Reference no: EM133378526

The case

A New York Times article from Feb 16, 2022, describes a situational case based on advertisements in Target from 2022. For full article click here. In summary, Target was attempting to provide targeted marketing to parents-to-be early in their buying process when they may be more subject to buying patterns. Target assigns every customer a guest ID that ties to their credit card, name, or email address gathered by the location. Through analysis of baby registries, the marketing team was able to generate predictive buying patterns tied to expectant mothers for both related and unrelated products. Through these patterns, the marketing department identified "pregnancy prediction" scores so they could send targeted ads at specific moments in pregnancy. This process was attributed to increasing revenue in the "baby on board" market fom $44bil in 2002 to $67bil in 2010. An anecdote shared in marketing that proves the effectiveness of the predictor:

An angry man went into a Target outside of Minneapolis with a Target ad and coupons for baby clothes and cribs that had been addressed to his daughter. The man demanded to know why these were being sent to his teenage daughter and if Target was trying to encourage her to become pregnant. When the Target manager checked in with the man a few days later it turns out that his daughter was indeed pregnant.

Question: As a company, is creating data predictions like this an ethical issue?