Personalization works. How can we make sure that’s a good thing?
Current human behavior and public opinion tell us a lot about where we should go from here.
In my recent draft of New Year’s resolutions, I began with a prompt: What don’t I like about myself?
I didn’t like my unprocessed attachment to certain beliefs, interests, and objects. I didn’t like my bias toward routine. But what I didn’t like the most — what scared me the most — was that I needed intense, intentional reflection to know my tendencies, while my digital data points tell anyone with the right analysis model what I struggled to learn myself.
In 2018, I cut out animal products from my diet, I splurged on nicer clothes, and I gained interest in different political issues. While I don’t mind sharing these facts, I lacked full control of who or what learned these things about me — and how.
This story’s so common, so mundanely of this moment, that I initially didn’t want to include it.
But its ordinary nature speaks to its importance. And while those who give data meet this reality with fear or nihilism, those who receive data meet it with optimism.
I see this optimism in myself as I pour through metrics at work, desperately trying to understand the ground truth of the people I serve. Many people who collect consumer data just want to do their jobs better.
Personalization’s often pitched to me as the silver bullet for marketers in the age of information overload. Before we get too deep into ethics, I want to address that assumption.
Do people actually want it?
Well, it depends.
75% of customers surveyed in InMoment’s 2018 Consumer Experience Trends Report said they found most forms of personalization creepy. Meanwhile, only 40% of brands surveyed admitted being creepy.
That disconnect poses a big risk for personalization-curious companies. The trends report also found that 22% of customers surveyed said they’d leave for a brand’s competition after a creepy experience. 1 in 5 said they’d tell friends. 1 in 10 said they’d share their story on social media.
But here’s the catch: Companies also risk lost business when they don’t personalize experiences.
48% of customers surveyed in Accenture’s 2018 Personalization Pulse Check said they left a website and bought what they needed somewhere else due to poorly curated content. And while you don’t need to personalize content to curate well, the Pulse Check also noted that 91% of those surveyed said they’re more likely to shop with brands that recognize them, remember them, and provide them with relevant offers and recommendations.
People ultimately crave transparency and control
So, people expect personalization, but also find it creepy in some instances. What should we do with those seemingly contradictory insights? Where do we draw the line?
I asked myself the same question for awhile, pouring over data, anecdotes, and the hot takes of smart people in hopes I could come to an answer. My current best guess: Let people know what data you want from them, why you want it, and how collecting it will benefit them.
According to the Pulse Check, 83% of consumers are willing to share their data to enable a personalized experience as long as businesses are transparent about how they are going to use it — and that customers have control over it. Of the 27% of consumers who reported a brand experience that was too personal or invasive, almost two-thirds say it was because the brand had information about the consumer that they didn’t share knowingly or directly, such as a recommendation based on a purchase they made with a different business.
Businesses already see data as a commodity. The more we empower users to see their collection of information and behaviors in that way, the better our relationship with them.
However, just because a relationship is stable doesn’t mean that it’s healthy, which brings me to my next question:
When does focusing on user needs turn into exploiting human desire?
This question’s as old as consumerism itself, but within a content personalization system, exploitation can more easily ride that efficiency curve.
In her New York Times column “Youtube, the Great Radicalizer,” writer, academic, and self-proclaimed techno-sociologist Zeynep Tufekci explained this problem better than I ever could:
“What we are witnessing is the computational exploitation of a natural human desire: to look “behind the curtain,” to dig deeper into something that engages us. As we click and click, we are carried along by the exciting sensation of uncovering more secrets and deeper truths. YouTube leads viewers down a rabbit hole of extremism, while Google racks up the ad sales”
- Zeynep Tufekci
What gets fed to us through personalization is a reflection of our instincts — not our best selves. Humans fall short of themselves in big and small ways constantly, often without realizing it. A digital landscape driven by a feedback loop of imperfect tendencies isn’t one in which we can progress.
Change the goals, change the nature of the tech
Imagine a world where Amazon asks you how you want to grow.
Maybe you spent 2018 playing a lot of video games, and you want to spend 2019 reading more books — history books, specifically. Or maybe you want to save a little money to buy a new car, which means you need to curb that online shopping addiction.
Time on site, engagement, and purchases largely drive what defines success for the Corporate Internet. Disrupting that could mean blowing up business models as we know them, but it could also mean making small changes that put people a little more in control of their digital reality.
Amanda Booth (@wordswithamanda) is a Content Designer at IBM. She’s based in Austin, Texas. The above article is personal and does not necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies, or opinions.
