Less granular data is a good thing
Hand-wringing continues about the impending demise of the cookie (though its execution has been stayed for a time that has yet to be decided). And that’s because the advertising industry has grown accustomed to the security blanket of voluminous, detailed data on every person’s every action taken at every point of contact with connected media. These data support every marketing and advertising decision that gets made. Every dollar spent, every ad placed, every tool deployed, is justified by the hordes of data that can and are collected. If the kind of detail we’ve assumed would always be available to us to back up every move we make is gone, how ever will an agency argue its recommendations? How will the marketing team prove pre facto that what its doing is the right thing? That every effort to de-risk the advertising enterprise has been made?
Well, there are other data out there. And a lot of it can still be useful even if it can’t be assigned to a specific person at a specific time in a specific place. And even that, with a bit more effort, can still be had; you just have to look in new places to find it.
Mobile carriers are now making their network users’ data available (T-Mobile Marketing Solutions come to mind) or other geolocational aggregators (e.g. Refinition). Social stream data, in spite of what you may think or have heard, is still available in vast quantities (Shareablee is among the best). ACR data (automated content recognition) and some cable set-top box data is out there. There are myriad sources of ample data that can still be used for marketing and advertising purposes to determine efficacy. Yes, quality data is important. But what is just as important is your metrics plan.
What is the point of metrics? They don’t establish Platonic truth of some kind; they demonstrate what works. Metrics provide validation, verification, and determination: they validate a hypothesis, they verify that what was planned to happen actually happened, and they determine what course of action to take next.
It’s been suggested that perhaps a loss of the more precise data that was made possible by cookies is a good thing because it will force us to take a more comprehensive look at the media mix, and how the combined deployment of media works to create the best impact. By not having ever more granular data to rely on, we will be forced to find ways of making better, more productive use of the advertising that’s put out there across channels.
Perhaps most importantly is something that walks by that graveyard with a little whistle: that the more granular data on audiences and their interactions with media aren't really necessary at all — and never have been. Knowing that my customer for toilet paper is a club-footed home office radiologist who likes cheese is unnecessary and not terribly important data. While some level of salience is important to make and keep connections with customers or potential customers, knowing more about them often times doesn't change the calculus of engagement that puts them on a path to purchase. It can have slightly more impact on the content the creative assets contain, but when it comes to the media itself: if I'm McDonalds, I mostly only care if the person consuming the media has a mouth.
Knowing more about the audience, having more data on the audience, doesn't really change the basics. Digital, while it has become the viscera of the body media, enabled unuseful practices by focusing too hard on trees thereby missing forests. And there’s a lot more wood to be had from a forest than there is from one tree.