Automation is the golden word of the day. PPCers, who were even reluctant to incorporate too much automation in their systems until a little while back, have now accepted the advent of automation. Managing various processes manually has been recognized as a waste of time, energy and efficiency. The PPC world has joined the race to the era of automation. 

 

Keeping in close touch with all the latest trends in the digital world, SocialPulsar, one of the best marketing automation agency in India, has been following this change very closely; the reason why we have been able to stand tall among the top marketing automation consultants in Kerala. Let’s discuss this a bit. 

Change and automation

Google now aims at increasingly utilizing automates systems like product feeds. This allows them to have more control over the placement and bidding of ads than simply keyword targeting. There are important aspects of automation that the PPC world needs to consider. Based on this, we can classify certain contradictory elements of automation that the industry needs to take notice of. 

Why talk about this now

It is important to talk about this now because the platforms wish to ‘obfuscate’ data because it is in their favor to run things. It is said that such data will result in better machines. However, it is important to slow down now a bit and think about this. We need to think over a few things. This is crucial for the industry to develop powerful and guiding convictions regarding the nature of data and automation. The desire of the forces behind this is to control every aspect of the automation process and keep the data concealed to prevent external interference on the algorithm. This can be an issue and hence we need to discuss this now. 

The necessary, contradictory elements

Statement 1: Data is owned by the one who pays, ie, the advertiser. 

The first opinion is that data is owned by the one who pays for it. The view is that the advertiser doesn’t rent it, but purchases it. In the coming days of automation, the real argument would be regarding who actually owns the data. If the data is owned by the advertiser, then they have the right over data or at least whatever data is necessary for the advertiser/company. 

 

There is a problem with this argument, the reason why it seems contradictory. As the person paying for it, what right do you have over the data? Just because you have a lot of data, you don’t win anything. It is the person who can actually use the data that gets the advantage. It is only what Google considers important that advertisers get in their accounts. 

Statement 2: Algorithm is good when it has proper guidelines

For ongoing feedback, machines still need human work. Some human interference is necessary for automation. Machine learning depends on connected paths from past data points in order to make the correct decisions. 

The problem with this is that bad data can affect the algorithm. Another problem is that change happens when there is actually no necessity for a change. Manual corrections can kill automated processes. 

 

The bottom line is that there is a danger with a platform such as Google defining the terms of what data is necessary and obfuscating the process of algorithms. If we remain silent on this, the platforms will determine the necessary information. It is useful for automation if data remained available and advertisers had control over it.