Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2012

Target's algorithm knew a teenager was pregnant before her father did

Target's CRM model scored shoppers for pregnancy from 25 products. A father confronted the store — then apologised. Target had to hide its own accuracy.

Target · 2012-02

What happened

Target statistician Andrew Pole analysed purchase histories from women who had signed up for Target baby registries and identified about 25 products whose combined buying patterns predicted pregnancy with high accuracy. Unscented lotion in the second trimester, calcium and zinc supplements in the first 20 weeks, large quantities of scent-free soap and cotton balls near delivery. The model assigned each shopper a 'pregnancy prediction' score and estimated a due date, letting Target mail coupons timed to specific stages.

The model's accuracy became public through a story that circulated widely after the New York Times Magazine reported it in February 2012. A man walked into a Target outside Minneapolis and demanded to see a manager: his teenage daughter had received mailers with ads for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and smiling infants. He accused Target of encouraging her to get pregnant. The manager apologised. Days later, the father called back. 'She's due in August,' he said. 'I owe you an apology.'

Target realised that demonstrating this knowledge openly could alienate customers. Pole told the Times: 'Even if you're following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.' Target began mixing baby-product coupons with unrelated ads — lawn mowers, wineglasses — so the mailings appeared random. The company had built a system that worked perfectly and then had to disguise the fact that it worked.

Why it happened

  • The model was accurate enough to infer a deeply personal medical condition from ordinary purchases, crossing a line customers had not consented to.
  • Target's CRM infrastructure — Guest IDs linking every purchase to a profile — made the inference possible at scale, but the company had no framework for deciding when accuracy became intrusion.
  • The father's confrontation showed the failure mode: the customer experiences the prediction not as personalisation but as surveillance, and the brand's competence becomes the brand's problem.
  • Target's fix — disguising accuracy with random ads — was an admission that the product's value depended on the customer not knowing it existed.
What it costreputational damage; operational redesign of mailingscostly

The lesson

A CRM that infers what the customer hasn't told you is surveillance, not personalisation. Accuracy that must be hidden to work is a design flaw, not a feature.

Aftermath

The story became the standard reference in discussions of data ethics and predictive analytics. Target's revenue grew from $44 billion in 2002 to $67 billion in 2010, but the pregnancy-prediction case overshadowed the company's data-analytics reputation. It is taught in marketing and ethics courses as the moment the industry understood that the question was no longer 'can we predict this?' but 'should we show that we can?'

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →