Give the people you're targeting what they
want -- even if they don't know yet what that is.
Algorithms have operated behind the scenes of
our best-loved social platforms since their earliest days, but their side
effects have only recently been scrutinized in light of Donald Trump’s rapid
ascent to president-elect, and the UK’s surprising Brexit vote last
summer.
These cultural moments taking place on either
side of the Atlantic gained considerable momentum on social media, and in their
wake there has been growing recognition of the role of Facebook et al. in
bringing about their outcomes.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently
weighed in on this debate, suggesting that Facebook and Google be made to
disclose their secret algorithms, saying that users are entitled to know how
the information they see is selected for them, and that it’s very likely this
issue will come under the regulatory microscope.
Merkel and other critics of the algorithm
trend are focusing on what in the tech world is called "filter
bubbles" -- personal online networks of content which continuously
reinforce our individual bias and worldview.
"Filter bubble" describes the
byproduct of social algorithms: These algorithms attempt to align with our own
natural tendencies by selecting online content that is personally relevant to
us, based on our previous clicks/shares/views. And these algorithms have
become increasingly effective at that task.
The result is that our individual online
experiences, from Google searches to Facebook feeds, are more filtered than
ever. And content deemed too different to our audience profile is excluded
-- creating the "bubble effect" which prevents new points of
view from challenging us. My view? Marketers
should take a pin to that bubble.
Let me explain. This particular element
of our online lives has fascinated us a while, so we delved into the issue here
at our U.K.-based Unfolded Talks session, drawing on evolutionary science,
psychology and various perspectives about well-being to understand the
consequences of the filter bubble.
The result was that we agreed that social
algorithms have not only magnified and automated our natural personal bias, but
have made these bubbles completely invisible to us. That's a process that
should be a real concern for businesses -- particularly marketers.
Freshly filtered news
What, where and how we consume content has
never been more important, which is why online platforms have led the way in
tailoring that information to users’ needs, based on their past clicks and
views.
For social networks, this means suggesting
news and connections that align with each user’s typical online activity. For
search engines, it means that each user will find different search results than
will the next guy for, say, "Tunisia," "climate
change" or "best sports car."
In the short term, this scenario can be
incredibly useful in an information-rich age. We are bombarded with so much
information that surely it makes sense to filter out what isn’t relevant,
right?
Maybe not, because when we take a long-term
perspective, the problems become apparent. The events of this year are a
sobering example. They show us that a long-term side effect of these bubbles
has been the creation of extreme "us-versus-them" world views --
demonstrated during the recent campaigns leading up to the U.S. election and
Britain's EU referendum.
Parroting isn’t personal, so
challenge your audience.
Personalization is the buzzword behind these algorithms, as those in the
marketing industry well know. Most ad-funded networks, from news outlets
to social media, trade on their volume of audience insight, and it has become accepted
conventional wisdom that "relevance" is
"personal," and that "personal" is the goal
advertisers should aim for.
The problem is, being personal is often
interpreted as parroting overly similar content, products and services back to
audiences that show related interests.
Instead, I’d like to suggest the value of a challenged
audience. This is an audience which recognizes you amid
the wave of look-alike content, understands that you stand for something
different than do your competitors and is an audience willing to engage with
your message, rather than to just "like" it.
That’s what I see as effective marketing,
because it's not reliant on simple relevance. Here’s how you can help
remove your own audience members from their respective online ruts:
1. Understand the ‘present self’
versus the ‘ideal self.’
Netflix spotted a strange effect among its
users switching from DVD rentals to streaming service: Those
customers amassed a long queue of items that never got
watched. The reason: They were lining up items they thought they’d
like to watch in future, but never found themselves interested in watching them
"right now."
This tendency is universal. We overestimate
our future selves and, when it comes to Netflix, at least, we may queue up high
art films, documentaries or classic movies that we know we
"should" watch. Yet, in the moment, it’s easier to watch Hot Tub Time Machine instead of investing ourselves in something like Schindler's List.
Considering this tendency, can advertisers
encourage audiences to step back from easy gratification and embrace a world of
alternatives?
Eli Pariser -- CEO of Upworthy -- described
this phenomenon as balancing your "information vegetables" with
your "information dessert." As marketers increasingly gain
intimate knowledge of our online diets, encouraging us to vary them is simply a
question of creativity.
2. Become a provocateur.
Brands can be hesitant to go against the
flow, but look at what The Economist did: It recently reclaimed a huge swathe of readers
by coming right out and directly challenging its audiences. Its campaign
was made up of 60 pieces of creative content -- each one asking its respective
audience a tough question and questioning that audience's assumptions
about topics ranging from American police brutality to the European migrant
crisis.
These provocations were placed directly into
rival news sites of all kinds to disrupt audiences’ traditional browsing
patterns and show them another point of view.
It was a simple but effective campaign which
actually over-achieved on its targets: It delivered five times as many
prospective subscribers as had been briefed (3.5 million people versus
650,000), with a return on campaign investment of 10:1.
Crucially, the mechanics of the campaign
were fairly typical, and therefore easy to reproduce. Its provocative messaging
was all that set it apart from a host of other digital campaigns.
3. Be creative with your platforms
(or create a new one).
Spotify was in an uncomfortable position not
so long ago. With Google Play, Pandora and more recently Apple Music to compete
with, Spotify found itself in dire need of differentiation.
Here's how it did that: Today, Spotify's weekly
Discover Playlists make millions of its users into fans every time it offers
them a song they never would have found otherwise, thus throwing those
listeners a musical curveball every so often.
The principle works in the bigger-picture
sense, too. Toronto-based Million Short is an alternative search engine: It
filters out up to a million of the first results that you’d find on the likes
of Google and Bing, exposing its users to sites they might never have found
before, and stripping away the obvious.
So, there it is: Spotify discovered the magic
of serendipity. And Million Short proved (still does) how simple it can be
to take users behind a curtain of standard content.
Follow their example! Take inspiration from
their experience and give the people you're targeting what they want
-- even if they don’t know it yet.
Written By: Yelena Gaufman
Credit: Entrepreneur.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment