From Mass Marketing to Personalization: Data-Driven Approaches to Customer Experience
- International Academy
- Dec 1, 2025
- 10 min read
Abstract
Customer experience (CX) has become a defining competitive factor in modern markets, replacing product features and price advantages as dominant differentiators. One of the most profound shifts shaping CX today is the transition from mass marketing to data-driven personalization. As companies embrace big data, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and predictive analytics, they are increasingly capable of delivering tailored interactions at every stage of the customer journey. Yet this shift also brings ethical, cultural, and structural challenges. Consumers want personalization but fear surveillance; organizations want to use data but face regulatory constraints and rising expectations for transparency and fairness.
This article examines the evolution from mass marketing to data-driven personalization using recent empirical studies and three influential social theories: Bourdieu’s theory of practice, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism. These perspectives illuminate the power dynamics behind data collection, the global inequalities embedded in digital infrastructures, and the institutional pressures shaping organizational behaviour. Using a qualitative narrative review, the article synthesizes literature from marketing, information systems, sociology, and digital ethics published between 2019 and 2025.
The analysis shows that personalization improves satisfaction, engagement, loyalty, and perceived relevance, but only when designed with transparency, fairness, and user control. It also reveals how personalization can reproduce inequalities, deepen global asymmetries, or become symbolic rather than substantive if firms adopt surface-level compliance. The findings suggest that the future of customer experience will depend on balancing data-driven relevance with ethical design, regulatory alignment, and social legitimacy. The article concludes with practical implications for managers, policymakers, and researchers.
1. Introduction
The marketing landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation in the last three decades. For much of the twentieth century, mass marketing dominated communication strategies: companies delivered uniform messages to large audiences through television, radio, newspapers, and billboards. Segmentation existed, but it was broad and imprecise. Companies relied on general assumptions about age groups, income levels, or geographic areas. The goal was reach, not precision.
The arrival of digital platforms radically disrupted this model. As commerce moved online and consumers began interacting with brands through apps, websites, social networks, and connected devices, companies gained access to unprecedented volumes of behavioural data. Gradually, marketing evolved from broadcasting to tailoring — from one-to-many messages to one-to-one dialogue. Today’s firms can analyse search patterns, browsing history, purchase behaviour, device usage, and real-time signals to customize offers, recommendations, interfaces, and service flows.
This transition has elevated customer experience (CX) to a central strategic priority. CX refers to customers’ holistic perceptions of their interactions with a company over time. In an era where products and prices are easily copied, experience becomes the new battlefield. Companies that anticipate needs, remove friction, and deliver personalised journeys often gain higher satisfaction, loyalty, and engagement.
However, the shift toward personalization also raises concerns. Customers appreciate relevance but dislike feeling watched. They enjoy convenience but worry about exploitation. They welcome recommendations but fear bias. As personalization grows more sophisticated, societal debates around fairness, transparency, and privacy intensify. This duality—the promise and the risk—makes data-driven personalization both an opportunity and a challenge.
This article aims to explore this transformation in depth by addressing three central questions:
How has personalization reshaped customer experience, and what benefits and risks does it bring?
How can Bourdieu’s theory of practice, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism help explain the social and structural dynamics behind personalization?
What are the implications for companies seeking to balance personalization, performance, and trust?
Unlike purely technical analyses, this article adopts a holistic, human-readable academic style, grounding the discussion in both recent research and sociological insights. By synthesizing findings from multiple disciplines, it offers a richer understanding of why personalization has become so dominant, how it affects customer trust, and what organizations must do to implement it responsibly.
2. Background and Theoretical Framework
2.1 From Mass Marketing to Hyper-Personalization
Traditional mass marketing treated consumers as collective groups rather than individuals. Messages were static, general, and uniform. Companies could only personalise at a surface level: different radio ads for different time slots, or different slogans for broad demographic segments.
The emergence of digital platforms, big data infrastructures, and advanced analytics has made this model obsolete. Personalization has evolved through several stages:
Basic segmentation — grouping consumers by broad demographics.
Behavioural targeting — analysing past actions to predict future preferences.
Predictive personalization — using machine learning to anticipate needs.
Real-time adaptive personalization — tailoring entire journeys moment-by-moment.
Recent studies show that personalization enhances cognitive convenience, emotional attachment, and behavioural engagement. Consumers exposed to personalized content are more likely to perceive brands as helpful, competent, and aligned with their interests. Companies adopting personalization report higher conversion rates, stronger loyalty, and improved customer lifetime value.
But personalization also generates complexity. It requires integrating data from multiple touchpoints, maintaining accuracy and fairness, ensuring security, and navigating rising consumer expectations. As technology grows more intrusive, companies face the challenge of personalization without violating autonomy.
2.2 Bourdieu: Fields, Capital, and Digital Habitus
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice offers an insightful lens for understanding personalization.
Field
Digital markets function as fields—competitive arenas where companies struggle for dominance. In the personalization field, firms compete for:
data volume and quality
algorithmic capabilities
attention and relevance
customer trust
symbolic capital
Large platforms (e.g., major e-commerce, search, and social media companies) occupy dominant positions because they control the data flows and infrastructures underpinning personalization.
Capital
Bourdieu identifies several forms of capital:
economic capital (financial resources)
cultural capital (skills, knowledge, sophistication)
social capital (networks and relationships)
symbolic capital (recognition, legitimacy, prestige)
In the digital era, scholars add:
digital capital — ability to use and navigate digital tools
algorithmic capital — ability to shape visibility and relevance
Companies with strong data infrastructures possess algorithmic capital that allows them to determine what consumers see, how they see it, and which products appear trustworthy.
Habitus
Consumers develop a digital habitus—dispositions shaped by repeated interactions with recommendation systems, personalized feeds, and tailored interfaces. This habitus normalizes personalization while simultaneously heightening sensitivity to intrusive or unfair practices.
Through this theoretical lens, personalization becomes not just a marketing tactic but a form of symbolic and algorithmic competition embedded in power relations.
2.3 World-Systems Theory: Global Data Inequalities
World-systems theory explains how global power imbalances shape data-driven personalization.
Core–Periphery Dynamics
A small group of technologically advanced economies dominate global data infrastructures. These core countries host the largest platforms, cloud providers, and AI developers. Peripheral economies rely on these platforms for digital commerce, advertising, and analytics tools.
This results in:
centralized data power
unequal value extraction
global dependence on a few tech ecosystems
Personalization relies heavily on infrastructures (cloud computing, machine learning frameworks, digital advertising networks) controlled by core actors. Thus, personalization is embedded in global asymmetries.
Digital Colonialism
Some scholars describe modern data practices as a form of “digital colonialism,” where peripheral markets generate data but core platforms extract the value. Personalization tools may reinforce these structures by standardizing customer experience norms worldwide based on models developed in core markets.
World-systems theory thus highlights the geopolitical dimensions often overlooked in discussions of personalization.
2.4 Institutional Isomorphism: Why Firms Converge
Institutional isomorphism explains why companies across industries increasingly resemble each other in their personalization practices.
Coercive Pressures
Regulations around data protection, consent, fairness, and automated decision-making push firms toward similar behaviours. Privacy laws require:
transparent explanations
opt-in consent
limitations on profiling
Mimetic Pressures
Under uncertainty, firms imitate successful competitors. If one leading retailer uses predictive analytics, others follow. If major platforms introduce personalized pricing or recommendations, imitators emerge.
Normative Pressures
Consultants, academic programs, and industry groups promote personalization as “best practice.” CX frameworks, personalization maturity models, and digital transformation roadmaps further standardize approaches.
Isomorphism often leads to surface-level adoption—firms speak the language of personalization without the depth required for meaningful implementation. This produces a gap between rhetoric and reality.
3. Method
This article uses a qualitative, theory-driven narrative review. Unlike systematic reviews that follow strict inclusion criteria, narrative reviews allow greater flexibility in integrating diverse sources and theoretical traditions.
3.1 Data Sources
Sources include:
peer-reviewed articles (2019–2025)
books on digital capitalism, AI, marketing, and sociology
conceptual papers on personalization ethics
empirical studies on CX and predictive analytics
theoretical works by Bourdieu, Wallerstein, and institutional theorists
These sources were selected for relevance to personalization, technological change, customer behaviour, and sociological foundations.
3.2 Analytical Procedure
The analysis followed four steps:
Extraction — identifying core findings in recent empirical research.
Interpretation — mapping findings onto theoretical frameworks.
Integration — synthesizing insights into cohesive thematic categories.
Implication-building — deriving managerial and policy lessons.
4. Analysis
4.1 The Mechanisms of Personalization
Personalization influences CX in several key ways:
1. Cognitive Convenience
Personalized recommendations reduce search costs. Consumers do not need to browse extensively; the system “knows” their preferences.
2. Emotional Resonance
Personalization creates feelings of recognition and individuality. Consumers perceive personalized experiences as more human-like.
3. Behavioural Engagement
Customized offers, messages, and interfaces increase click-through rates, time spent, and conversion rates.
4. Relationship Strength
When personalization is consistent over time, consumers develop trust and loyalty. They perceive the brand as attentive and competent.
However, personalization must balance relevance and restraint. Overpersonalization risks invading personal boundaries, reducing trust instead of enhancing it.
4.2 The Personalization–Privacy Tension
While consumers appreciate relevance, they dislike feeling surveilled.
Privacy Concerns Include:
lack of transparency about data usage
opaque algorithms
fear of manipulation
lack of control
data security risks
exclusion through biased algorithms
The Goldilocks Zone of Personalization
Consumers prefer personalization that is:
helpful, not intrusive
transparent, not mysterious
voluntary, not forced
accurate, not creepy
This requires companies to communicate clearly, provide real choices, and avoid excessive inference.
4.3 Bourdieu’s Lens: Power, Taste, and Algorithmic Structuring
Personalization is a powerful mechanism for structuring consumer taste and behaviour.
Algorithmic Capital
Companies accumulate algorithmic capital by:
gathering large-scale behavioural data
investing in predictive models
shaping consumer visibility
controlling attention architectures
Dominant digital platforms use algorithmic capital to influence market structures.
Digital Habitus and Consumer Expectations
Consumers internalize expectations about personalization through repeated interactions. They come to expect:
tailored content
intuitive interfaces
adaptive journeys
Yet this habitus also makes them sensitive to inconsistencies. When personalization fails, disappointment is amplified.
Symbolic Capital and Trust
Brands gain symbolic capital by being perceived as innovative and ethical. But ethical failure—such as privacy breaches or manipulative personalization—erodes symbolic capital quickly.
4.4 World-Systems Perspective: Global Personalization and Digital Inequality
Personalization depends on infrastructures concentrated in core economies:
machine learning frameworks
cloud computing
advertising networks
recommendation engines
Peripheral countries often lack:
local data sovereignty
robust privacy protections
technological independence
control over platform algorithms
This results in:
global homogenization of customer experiences
value extraction from peripheral markets
dependence on foreign platforms
Thus personalization is not merely a technical strategy but part of a global digital economy shaped by inequality.
4.5 Institutional Isomorphism in Action
Firms converge in personalization strategies due to:
Coercive Forces
Regulatory bodies set boundaries around:
automated profiling
data storage
cross-border transfer
consent mechanisms
Mimetic Forces
Companies imitate successful models such as:
recommendation systems
personalized dashboards
segmented email campaigns
dynamic pricing
Normative Forces
Professional communities promote personalization as essential to digital maturity.
Symbolic Convergence
Firms adopt similar language:
“customer-centricity”
“data-driven decision-making”
“hyper-personalization”
Yet the implementation varies widely; the language sometimes masks superficial efforts.
4.6 Case Examples Across Industries
1. Retail
Retailers utilize transactional data, browsing patterns, and location information to tailor:
product recommendations
in-store offers
replenishment reminders
Benefits: increased basket size, loyalty, and repeat buying.Risks: dynamic pricing controversies, perceived unfairness.
2. Banking and Financial Services
Banks use predictive analytics to provide:
personalized loan offers
spending insights
fraud alerts
investment predictions
Consumers appreciate relevance but fear profiling and credit discrimination.
3. Tourism and Hospitality
Hotels and travel platforms customize:
itineraries
room preferences
dining suggestions
dynamic pricing
Risks include exclusion of budget travellers, manipulation, and reinforcement of overtourism.
4. Healthcare and Wellness
Personalization supports:
medication reminders
predictive diagnostics
mental health recommendations
High stakes make privacy concerns severe.
5. Education and EdTech
Adaptive learning platforms personalize:
course content
testing difficulty
feedback mechanisms
Concerns involve data collection on minors, long-term profiling, and fairness.
5. Findings
Finding 1: Personalization Significantly Enhances CX When Transparent and Fair
Behavioural engagement rises when consumers understand and consent to data use.
Finding 2: Trust Is the Core Mediator
Trust determines whether personalization is perceived as helpful or intrusive.
Finding 3: Personalization Can Reproduce Inequalities
Algorithms reflect existing biases, potentially disadvantaging certain groups.
Finding 4: Global Inequalities Shape Personalization Tools
Core economies dominate data infrastructures, influencing CX models globally.
Finding 5: Organizational Convergence Is High but Depth Varies
Firms talk about personalization similarly, but real implementation often differs.
Finding 6: Ethical Personalization Becomes a Strategic Differentiator
Consumers increasingly choose brands that respect privacy and autonomy.
Finding 7: The Future Demands Inclusive and Accountable AI
AI used for personalization must be auditable, explainable, and fair.
6. Conclusion and Implications
6.1 Conclusion
The shift from mass marketing to data-driven personalization represents a profound change in how companies engage with customers. Personalization improves convenience, relevance, and emotional connection, transforming CX into a dynamic and adaptive process. However, it introduces risks related to fairness, privacy, inequality, and global power concentration.
Using Bourdieu, world-systems theory, and institutional theory reveals personalization as a deeply social phenomenon embedded in power, habitus, global structures, and institutional pressures. The challenge for companies is not whether to personalize but how to do it responsibly.
6.2 Managerial Implications
Managers should:
Adopt transparent personalization — explain data practices clearly.
Provide real control — allow users to modify or opt out.
Limit overpersonalization — avoid intrusive inferences.
Audit algorithms — identify and mitigate bias.
Align teams — integrate marketing, IT, data science, and compliance.
6.3 Policy Implications
Regulators should:
strengthen data rights
promote fairness in automated decision-making
enforce transparency
support ethical AI research
address global data imbalances
6.4 Research Implications
Future studies should explore:
cultural differences in personalization acceptance
long-term effects on consumer autonomy
intersection between personalization and inequality
macro-level impacts on global digital ecosystems
References
Ahmed, S. M. M., Owais, M., Raza, M., Nadeem, Q., & Ahmed, B. (2025). The impact of AI-driven personalization on consumer engagement and brand loyalty. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 311–323.
Bhuiyan, M. S. (2024). The role of AI-enhanced personalization in customer experience management. Journal of Contemporary Science and Technology Studies, 8(2), 45–63.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Graziano, R. (2025). Popular habitus: Updating Bourdieu’s concept in digital culture. Societies, 15(6), 150.
Holmlund, M., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Ciuchita, R., Ravald, A., Sarantopoulos, P., Villarroel Ordenes, F., & Zaki, M. (2020). Customer experience management in the age of big data analytics. Journal of Business Research, 116, 356–365.
Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 950–966.
Lundahl, O. (2022). Algorithmic meta-capital: A Bourdieusian analysis of social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 25(7), 1003–1021.
Mohapatra, A. G. (2025). Personalization and customer experience in the era of artificial intelligence. In J. Gupta (Ed.), AI and Digital Marketing. Wiley.
Nabirye, H. K. (2025). The ethics of data privacy in marketing. Journal of Business and Information Ethics, 14(1), 1–22.
Onibokun, T. (2023). The impact of personalization on customer satisfaction. Frontiers in Management Research, 1(1), 151–169.
Romele, A. (2020). Digital habitus or personalization without personality. Digital Society, 5(2), 133–151.
Saura, J. R. (2024). Ethical considerations of AI-based digital marketing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 312–323.
Vishwakarma, R. K., Pandey, A., Kundnani, P., Yadav, A. K., Singh, N., & Yadav,S. (2025). Personalization vs. privacy: Marketing strategies in the digital age. Journal of Marketing & Social Research, 2(5), 177–191.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System. Academic Press.
Comments