November 20 - 23, 2024
One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other: Vice Calls To End 'Data Discrimination'
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, May 6, 2021
In what may be the most compelling argument yet to finally end the ad industry’s long-held practice of targeting media audiences based on their demographic composition, Vice Media Group Wednesday made the case that the method is not just ineffective, but outright “discriminatory.”
“Let’s grow up, and let’s stop playing …
4 comments about "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other: Vice Calls To End 'Data Discrimination'".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
Joe, once again we see the ongoing confusion about media versus advertising "targeting". While demographics---usually in a fairly refined manner, not just adults aged 18-49----is one of the ways that national TV advertisers define the groups they want to influence with their commercials, most ad campaigns go far deeper than that, appealing to varying mindsets as well as product user groups. Just because media buyers who want their fannies protected in case of audience shortfalls make pacts with the sellers to guarantee audience tonnage delivery using broad and virtually meaningless age/sex breaks, this does not mean that the brands are targeting consumers in this ridiculous and simplistic manner. So endlessly beating this dead horse is a waste of time.
As for better ways to target media buys, sure, in an ideal world we would try to match not only the level of product usage in a media vehicle's audience but more important, what percentage of the audience has the type of mindset that our ad campaign is trying to motivate. It's not merely a question of targeting just product users. You need to go deeper to get the most positive results. And there are sources which provide information about both mindsets and product use---the MRI/Simmons studies for example. However, will the sellers guarantee audience tonnage on such refined metrics? And what happens when the sellers note that some of theirTV shows are suddenly in great demand---based on improved targeting methods? Wont they simply jack up their CPM demands for such placements, thereby nullifying the expected benefits? These are the questions I would ask regarding trying to create more "meaningful" media buying metrics.
Your story is interesting, also in the context of Vice's plea last year to end the discriminatory practice of "blocklisting" key words:
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/353018/will-media-buyers-heed-vices-plea-about-racial-bl.html
I agree with Ed.
There seems to have been a transmogrification of the term "targeting", or at least a misunderstanding.
Of late, "targeting" seems to be thought of as those, and only those, to see the ad and everyone else is wastage. The way it works is (i) because no-one can afford to target everyone (ii) the marketer defines the "sweet spot" (iii) the media buyer then targets that "sweet spot".
For example, a CPG marketer's researcher profiling users of their brand may find that 70% of the purchases are made by females aged 25-44 with at least one child at home, though they only constitute 25% of the population (all numbers made up purely for explanation". So it makes sense to ensure that they see the ad for the product.
It does NOT mean that ONLY females aged 25-44 with at least one child at home are to see the ad. It's just that in a broadcast medium there are no media properties that can guarantee that only females aged 25-44 with at least one child at home are served the ad. It is a way of ensuring that the ad is in content that will be the most effective and efficient.
Once outside the world of broadcasting you CAN specify what audience should be served the ad digitally. As long as the site/app has the necessary informastion. And that the data they hold is true. But I wonder why I still get ads for Suunto watchess when I bought mine over six years ago. I'm also not sure why I am a target for infant formula.
But beyond that if you target just your "sweet spot" current users you are not getting yur brand out to non-users which is where brand growth is most effective (i.e. new income streams). If in doubt, read Prof. Byron Sharp's "How Brands Grow".
"Transmorgrification" between media and advertising targeting indeed! Apparently practitioners in media and advertising, at least in the US, have a real issue with using and worse understanding the defintions and therfore the meaning of the terms they use. (How many definitions and interpretations of "impressions" are there in the industry???)
Per John's example, part of the value of traditional media versus social digital media is that they will always deliver audiences outside of the "sweet spot" target group selected for the the brand's campaign. At least some of those "outsiders" exposed will be potential category users or probables or even brand convertibles/switchers. Bonus!