Granular targeting is out of its infancy and should stop being cool. Consumer data integrations into the RNC voter file were targeting mail and phones in the '04 cycle, and a bit before. Babies born in 2004 can now drink in bars. In ~'13-'14, we were targeting individuals, with basically no privacy protections, on Facebook. Google and early YT basically had no restrictions on political targeting. Before GDPR, before the Cambridge Analytica scandal, before Apple took IDFA opt-in, before VPNs went consumer.... traceable, scalable cookies (in the original, broader technical use of the word) have never been harder; not the other way around. ### **It's 2025, and Everyone thinks targeting is smart.** ***But why do we automatically assume narrowing the scope of people who can see our content is a good idea??*** ***The default position should be: that's a bad idea.*** Unless there's compelling reasons to do otherwise. (And there are many) Few campaigns have the time and/or money to execute solid creative concepts in enough substantial variance to support significant targeting variance - presidentials and big statewide efforts excepted.  AI may change that. Or it may make [[On Political Botslop|botslop]] so prevalent, ad content will have to be direct, personal and authentic in such a way that only humans to camera will remain believable.  Also: targeting mechanisms tell us very little about how compelling advertising will be received. There's an epistemological fallacy rampant in our business that we have an ability to tightly correlate past consumer behavior or stated preferences to what someone will remember.   ### Don't be a digital advertiser. Be an advertiser.  Show us where the viewer will see the ad and consume it in a way that facilitates memory, and we’re ready to buy. Everything else is out the window. Firstly, everybody [read Victory Lab](https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Lab-Science-Winning-Campaigns/dp/0307954803) if you haven’t yet. If you have 5% name ID, targeting is mostly stupid. It's still mostly stupid at 45%. Because at the end of the day, you're trying to fix stupid. [[As attention spans shrink, content outlets and consumption expand.]] We think the strategic default is cleaner, simpler creative shared as widely as possible. Exceptions should be supported with a clear tactical need, not the other way around.