Unpopular opinion by a CEO: Hyper-personalised marketing is just digital stalking

Remember that time you talked about buying a new couch, and suddenly every ad on your phone was for sofas? You never searched for it. You never typed it out. Yet, somehow, brands knew exactly what you were thinking. That’s not marketing magic, it’s surveillance disguised as personalisation.
Hyper-personalised advertising is one of the biggest trends in marketing, driven by AI, data tracking, and algorithms that know more about you than your best friend. But here’s the question: when does personalised marketing stop being helpful and start becoming a privacy nightmare?

The pros of hyper-personalisation

• Better user experience: People see ads tailored to their needs, reducing irrelevant content.
  
• Higher conversions for brands: AI-driven targeting increases engagement and sales.
  
• More efficient ad spend: Marketers waste less money on customers who won’t convert.
  
• Improved customer loyalty: A more personalised experience can make customers feel understood.

The dark side of hyper-personalisation

• Privacy violation: Many consumers don’t realise how much data is being collected on them.
  
• The ‘creep factor’: Over-personalisation can feel invasive, making people uneasy.
  
• Regulatory issues: GDPR, CCPA, and other laws are tightening restrictions on data collection.
  
• Manipulation vs assistance: Personalised ads can nudge users toward purchases they weren’t considering, raising ethical concerns.

The controversy: Where’s the line between smart marketing and stalking?

Many brands argue that hyper-personalisation enhances customer experience, making ads more relevant and reducing noise. But privacy advocates, and increasingly, everyday consumers see it differently. They see it as a manipulative tool that turns consumers into data points, tracking their every move.

A 2024 survey by Pew Research found that 76% of consumers feel ‘creeped out’ by hyper-personalised ads, yet only 19% take action to stop them. Why? Because opting out is almost impossible. Companies bury privacy settings, making it difficult for consumers to reclaim control over their data.

The brand war: Who’s defending privacy and who’s exploiting it?

• Apple: Marketed as the ‘protector’ of consumer privacy, limiting ad tracking on iPhones.
  
• Meta (Facebook & Instagram): Relies heavily on hyper-personalisation for ad revenue, claiming it ‘enhances’ the user experience.
  
• Google: Faces lawsuits for invasive tracking but still dominates personalised search ads.
  
• Amazon: Tracks everything, from what you buy to what you almost bought, feeding its powerful recommendation engine.

  What social media is saying

  On LinkedIn, marketers debate whether hyper-personalisation helps or hurts brand trust. Meanwhile, Twitter/X users often expose brands for over-targeting – like when women receive pregnancy ads before, they’ve even told their families. Is that helpful, or horrifying?

  The future: Are we headed toward predictive ads?

  If hyper-personalisation continues unchecked, AI may soon predict what we want before we know it ourselves. Imagine:

  • Getting ads for medicine before you even feel sick.
    
  • Seeing promotions for therapy sessions after a rough week at work.
    
  • Receiving job ads for companies you only thought about working for.

  Sound far-fetched? It’s already happening. AI-driven sentiment analysis and behavioral tracking are making predictive advertising a reality.

  The big question: How much is too much?

  So, where’s the line? At what point does “helpful” become “manipulative”? If hyper-personalisation isn’t unethical, would you be okay with ads knowing your medical history? Your relationship struggles? Your financial insecurities?

  Let’s debate. How much personal data should brands really have access to?