Axciom is certainly one of the top bananas when it comes to database marketing. These folks breathe data. So I was struck by a short post by David Baker, Axciom’s VP of Digital Product Solutions, in which he actually warns against going overboard with respect to personalizing marketing messages.

Here — in [FNAME] Never Works — is his core message and question:

“There is a fine line between marketing brilliance and having to walk into your boss’s office and explain a poor customer digital experience that went viral.  Sometimes the problem could be a personalization attempt that went awry.

The concept of contextually relevant brand messages is the basis for how the email industry grew up, from mail merge to dynamic personalization and recommendation engines. Over the last 15 years, I’ve seen personalization deliver amazing lift, and I’d confidently say it’s a best practice for most.  From database-driven personalization of consumer information to collaborative and content-based filtering, the options are virtually endless to deliver that “perfect” message or experience.

But does it always work?”

Baker proceeds to voice a cautionary approach:

“You are not Amazon, Sears, Pandora, Google or Facebook. You will never have the breadth of personal, performance, or preference data as these leaders, or the real-time requirement to deliver against it. Real time should mean ‘near’ real time to you. The more programmatic you become, the larger the propensity to make mistakes or deliver non-relevant ‘default’ experiences to the 30% of your database you don’t have good data on. You should think hard about the trade-offs of performance to errors, and what is the risk tolerance your organization can live with.”

Hey, I’m a simple guy. I’m thrilled if a nonprofit (both online or in mail):

1. Spells my name right.

2. Mentions the specific amount I contributed in their thank you (assuming I get a thank you).

3. Refers to the program or purpose for which I contributed in their thank you (assuming I get a thank you).

4. References a previous gift by type or category or program, when asking me for an additional contribution towards that same purpose.

5. Recognizes my occasional historic milestone (as in: “Over the past ten years, Tom, you’ve given …”).

You don’t need to do much more to keep me happy, feeling connected, and believing (against all reason) you’re actually aware I exist and matter as an individual amongst your vast faceless legion of givers.

Does your nonprofit do this much personalization? More?

Have you had database-driven personalization go awry?

Tom