It seems our modern age’s three certainties are death, taxes, and—judging by a recent report from Advertiser Perceptions and Claravine—getting the wrong ad 33% of the time.
With the advancements in ad tech, you’d think the robots knew us.
But as it turns out, the algorithms have their own brand of humor.
Alright, roll up those sleeves and ready your magnifying glasses as we delve into the Sherlock Holmes of ad mysteries. Picture this: A chap clicks on a link to a renowned knitting site, and voila! The system pegs him as a 60-year-old granny with a penchant for wool.
But maybe, just maybe, he’s a rugged biker looking to knit a cozy muffler for those cold rides? Shocking, right?
Now, let’s pivot to our next enigma. Consider a surfer who checks out VeganRecipes.com but also haunts the local BBQ grill site and sneaks into adventure travel blogs.
Who might they be? An adrenaline junkie with a kale obsession who’s planning a vegan BBQ in the Himalayas? Or perhaps, just someone with, dare we say, diverse tastes?
Data inference is a lot like blind dating. We might get a few tidbits – this one likes cats, that one enjoys hiking – but the rest is often educated guesswork sprinkled with optimism. And as the research indicates, often this “educated guesswork” translates to: “Here’s an ad about butt-flap onesies because you once bought diapers… for your neighbor’s baby shower.”
Bravo, ad tech, bravo.
It’s baffling that in an era of real-time dynamic advertising, 50% of advertisers are as oblivious as a cat to a laser pointer when it comes to realizing their ads just cuddled up next to unsuitable content.
And let’s not even begin to discuss the trauma of being chased around the internet by that pair of shoes you Googled once. We get it; they’re nice shoes.
Maybe I bought them in store, maybe I didn’t like them after all. But for the love of cookies (pun intended), stop the relentless pursuit!
I’m not the only one amused and bemused by the uncanny, sometimes haunting, other times laugh-out-loud hilarious ad choices. If the banter on Twitter is a yardstick of public sentiment, we’ve all been served ads that make us question whether Skynet’s younger sibling has a sense of humor or is just truly clueless.
In the comedic goldmine of ad mismatch, Twitter stands out with its offerings that make it feel like a garage sale, manned by Ron Popeil, selling everything from the Veg-O-Matic to… a T-shirt with a horse’s head on a heartbeat line?
Yet, amidst all the hilarity and occasional eyebrow-raising moments, the genuine concern for brands is the risk to brand safety and the substantial ROI they’re potentially missing out on.
A system that serves irrelevant ads is a system that’s not serving its purpose. If 29% believe the main culprits are organizational inefficiencies, there’s a call to action right there. Moreover, the absence of standardization makes the conundrum even harder to decipher than a cross between hieroglyphics and Morse code.
The industry is crying out for consistency, clarity, and, dare I say, a little common sense. Chris Comstock from Claravine hits the nail on the head with the “go, go, go” mentality. It’s like we’re all on a treadmill set at maximum speed, trying to change our shoes while it’s still moving.
We find ourselves at a crossroads. On one side is the promise of technology – the dream of perfectly targeted, efficient, and effective advertising. On the other, the reality of “butt-flap onesies” and “horse heartbeat shirts.” It’s time for a bit of introspection, education, and course correction.
So, dear ad tech, while we appreciate the chuckles, how about upping your game? After all, in the immortal words of Shakespeare (or was it an old advertising guru?): “To be relevant, or not to be relevant, that is the question.”