Five out of five consumers prefer precision marketing

When it comes to contextual marketing I can’t help but think about Marshall McLuhan, the communications visionary and provocateur who talked a lot about how “the medium is the message” (but, alas, who may be better known for his cameo appearance in "Annie Hall"). McLuhan also talked a lot about context.

For example, he observed that the one thing about which a fish knows exactly nothing is water, since it has no “anti-environment” which would enable it to perceive the element it lives in. It's only when a fish is pulled from the water that it becomes acutely aware of its former environment. For marketers, the challenge would seem to lie in achieving an “integral awareness” of their consumers’ environment, so as to be able to market to them in a context-sensitive manner.

And now comes a nationwide survey, published by market research firm Synovate, that reaches the same conclusion in a way that only a market research firm can. The survey was sponsored by Traffic Marketplace, an Internet ad distribution network (which I’m sure has no hidden agenda but was merely trying to satisfy its own curiosity).

The survey asked 1,000 adults about their attitudes in terms of online ads. It found that three out of five consumers (62 percent) are more apt to respond to contextual marketing—worded in the survey as “a subject of particular interest to you"—as opposed to demographic marketing, worded as “a specific group you may be a member of."

Which prompts the question: Since when is it okay to end a sentence with a preposition?

According to the survey, only 18 percent of consumers said they were most apt to respond to behavioral targeting—that is, online ads based on "your past behavior on a given website". Another key finding: “72 percent of nonwhites respond to relevant subject matter, against 60 percent of whites.” The fact that white people are apparently less able to stop themselves from clicking on whatever online ads happen to come their way points to a social epidemic that warrants some serious government attention.

As I may have already suggested, this new survey strikes me as not only fundamentally flawed but also profoundly stupid. The reason is simple. Can anyone really talk in such generalities about what “targeting type” (contextual, demographic, geographic or behavioral) is most likely to elicit their response? I, for one, would be hard pressed to say that I’m more likely to respond to one "type" over another in the absence of any real content—or context. All I know is that if an ad seems relevant to my wants and/or needs, I may decide to click on it.

The irony is that the survey itself wasn’t conducted in a contextual manner. Maybe showing people real ads, and then mapping their responses to their various backgrounds and experiences, would have yielded some valid results. Then again, what's the point?

The survey treats each “targeting type” as a stand-alone approach. In reality, it’s the combination of approaches that culminates in the creation of a relevant personal profile and ultimately helps determine an individual's propensity to respond favorably to a particular message or offer. Precision marketing is driven by an understanding of a consumer’s “generic makeup” based on both geo-demographic and behavioral information, as well as contextual, attitudinal, psychographic and situational data along with any number of other considerations.

The survey’s conclusion—that “the best way to pique consumers’ interest" is to present them with "subjects they care about”—comes as no revelation. It’s something that any merchant could tell you, going back to time immemorial. The fact that technology and analytics can now be used to replicate the intimacy of those age-old merchant-consumer interactions to some degree (including serving up relevant product recommendations) is the reason that precision marketing has been gaining so much steam.

Synovate’s latest survey results? “Older men find older women ‘just as attractive’ as their younger counterparts." Now there’s a research finding with far-reaching implications. Well, maybe not. But at least it goes beyond stating the obvious.