Is Personalization in Digital Marketing Genius Targeting or Digital Voyeurism?

Do you ever feel like your phone is invading your mind instead of just being a device? You know, when that ad appears for something, you just thought about? This is the ‘paradox of our age’. It is personalization. It is the convenience that we get but sometimes it crosses the line to feel like we are being stalked. 

To explore where ‘smart’ turns ‘stalkerish,’ we spoke with Jyoti Sharma, a product documentation specialist and UX content strategist with over a decade of experience shaping user experiences for global audiences. Currently at Adobe, she combines deep expertise in accessibility, product storytelling, and content design to transform vague features into clear, actionable content.

Over the years, Jyoti has created scalable content frameworks, led high-impact documentation projects for flagship creative tools, and contributed to major global product launches. Her work, driven by a passion for inclusive and user-friendly technology, sits at the intersection of customer empathy, design thinking, and measurable business impact.

With this perspective, Jyoti offers her candid thoughts on why personalization in digital marketing can be both brilliant and manipulative—and why the line between the two is becoming increasingly blurred.

Jyoti Sharma

Jyoti, let’s start with this: Do you ever feel like your phone knows you too well? Is it reading your mind, not just your data?

Jyoti Sharma: The line between helpful and invasive is so thin it’s almost a blur. Helpful is when my map app remembers where I parked or my airline app shows my boarding pass at just the right moment. These things make life easier without asking much in return—that’s convenience with consent.

Invasive is when I think of something, and within hours, it appears in an ad. That’s not personalization; it’s predictive behaviour starting to feel like surveillance. The danger is in the creep factor—it’s no longer about my experience being enhanced, it’s about inferring things that I never consented to share. That’s a prediction without permission. 

“It feels like magic, only until you see the strings.”

When your shopping app suggests exactly what you were thinking about… is it magic or manipulation?

Sharma: A combination of the two. It feels almost romantic when it seems random, as if the software knows my preferences so well. But it turns into manipulation when I realize that this same ‘understanding’ is designed to keep me on screen longer and nudge me toward purchases I don’t need.

The psychology is straightforward: trust is increased when people feel seen through predictive personalization. Trust is the best method of gaining influence. The question is whether that impact is serving the platform’s KPIs or my interests. 

“The algorithm’s not your friend, it’s just really good at playing one.”

Why does hyper-personalized content sometimes feel more stalker-ish than smart?

Sharma: Because it dissolves the barrier that separates our private and public selves. A platform ceases to feel like a helpful friend and becomes more like a nosy neighbor looking through the blinds the instant it makes reference to anything I barely mumbled to Google at two in the morning or dwelt on in an Instagram story. 

Intimacy without bounds is what algorithms thrive on. However, that intimacy may feel like overexposure to the person receiving it. Personalization moves from strategic targeting to emotional trespassing at some time. “We’re watching you” is more important than “We know you.” 

“We already traded our privacy—the question is, on whose terms?” 

Would you trade your privacy for a perfectly tailored digital experience?

Sharma: We already did! It’s the unspoken contract of the internet. Every like, search, and swipe is a micro-trade in this agreement.

But perfect tailoring comes at a price: less anonymity, more exposure, and an internet that starts to reflect only our views already held. Just because I want something tailored and a seamless experience doesn’t mean I’m willing to unload a whole data biography without question. The real question is—under whose terms are we trading? 

And here’s the deal—the more we accept these terms without even acknowledging, the more we normalize being profiled as the price of participation. 

“Without a little randomness, we have curated echo chambers for our digital lives.” 

Is personalization in digital marketing making us predictable—and boring? 

Sharma: Yes, and this is the paradox. Personalization seduces us with relevance, yet there is too much relevance to break us out of taste loops, making novelty impenetrable. We’ll lose the happy accidents: the books we never would have picked up, the songs we never knew we would love, the weird memes that expanded our sense of humour.

Algorithms are excellent at delivering more of the same. The unexpected is an excellent foundation for discovery. Eli Pariser’s The Filter Bubble cautioned us against this over a decade ago. And lately in 2023 a Nielsen report showed that 72% of streaming views occur due to algorithmic recommendations. Which indicates the majority of people are indulging in their comfort zones rather than actively exploring. When everything is relevance-based there is nothing to surprise you. 

“Personalization isn’t about you—it’s about the you they’ve built to sell to.”

Who’s pulling the strings: your preferences or the platforms profiling you?

Sharma: The platforms, mostly. Instead of the true, complex you, personalization is based on a stitched-together profile created from your clicks, pauses, and purchases.

Compared to the real you, the algorithm’s “you” is more reliable, consistent, and marketable. We aren’t in charge until we have more authority over what is included in that profile, how it is utilized, and how it is updated.

The risk is that the longer that version of “you” persists unchecked, the more it influences not only what you see, but also your thoughts, purchases, and even your beliefs. At that moment, you’re being subtly guided rather than just targeted.