Let's Debate CDP Functions, Not Definitions

What’s the definition of a CDP? It's a bad question because it diverts attention from what really matters: What capabilities do CDP users need? Still, buyers keep asking and sellers keep answering, typically in ways that promote their own interests. Looking for an unbiased perspective on the topic, I recently asked ChatGPT what answers it was finding. It came back with a reasonable cluster of responses and particularly interesting details on who was using each one (see below for the full response)*:

• Unified customer database: 70–90% of analyst pages, trade articles and vendor docs 
• Marketing activation / audience building platform: 60–85% of vendor docs, blogs and many press releases  
• Real-time/streaming profile & interaction engine: 30–60% depending on whether the source is vendor marketing (more likely) or neutral analyst articles (less likely to require “real-time”). 
• Privacy, governance & identity management layer: 15–35%, increasingly present in analyst pieces and vendor positioning  
• Part of a larger ‘data cloud’ or enterprise data stack: 10–30%, especially in vendor/marketing copy from big cloud vendors

These are categories that ChatGPT identified without me defining them in advance.  So it's particularly interesting that there’s no mention of composability, warehouse-centricity, no-copy, hybrid, embedded, integrated, stand-alone, or other architectural details that have dominated recent industry discussions. In a way, this represents a failure by the CDP Institute to propagate our view that a CDP must build a separate database of its own. But a less parochial response is to be pleased that the main distinctions reflect system functions, which is where the focus belongs.

Of course, the variety of definitions is still problematic. While it’s usually safe to assume that a system labeled as a CDP will provide a unified customer database, it’s less certain that it will also offer marketing activation and downright dicey as to whether it will offer real-time streaming profiles and interactions. This means the label provides little useful guidance: imagine a can of soup labelled “contains tomatoes and maybe chicken and could also have mushrooms, rice or shrimp”. The only way to know what's inside would be to open it -- which defeats the purpose of a label.  

(And, yes, the problem is worse for CDP than other categories. When I ran the same prompt for the term "customer relationship management software," a single answer dominated: 71% defined CRM as “a software/system/platform to manage customer interactions and data.”  The next highest share was just 29% for “integrated suite (sales, marketing, service automation)”. It’s true that the dominant answer is exceptionally broad, but at least most people understand this and won’t expect anything more specific.)

So, although industry understanding has not been entirely destroyed by architectural debates, there is still enough disagreement on the scope of a CDP to limit the term’s utility. (If the CRM example is typical, it may be a natural progression for popular categories to expand their meaning over time. That would be an interesting hypothesis to explore if anyone out there is looking for a thesis topic.)

The industry could fight to restore a more specific CDP definition, but that’s probably a losing battle. It’s more likely productive to shift the discussion away from defining the term "CDP" to defining the functions required to manage customer data. 

Yes, I’m proposing that the solution to our problem is a checklist. Don’t roll your eyes: whole books  have been written on the topic. (Ok, maybe just one book.)  But in an industry that has long been driven more by theory than practical requirements, anything that gets buyers to focus on what they actually need is a win.  

Getting the industry to agree on a shared requirements checklist wouldn’t be easy, since every participant would want to add or remove items depending on whether their products supports them. Indeed, the very notion of a comprehensive requirements list favors broad, integrated products over narrow point solutions. But I’d still invest a few embers of hope in a project to forge a complete customer data framework. The potential benefits, for users and vendors alike, are well worth the effort.

Why Agentic Campaigns Are Not The Future of Marketing

My last post, presenting ChatGPT’s description of AI-based marketing, generated thought-provoking comments on LinkedIn. Key insights included:   

• Organization issues as roadblocks to successful deployment (Chris Adelman and Lee Hammond)
• Buyer agents as increasing the importance of trusted information sources (Jon Miller, Dan Cote)
• Some vendors are already delivering end-to-end agentic campaigns (Matthew Niederberger, Duarte Garrido)
  

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

What I didn’t see was push-back against the vision that ChatGPT presented. Maybe people were being polite or maybe they fear that ChatGPT could hold a grudge. But my own initial take was triggered by words including “narrative” and “journey”. These led me to think that ChatGPT was still describing today's standard of multi-step marketing campaigns applied to customer segments. On closer examination, the story is a bit more complicated: the various components included in ChatGPT’s list are not necessarily a consistent whole, but rather a collection of predictions that ChatGPT has gathered by scraping of industry discussions. Oddly enough, ChatGPT's summary provides a clearer statement of an alternative approach:

AI-native marketing is:

• Continuous (not campaign-based)
• Conversational (not broadcast)
• Collaborative (AI agents on both sides)
• Generative (creating narratives, products, and experiences dynamically)
• Ethically-audited and explainable (trust is as important as persuasion)

Of course, that ChatGPT says something is no guarantee that it’s correct. So, although I intuitively agree with the prediction, I still need to convince myself (and, hopefully, others) that it’s right. One test is to compare the prediction with cutting-edge industry developments. Here’s a list of trends I’ve been tracking:

• Agentic search: AI-generated summaries replace traditional, link-based search results
• Ads in chat replies: Chat responses include paid advertising, identified with varying degrees of transparency
• Social commerce (a.k.a."live shopping"): Make purchases of items featured in social media discussions without leaving the social media platform
• Commerce via agentic browsers: Advertising and shopping links presented by browsers based on what they see the user doing (a privacy nightmare but we'll ignore that for now)
• Interactive ads: Advertisements that link to a conversational interface rather than conventional landing pages or websites
• Buyer agents: AI agents that do product research and, perhaps, make purchases on behalf of users without users visiting seller websites
• Conversational websites: websites that present chat-style interactions or hyper-personalized contents in dialog with the user

All but the last of these occur at the discovery stage of the buyer cycle. That's encouraging because marketers have been very concerned about they reach new customers when traditional search no longer drives traffic to their websites and consumers increasingly ignore traditional email and display messages. But what's really important is that these items all change the role of marketing from creating campaigns that broadcast messages to consumers, to executing continuous conversations with consumers. This is indeed what ChatGPT described. It’s not something that is accomplished by using AI generate conventional broadcast campaigns.

In fact, I’d argue that the current broadcast campaign model developed precisely because the then-existing technology couldn’t handle a conversational approach. Branching campaigns with personalized content nodes were the best that could be done when marketers were limited to deterministic, manually-crafted workflows. If you recall the once-popular cliché of marketing automation as a way to replicate the personal relationship of customers to their “corner grocer,” you quickly realize the real-life grocer had conversations, not campaigns.

Think a bit deeper and you see that the reason the grocer was able to have conversations was data. He knew the history of each customer and was able to discern their current situation by seeing and talking to them. Multi-step marketing funnels exist because marketers don’t have that kind of information available in real time. Instead, they have to make a guess at where each customer might be in the buying cycle. The funnel is a framework for making those guesses. Provide real information and it’s no longer needed.

I think this is important. Marketers, vendors and analysts have focused largely on how AI can reduce the cost and time of generating marketing campaigns. This allows companies to create near-infinite amounts of personalized content. But unless that content is driven by near-complete, real-time data, there’s a severe limit to how relevant it can be. Data, not content creation, is what ultimately limits the effectiveness of AI marketing.

This may strike you as bad news. Data has always been a problem for marketers, and real-time data is a particular challenge. Agentic campaign creation won’t solve the data problem, although perhaps it will highlight data's role as a bottleneck. The good news is that other AI and agent applications can in fact improve data access, something that data management vendors are already pursuing. 

It’s true that better data management isn’t as exciting, or directly tied to revenue, as better customer engagement tools. This is probably why most vendors focus on adding engagement features. But as autonomous engagement become increasingly common, the need for better data will become more obvious. Vendors who use AI to deliver better data (and convince the market that they are leaders in doing it) will have an increasing advantage in growing their business.

I’ll give the final word to Abhi Yadav of iCustomer, one of those very smart people who see further, sooner than most of us. He recently shared a substack post that captures my opinion quite eloquently:

We used to drag customers to our properties (site, app, landing pages). Now we take capabilities to where customers already live: agent/app ecosystems, workflow-native GPTs, and search/ad surfaces that embed decisions at the edge. ... If your data stays scattered and your channels siloed while this shift accelerates, AI won’t transform your business it’ll just perform visual eye candy. AI should drive a paradigm shift in your business, not a party trick.