The Personalization Loop: Engagement Metrics in Algorithmic Retargeted Advertising

  • Authors

    • Vaidhyanathan S Faculty of Management, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur – 603203, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu, India
    • Rajeswari P S Faculty of Management, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur – 603203, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu, India
    https://doi.org/10.14419/sjnwcn60

    Received date: July 29, 2025

    Accepted date: September 4, 2025

    Published date: September 12, 2025

  • Personalized advertising, retargeted advertising, user engagement, algorithmic targeting, platform-specific engagement, digital advertising effectiveness, social media platforms, contextual relevance, consumer perception, advertising personalization, engagement metrics, data-driven marketing, advertising algorithms, behavioral targeting, digital user experience.

  • Abstract

    Algorithmic advertising has seen a massive shift towards more personalized advertising empowered by big data. It has become increasingly important to understand how and if users interact with retargeted advertising across multiple digital environments. As a continuation from Voorveld et al.'s (2018) critiques of treating "social media" as one thing, this paper discusses the interaction between user experience on the platform and associated engagement with the brand, all within the context of personalized retargeting advertising. Our analysis is based on the findings from an original study that used insights collected from over 600 individuals (aged 18 and older). The original study indicated that various platforms provide distinct interaction experiences, such as the real-time topicality of Twitter versus the creative stimulation of Pinterest, which provide unique advertising impressions. In this paper, we build on the premise that personalized ads have different impressions and different engagement outcomes, based on the platforms. We argue that the engagement with retargeted content does not depend only upon ad relevance or frequency but also on the users' cognitive, emotional, and contextual state during each platform interaction. Our synthesis indicates that retargeted ads are more effective (and engage users positively) when operating in concert with platform-specific experiential factors (like social connection in Facebook or visual inspiration in Instagram). In conclusion, we inductively offer a re-conceptualized engagement framework to understand retargeted advertising from a multi-platform context, viewing each interaction within a nuanced digital environment, whereby advertisers need to adapt their personalization strategies to the multiple digital environments that users may inhabit. The intersection of algorithmic targeting, consent, and platform affordances as a framework for further inquiry to assess the efficacy of retargeted advertising.

  • References

    1. Acquisti, A., Brandimarte, L., & Loewenstein, G. (2015). Privacy and human behavior in the age of information. Science, 347(6221), 509–514.
    2. Ashley, C., & Tuten, T. (2015). Creative strategies in social media marketing: An exploratory study of branded social content and consumer en-gagement. Psychology & Marketing, 32(1), 15–27.
    3. Bhandari, M., & Rodgers, S. (2016). What does the brand say to the customer? The role of social media platforms in brand communication. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(3), 272– 285.
    4. Bronner, F., & Neijens, P. (2006). Audience experiences of media context and embedded advertising. International Journal of Market Research, 48(1), 81–100.
    5. Calder, B. J., Isaac, M. S., & Malthouse, E. C. (2016). How to capture consumer experiences: A context-specific approach to measuring engage-ment. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(1), 39–52.
    6. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising ef-fectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331.
    7. De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Anckaert, P. (2002). Media context and advertising effectiveness: The role of context appreciation and context-ad similarity. Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 49–61.
    8. Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes.
    9. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573.
    10. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
    11. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54(3), 241–251.
    12. Liu, Y., Burns, A. C., & Hou, Y. (2017). An investigation of brand-related user-generated content on Twitter. Journal of Advertising, 46(2), 236–247.
    13. Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. Interna-tional Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46.
    14. Norris, C. E., & Colman, A. M. (1992). Context effects on television advertisements: Mood, involvement, and product evaluation. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 20(4), 279–292.
    15. Phillips, B. J., Miller, J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2014). Dreaming out loud on Pinterest: New forms of indirect persuasion. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 633–655.
    16. Rodgers, S., & Thorson, E. (Eds.). (2017). Digital Advertising: Theory and Research (3rd ed.). Routledge.
    17. Scheinbaum, A. C. (2016). Online Consumer Behavior: Theory and Research in Social Media, Advertising, and E-tail. Routledge.
    18. Smit, E. G., Van Meurs, L., & Neijens, P. C. (2006). Effects of advertising likeability: A 10-year perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 73–83.
    19. Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012). How does brand-related user-generated content differ across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), 102–113.
    20. Sunstein, C. R. (2022). Sludge and Orwellian nudging. Behavioural Public Policy, 6(2), 229–245.
    21. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
    22. Voorveld, H. A. M., Noort, G. V., Muntinga, D. G., & Bronner, F. (2018). Engagement with Social Media and Social Media Advertising: The Dif-ferentiating Role of Platform Type. Journal of Marketing, 82(1), 70–88.
    23. Zhu, Y. Q., & Chen, H. G. (2015). Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications for social media marketing. Business Horizons, 58(3), 335–345.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    S, V. ., & P S, R. . (2025). The Personalization Loop: Engagement Metrics in Algorithmic Retargeted Advertising. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(5), 533-541. https://doi.org/10.14419/sjnwcn60