed to. Mathematics do not have such preconceived notions. Sticking to a few popular variables is like children repeatedly using three favorite colors out of a whole box of crayons.

I once saw a neighborhood-level U.S. Census variable called “% Households with Septic Tanks” in a model built for a high-end furniture catalog. Really, the variable was “percentage of houses with septic tanks in the neighborhood.” Then I realized it made a lot of sense. That variable was revealing how far away that neighborhood was located in comparison to populous city centers. As the percentage of septic tanks increased, the further away the residents were from the city center. And maybe those folks who live in scarcely populated areas were more likely to shop for furniture through catalogs than the folks who live closer to commercial areas.

This is where we all have that “aha” moment. But you and I will never pick that variable in anything that we do, not in million years, no matter how effective it may be in finding the target prospects. The word “septic” may scare some people off at “hello.” In any case, modeling procedures reveal hidden connections like that all of the time, and that is a very important function in data-rich environments. Otherwise, we will not know what to throw out without fear, and the databases will continuously become larger and more unusable.

Moving on to the next points, “Repeatable” and “Expandable” are somewhat related. Let’s say a marketer has been using a very innovative selection logic that she came across almost by accident. In pursuing special types of wealthy people, she stumbled upon a piece of data called “owner of swimming pool.” Now, she may have even had a few good runs with it, too. But eventually, that success will lead to the question of:

1. Having to repeat that success again and again; and
2. Having to expand that universe, when the “known” universe of swimming pool owners become depleted or saturated.

Ah, the chagrin of a one-hit-wonder begins.

Use of statistical models, with help of multiple variables and scalable scoring, would avoid all of those issues. You want to expand the prospect universe? No trouble. Just dial down the scores on the scale a little further. We can even measure the risk of reaching into the lower-scoring groups. And you don’t have to worry about coverage issues related to a few variables, as those won’t be the only ones in the model. Want to automate the selection process? No problem there, as using a score, which is a summary of key predictors, is far simpler than having to carry a long list of data variables into any automated system.

Now, that leads to the next point, “Filling in the gaps and summarizing the complex data into an easy-to-use format.” In the age of ubiquitous and “Big” data, this is the single-most important point, way beyond the previous examples for traditional 1-to-1 marketing applications. We are definitely going through massive data overloads everywhere, and someone better refine the data and provide some usable answers.

As I mentioned earlier, we build models because we will never know the whole truth. I believe that the Big Data movement should be all about:

1. Filtering the noise from valuable information; and
2. Filling the gaps.

“Gaps,” you say? Believe me, there are plenty of gaps in any dataset, big or small.

When information continues to get piled on, the resultant database may look big. And they are physically large. But in marketing, as I repeatedly emphasized in my previous columns, the data must be realigned to “buyer-centric” formats, with every data point describing each individual, as marketing is all about people.

Sure, you may have tons of mobile phone-related data. In fact, it could be quite huge in size. But let me turn that upside down for you (more like sideways-up, in practice). Now, try to describe everyone in your footprint in terms of certain activities. Say, “every smart phone owner who used more than 80 percent of his or her monthly data allowance on the average for the past 12 months, regardless of the carrier.” Hey, don’t blame me for asking these questions just because it’s inconvenient for data handlers to answer them. Some marketers would certainly benefit from information like that, and no one cares about just bits and pieces of data, other than for some interesting tidbits at a party.

Here’s the main trouble when you start asking buyer-related questions like that. Once we try to look at the world from the “buyer-centric” point of view, we will realize there are tons of missing data (i.e., a whole bunch of people with not much information). It may be that you will never get this kind of data from all carriers. Maybe not everyone is tracked this way. In terms of individuals, you may end up with less than 10 percent in the database with mobile information attached to them. In fact, many interesting variables may have less than 1 percent coverage. Holes are everywhere in so-called Big Data.

Models can fill in those blanks for you. For all those data compilers who sell age and income data for every household in the country, do you believe that they really “know” everyone’s age and income? A good majority of the information is based on carefully constructed models. And there is nothing wrong with that.

If you don’t get to “know” something, we can get to a “likelihood” score—of “being like” that something. And in that world, every measurement is on a scale, with no missing values. For example, the higher the score of a model built for a telecommunication company, the more likely that the prospect is going to use a high-speed data plan, or the international long distance services, depending on the purpose of the model. Or the more likely the person will buy sports packages via cable or satellite. Or the person is more likely to subscribe to premium movie channels. Etc., etc. With scores like these, a marketer can initiate the conversation with—not just talking to—a particular prospect with customized product packages in his hand.

And that leads us to the final point in all this, “Staying relevant to your customers and prospects.” That is what Big Data should be all about—at least for us marketers. We know plenty about a lot of people. And they are asking us why we are still so random about marketing messages. With all these data that are literally floating around, marketers can do so much better. But not without statistical models that fill in the gaps and turn pieces of data into marketing-ready answers.

So, why model? Because a big pile of information doesn’t provide answers on its own, and that pile has more holes than Swiss cheese if you look closely. That’s my final answer.

Testing for B-to-B Marketers: How Hard is It?

B-to-B marketers are often guilty of laziness when it comes to testing their communications, whether it’s testing the copy approach, the layout, the offer or the target audience. Well, to call it laziness may not be entirely fair. It’s a fact that the typical B-to-B campaign targets universes that are too small to support a split test. If you’re selling specialized machine tools, you’re lucky if you have 10,000 potential customers worldwide.

B-to-B marketers are often guilty of laziness when it comes to testing their communications, whether it’s testing the copy approach, the layout, the offer or the target audience. Well, to call it laziness may not be entirely fair. It’s a fact that the typical B-to-B campaign targets universes that are too small to support a split test. If you’re selling specialized machine tools, you’re lucky if you have 10,000 potential customers worldwide.

I work with a company that offers employee benefits programs, and markets to HR professionals. We are planning a campaign to take the service into the Boston area, targeting firms with more than 100 employees, which number about 6,000 sites. At two HR contacts per site, using direct mail, we would have a mail plan of 12,000. With an estimated response rate of 1 percent, we’re looking at only 120 inquiries-clearly not enough to conduct a test of the two good offer ideas we are kicking around. Which is a shame, because we really have no idea which motivational offer is going to work better with this audience.

But in the digital world, B-to-B marketers have a lot more options for testing. Split tests are easy to set up, and applicable to any communications vehicle that drives a response-whether it be an email, a landing page, a banner ad, Adwords copy, anything, using free tools like Google Website Optimizer or scores of other SaaS or enterprise software tools.

Plus, there are abundant resources out there now to guide and inspire business marketers. Have a look at Which Test Won, a weekly comparison of two B-to-B live test versions-usually landing pages-where visitors are invited to go with their guts, and pick a winner. Then, you can view the actual winner and participate in a lively discussion of possible reasons why. This brilliant site was the brain child of Anne Holland, the founder of Marketing Sherpa.

So my client would like to conduct an offer test through digital channels, and we are exploring various options. It’s still not easy with a small prospect universe in a limited geography. There are not enough targeted banner media available to reach HR professionals in the Boston-only area. Email to entirely cold prospects is too spammy to generate leads at a reasonable cost-and still doesn’t solve the universe size problem that we face with direct mail. We considered Google AdWords with location targeting, but it’s going to be hard to sell the offer properly within the AdWords copy limits. Not to mention questions about how long it would take to get enough clicks to call the results. So our search continues, and we’d welcome ideas from Target Marketing readers on this one.

A version of this article appeared at Biznology, the digital marketing blog.