We in the data marketing business love to test — at least, we should. And what we should test for is new data categories.
Expanding the marketing universe — and stretching the marketing budget — depends on higher efficiency in our lists, offers, and creative. We should be eager to test new proofs of concepts and new categories of data sources as they enter the market … if only to know whether or not they produce incrementally or otherwise.
I’m still surprised when I hear some of my data-vendor friends say that a good number of their clients pass on testing — and just go all-in on new lists and data sources. It seems like testing is still too much work for some, or they feel the only way to test is with an entire data source. Guess these client-side folks have money to burn, or are operating very much on-the-fly.
In some ways, digital marketers have it all over offline marketers in their ability to test, cycle, test again, and so on — often, many times over by the time a direct mail or direct-response print or broadcast test cycle has run its course. Yet, in this speed, have we sacrificed some quality in our prospecting strategies?
Online audience algorithms can produce some highly categorized niche segments, based on site visits and app usage — much of it de-identified, from a personal perspective. But how do these segments really stack up against a transaction database, or response lists, or even compiled lists, based on personally identifiable information? Thankfully, we can test for this, or even overlay data! (I am not advocating re-identification here, nor should you. Oh California, please don’t force us to identify non-PII. It’s soooo anti-privacy.)