Okay so my title is a joke... But seems to get at the heart of one of the issues in the Gertner article. While I understand that the purpose of marketing is to get the target audeince to identify with something in the ad and thus purchase the product, I am disturbed by the link between marketing and politics.
First, I am disturbed that so much of what I had thought to be 'private' personal information is available.. ( and for sell). Secondly, I am disturbed that the sum of my life choices are being analyzed and then evaluated so that I fit a certain profile that is then targeted or not... In the past, assumptions about political allegiances were drawn based on the 'good ole' socioeconomic indicators (typically race and class). So I wonder what choices have I made that would indicate my political preferences -- my toothpaste or my deodorant... Okay seriously, do you think that there is a bona fide link/correlation between the information in the megadatabases and your political choices? Among other things, the article identifies newspaper and automobile... Do you agree... What else would you add to the list... As an afterthought one thing seems to be missing -- Internet use... Can it be used as an indicator of one's political preference?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
More troubling than the idea that people are being stereotyped by their purchases, etc., is the idea that this geodemographic marketing may make those stereotypes come true.
ReplyDeleteTo invent an example, if Coke-drinkers are believed to be more likely to buy a Volvo than Pepsi-drinkers, Volvo might target the Coke lovers and ignore the Pepsi fans. But what if a Volvo would be the perfect car for some Pepsi-drinker? What if a particular Coke-drinker goes with Volvo because of the personalized ad campaign when really another car would have fit their needs better? If different people are receiving different information, it will affect the kinds of choices they are able to make.