Let's Stop Saying 'Personalisation' Until We Can Deliver It.

Marketers have an elastic relationship with language. They never let a dictionary definition get in the way of a good story.

This has certainly been the case with 'personalisation'.

For years, we have heard that personalisation is the next big thing, but I have rarely heard the term defined in a way that adds real value for a customer.

What we think people want and what they actually want are often distinct, sometimes to the point of partition.

Putting someone on a remarketing list because they looked at a product - and then hounding them with discounts for said product - is one crude, contemporary interpretation.

'You looked, therefore you want', is the underlying, presumptuous philosophy.

Adding the customer's name to the ensuing ads won't make it much better, either.

I run online classes on this topic and I like to gauge the consensus among the participants, based on their experiences of personalised ads.

The jury is usually hung; people can see potential value in personalisation, but for the moment it is more nuisance than blessing.

A recent New York Times article refuted Mark Zuckerberg's claim that consumers prefer 'tailored ads'.

The supporting survey found that 61% of respondents did not want any tailored ads, a proportion that rose to 86% when the question was restricted to political messages.

The term 'tailored' connotes an existing message that has been adapted to suit an individual, rather than one that has been designed from the ground up exclusively for them. The same notion of 'personalisation' persists, however.

The conclusion: People only receive tailored ads because they have no choice.

A similar study from McKinsey also found that "two in five users overall said most [personalised] messages they received still felt like mass marketing that 'wasn't created with them in mind."

We do ourselves a disservice by speaking in such assertive terms about this practice, so soon.

The desire for certainty leads us to proclaim any modicum of personalisation as a sign that the trend has arrived.

It would be better to relax the focus on personalisation until we can deliver on it in a way that seems even marginally personal.

True personalisation puts the power in the customer's hands.

It gives them a choice; not only in whether they receive personalised ads or not, but also in the nature of the content they see and the products they can access.

A tailor would never (I hope) make suits for people who only looked into the store window.

If the tailor then turned up at the 'prospective' customer's home with a new, custom suit, it would be mildly creepy, likely unwelcome.

Online, we see little harm in exhausting audience lists. Once we hit saturation point, we can refresh the creative at minimal cost.

There is still a cost to the customer relationship, nonetheless.

I am often pursued by the products I peruse, to the point where I have to opt out of seeing that specific ad again.

If that's personalisation, leave me out.

There is another way, however.

No trend is an island

So, many consumers don't want the personalisation they receive today - and who could blame them? - but we can do much better.

Some retailers have realised this and many others are on the right path.

Savitude asks for minimal data from its customers, but uses it to good effect.

This company also aims to solve a perennial problem for online shoppers: fit.

By asking customers to share answers to some thoughtful questions, Savitude can produce an output that is a little closer to a truly 'personalised' product.

The outfits can be cut to suit the customer's body shape, their individual preferences, and even the occasion they are planning to attend.

Thread and Spoke offer something similar for men, with automated data analysis doing the hard work to provide a tailored service at scale. The data they ask for has a clear impact on the quality of the output.

This notion of 'mass customisation' is not new, but its application has been elusive. Frankly, it's expensive when customisation goes mass.

The desire for such a solution is growing, however.

The huge environmental damage caused by our penchant for disposable clothing is an at all-time high.

As such, there is a shift away from fast fashion, towards more sustainable clothing sources. Even H&M, the high temple of fast fashion, is moving towards a future that is "minimalist, curated, and pricey."

We are finally, perhaps, about to listen to Christian Dior's advice: "Don't buy much but make sure that what you buy is good."

Average Order Values are increasing steadily for retailers in the US and Western Europe, demonstrating an increased comfort with the idea of doing most of our shopping online.

Expectations tend to march in lock-step with expenditure, of course.

If consumers are to spend more per item, but buy fewer items, they need to be sure the product is right.

The extra cost can be justified by offering a personalised service, on the customer's terms.

A judicious approach to data gathering, with consent from the outset and a clear idea of its purpose, is a non-negotiable part of this process.

The value exchange is self-evident; tell us about yourself and we'll provide you with a better service.

In summary, consumers may not want personalisation as an end in itself.

But if personalisation is a vehicle to deliver products with lasting value and eco-friendlier credentials, it suddenly becomes more appealing.

We must stop being impressed with what we can do and focus instead on what our audience would like us to do for them.

It is a sleight on our customers' individuality to call what we deliver today 'personalisation'.

Either that, or we're getting carried away with a trend before we have delivered on its potential.

It wouldn't be the first time.