Home One Question Regarding Misconceptions About Data For Ad Targeting

Regarding Misconceptions About Data For Ad Targeting

SHARE:

One QuestionJason Lynn is Chief Strategy Officer of interclick, an online advertising company.

Lynn is responding to Hooman Radfar of Clearspring who authored a One Question piece recently – “What Is The Biggest Misconception About The Use Of Data For Ad Targeting?“…

Leaders in the data targeting business uttered a collective ‘Amen’ to Hooman Radfar’s assertion that many data types and sources have to be considered for any marketing campaign.

Mr. Radfar’s comments address a common misconception in the industry.  Too often, marketers approach their online data in the exact same manner that they do offline data yet these data sets are fundamentally unique and should be treated as such.   It’s a familiar scenario – a marketer insists on a specific audience strategy based on an offline segmentation model.   Consequently, the campaign results show no lift over campaigns which do not use data, leading the marketers to conclude that “data doesn’t work.” There are few instances where data minimally benefits a campaign; however, nine times out of ten, the problem is improper selection of the audience data or an inappropriate audience selection process which stems from “traditional” marketing analytic practices.

“Traditional” marketing analytics focus on accurately describing consumers and ”success audiences” such as users who engaged with an ad, watched a video to completion, made a purchase, etc.   These analytics concentrate on what engaged consumers look like, and technically serve as a classification exercise.   In contrast, the selection of targeting data answers a question of prediction.  It addresses which data will make creative and media more effective and how will an audience respond to certain types of targeting.

On a technical level, classification and prediction are extremely similar, which can be confusing.  In most cases, the algorithms used to address both are the exactly same, but from a process standpoint, classification and prediction are different and should be articulated separately.  Marketers should have descriptive insights about their consumers and an audience targeting portfolio with predictive values.  This is a deliberate separation of correlation and causation.  Without an explicit prediction, it’s extremely difficult to choose the data which will improve the effectiveness of a campaign and correctly value it.

Some brand marketers will say this mainly applies to direct response campaigns.  This is only the case if you conduct campaigns without any measurement whatsoever.  Data can and should be used leveraged in branding, and given that campaigns can leverage prediction on any level within the purchase funnel –  attention, interest, desire, or action – it should be viewed as another tool, rather than a niche solution.

Overall, handling online data is very challenging and requires new approaches to realize its full value.  While there are many unique lessons to learn about online data, one lasting standard remains true: “make the model fit the data, not the data fit the model.”

Follow interclick (@interclick) and AdExchanger.com (@adexchanger.com) on Twitter.

Must Read

Albert Thompson, Managing Director, Digital at Walton Isaacson

To Cure What Ails Digital Advertising, Marketers And Publishers Must Get Back To Basics

Albert Thompson, a buy-side veteran with 20+ years of experience, weighs in on attention metrics, the value of MFA sites, brand safety backlash and how publishers can improve their inventory.

A comic depiction of Google's ad machine sucking money out of a publisher.

DOJ vs. Google, Day Five Rewind: Prebid Reality Check, Unfair Rev Share And Jedi Blue (Sorta)

Someone will eventually need to make a Netflix-style documentary about the Google ad tech antitrust trial happening in Virginia. (And can we call it “You’ve Been Ad Served?”)

Comic: Alphabet Soup

Buried DOJ Evidence Reveals How Google Dealt With The Trade Desk

In the process of the investigation into Google, the Department of Justice unearthed a vast trove of separate evidence. Some of these findings paint a whole new picture of how Google interacts and competes with its main DSP rival, The Trade Desk.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters
Comic: The Unified Auction

DOJ vs. Google, Day Four: Behind The Scenes On The Fraught Rollout Of Unified Pricing Rules

On Thursday, the US district court in Alexandria, Virginia boarded a time machine back to April 18, 2019 – the day of a tense meeting between Google and publishers.

Google Ads Will Now Use A Trusted Execution Environment By Default

Confidential matching – which uses a TEE built on Google Cloud infrastructure – will now be the default setting for all uses of advertiser first-party data in Customer Match.

In 2019, Google moved to a first-price auction and also ceded its last look advantage in AdX, in part because it had to. Most exchanges had already moved to first price.

Unraveling The Mystery Of PubMatic’s $5 Million Loss From A “First-Price Auction Switch”

PubMatic’s $5 million loss from DV360’s bidding algorithm fix earlier this year suggests second-price auctions aren’t completely a thing of the past.