Easier than ever, riskier than it seems: the trap of personalisation

This article was originally published by Campaign Asia
When it comes to personalisation, there's a tension between customer and company. When marketing feels personalised, it triggers a sense that we are seen, understood and appreciated by a brand. When brands do it well, it's a win-win for the customer and the brand. When they don't, it can feel intrusive, manipulative, or create fatigue.  

Pre-AI, Coca-Cola launched a campaign that embodies one of the most famous examples of personalisation, ‘Share a Coke’. In 2011, what began as an opportunity for Australian customers to personalise their bottles with names and phrases quickly went global. Coke relaunched the campaign this year for a generation of young people seeking connection in digital overwhelm. It’s personalisation, but in a different context. It still lands, even though it launched 14 years ago. Let’s look at why.

Last year, when TRA surveyed 2000+ Australians and New Zealanders about what drives connection with brands, personalised communications were mentioned spontaneously by fewer than 5% of people. Even when prompted by a list of ways that brands foster connection, only 20% of people chose “receiving personalised and tailored messages”.

Nowadays, AI makes it easier for brands to personalise and target at scale, but customers need to see what’s in it for them. For example, this year, we saw a slightly more positive story of personalisation emerge. In a similarly sized study of Australians and New Zealanders, we explored the role of AI for brands in helping people make progress. When asked about how AI could enable companies to support people striving to progress, around 30% said “offer personalised products or services,” but a lot more (60%) saw the potential of AI to “improve customer service”.  

More broadly, we often hear people talk about the ‘creepiness’ of personalisation. For brands, the challenge is finding the sweet spot where personalisation feels helpful, but not so specific that it feels like surveillance. The ‘Share a Coke’ campaign continues to be successful because it gives us agency. The brand gives us the option of personalising the product, but we have the final say on how that is realised.

It’s a key learning for what’s next in the world of personalisation.  

The move towards intelligent, AI-backed personalisation ushers in new potential for brands to build connection. But it will make it easy to cross the line in a way that feels invasive or too precise, and this will only serve to erode trust. While brands can personalise products, services, and communications in a way that’s never been possible before, that doesn’t mean they should always do so.  

Brands are part of the cultural fabric of our lives. Our shared connection to them is built on a common understanding, via the ads we see, the experiences we have or the product choices we see others make. Hyper-personalisation risks overly focusing on an individual (their tastes, preferences, needs, etc.) and losing the shared meaning of brands.  

Let’s look at how this could play out in practice. Two people might receive an email from the same brand, with entirely different content that’s tailored to their tastes. When they log on to social media, they both see ads from the same brand, but what they see is different. In this context, where’s the line between personalised branding and a fragmented brand with no central identity?  

If we multiply this across multiple touchpoints, brands who take the tailoring of assets too far risk becoming a mash-up of inconsistent signals instead of a singular, recognisable presence. Over time, this will create a disconnect between customer expectations and the perceived authenticity of the brand, threatening the very foundations of effective brand building.  

To maintain, build (or rebuild) trust when integrating personalisation, customers need to feel like it’s about them, not you.  

People know brands are clever. We know when brands have identified our needs or preferences. And, if we perceive that others are being treated differently from us, then it will impact our perception of brand fairness. Plus, when personalisation feels too controlling or manipulative, people experience psychological reactance. They rebel against attempts they think are trying to influence their behaviour.  

To combat negative perceptions, brands must ensure personalisation adds genuine value. Respect privacy and be open about ethical data practices. Show, don’t just tell. No one believes someone who says they are funny, but they will laugh at someone who tells a joke.  

Cognitive overload and decision fatigue will kick in when consumers are overwhelmed with choices or information. So, give customers agency over their experience of personalisation. Let them opt in or out, and set their preferences.  

To use personalised communications wisely, brands must maintain integrity and respect the lived experience of their customers. Most important is to ask: what’s in this for the customer? A Coke with your name on it gives joy, what can you offer?

‍