top of page
.png)
.png)
.png)
Personalisation in a post-cookie landscape
.png)
A warm welcome to Social Bubble, a company we believe you are all going to become a lot more familiar with in the coming months. Today we have Social Bubble's founder, Connie Lowman, to take us through the future of personalised digital advertising without third-party cookies.
Personalisation is different to targeting
Now for my first discovery on the theme of personalisation. I found that simply changing the language from targeted to personalised implies a more consensual brand and generation z consumer relationship. This subtle change caused an increase in generation z trust when it came to sharing private data for tailored content. While researching for my literature review, I found that advertising people seem to use the terms personalised and targeted interchangeably. However, during my first-hand research, I established that my generation z participants responded differently to the two terms. This finding was interesting but unexpected for me. Regardless of the technical differences between personalisation and targeting, my discovery has shown that advertising people need to be more considerate with phrasing private data collection practices.
.png)
During the initial research stage, all participants agreed, to an extent, that the personalisation of digital assets was a positive thing. For Tom, this was more relevant with online services, including Spotify and Netflix, which were more “trusted because you are paying for those solutions and so they are more considerate” with data use. However, when it came to third-party advertising, his judgement shifted. “I think it requires a whole change because I feel like I am getting targeted too heavily”. He deliberately made the point to check how many ads he had blocked on his PC that day. The figure sat at 2,500. The term ‘targeted’ appeared to connote victimisation and defensiveness, reflecting a discomfort in receiving ads and consequently an inclination to block them.
.png)
.png)
"I think it requires a whole change because I feel like I am getting targeted too heavily"
Through a structuralist lens, generation z discomfort with the term 'targeted' highlights a polarity in power between the consumer and the corporation. This structural opposition has created a rivalry between the actors, such as Google, who have assumed the role of power-hungry data takers, while we consumers submissively adopt the position of data givers[1]. A literal opposition has been widely publicised, with the likes of Google and Facebook in constant anti-trust and privacy exploitation claims against the general public.
As a result, users are embedded into a structuralist institution where their submission involves getting targeted based on their non-consensually manipulated private data. Meanwhile, the capitalist actors make a profit. “A conspiracy of the powerful and orthodox against the powerless and eccentric”[2]. This classification has resulted in a lack of trust for consumers, who feel targeted as James, for example, continues to “give away” his data.
.png)
While creating Social Bubble, I acknowledged how subtle linguistic and design decisions could impact user perception of the intention behind data collection. For my prototype, ‘personalised’ replaced ‘targeted’ and permission pieces such as "if you feel comfortable" were included throughout the set-up process. This vetting was part of a broader aim to help the users perceive personalisation as something that would benefit them rather than use them. It was this mentality shift that aimed to build trust in personalised advertising. Social Bubble should be seen as a trusted mediator with the users' best interest at heart, wanting to create a positive experience for them, not using them. And these simple lexical changes seemed to help. “They would be more approved ads, not just random ads that are coming from my data being sold to sources that I have no idea about, only ads that I’ve allowed”, Mae summarised in the third research stage.
Additionally, combining the multi-faceted control finding with this understanding of personalisation benefitting (as opposed to targeting that manipulates) also unlocked a new opportunity due to greater perceived trust with private data. This revelation led to Mae explaining she would feel comfortable sharing “my ethnicity or sexual orientation” within the Social Bubble browser extension. She built upon this point, explaining, “some minority groups would like that, so they can receive people in ads that are underrepresented like them”.
Increased trust in the perceptual shift to a consensual sharing of private data that personalises, may provide more diverse opportunities, allowing for greater representation of minority groups. Ultimately, the language used around private data can help increase generation z’s willingness to consensually share with brands seen as ultimately benefitting them in receiving trusted personalised advertising.
Keep the language simple, stupid
Another discovery concerning personalisation that leverages trust for generation z is the importance of simplicity in private data management tools. When generation z feel like they don’t understand the complexity of a technology, like cookies, it can disinhibit them from trusting brands with their data. This perception appeared to derive from trust issues associating services that are not fully transparent or generally too complex for the average person to attempt to comprehend as hiding something sinister.
During the stage one interviews, James, who admitted “I don’t know much about cookies, so I don’t know how useful I will be”, also claimed, “I don’t think I have ever clicked on manage cookies once”. A self-awareness of almost an apologetic inferiority from James epitomises that regardless of the characterisation of generation z as having a technical efficacy, there is an underlying confusion about what cookies actually are.
The complexity of data collection tools, such as cookies, proved harmful to perception of targeted ads. “I won’t necessarily pay them any attention…I don’t think I’ve ever clicked on an ad like this” James explained when shown a personalised Facebook ad during the laddering interviews. James' submissive stance and ultimately withdrawal of interest in personalised ads, arguably tie in with Foucault’s use of Nietzsche. The “relationship between power and bodies operates as both power over bodies, and the power of bodies”[3].
This power over bodies is exemplified in the technical complexity of existing data collection technologies, which reinforce the structuralist power oppositions. This complexity has forced consumers into the position of technically naive in comparison to the technically superior bodies of the companies that consequently obtain the power. Conforming to the role of submission and ignorance becomes the simplest consumer response.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
"I don't know much about cookies so I don't know how useful I will be"
.png)
When creating Social Bubble, I intentionally simplified the technical terminology, making the explanation of the service accessible to avoid ostracising the previously powerless with intimidating technicalities. These terminological decisions were amongst many framing strategies which attempted to reduce the mental barriers. In psychological ownership theory, these mental barriers are referred to as fences and can only “limit the degree to which an individual can come into contact with certain targets…[and how] the target can be controlled”[4].
By removing the technical terms, legal jargon, and reducing the length of copy with Social Bubble, I could instead actively educate its users on how data management could be simple and trusted. I felt inspired by Dreyfus' exploration of structuralism, where “intelligibility derives from this intentionality”[5]. I sought to empower Social Bubble’s users with the power of knowledge, assisting in their ability to make informed decisions they could understand, and therefore trust, when sharing private data.
Mental
Barriers
In the final interview stage, I asked participants about the accessibility of the prototype. There was an apparent relief with the simplicity and unobtrusiveness of the design, with James explaining, “I’m more likely to be interested if simpler language is used and there is nothing worse than just endless pages of text about data”. Tom seconded this point explaining that for him, “I want it to be extremely quick and have the option to click a couple of buttons not have to trawl down endless small print”. The fear of small print is not a new finding within the realm of a cookie-full world; however, I have discovered that increasing the accessibility of user-facing data management controls can help when leveraging trust in generation z participants sharing private data for personalised ads.
"I'm more likely to be interested if simpler language is used"
[1] Giddens, A., 1987. Structuralism, post-structuralism. Social theory today, p.195.
[2] Sturrock, J., 2008. Structuralism. John Wiley & Sons.
[3] Olssen, M., 2003. Structuralism, post-structuralism, neo-liberalism: assessing Foucault's legacy. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), pp.189-202.
[4] Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T., 2003. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of general psychology, 7(1), pp.84-107.
[5] Dreyfus, H.L. and Rabinow, P., 2014. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Routledge.
bottom of page