“One generation’s indulgence becomes the next generation’s necessity.” – James Twitchell

So.

First. With higher unemployment and all the talk of recession and poor economy it is easy to forget a lot of shit is being purchased by people. And a lot of money spent buying stuff.

Second. A shitload of that shit being purchased is in the luxury category. The expensive stuff.

Third. Maybe 90% of what we call “fads” arrive on the scene from the Luxury category <note: I made up that %>. And because of that I almost called this post ‘fad to functional.’ Sometimes today’s fad does become tomorrow’s functional necessity. Sometimes. A lot of people make a lot of money figuring out which fad will become tomorrow’s necessity. By the way … most fads do not become anyone’s necessity.

Regardless.

I decided to write this to say you would think why we buy things would be simple <we like it>. Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. What happens around us and what happened to us in our youth impacts … well … what we like.

And, of course, we like what other people like.

And, of course, we like what the fabulously rich like <but they can afford it and we cannot>.

And, of course, we like the best. Having ‘the best’ excites almost everyone <I typed almost because I didn’t want to say everyone but I honesty cannot think of anyone who wouldn’t want the best>.

With that I will begin with the slightly odd relationship between luxury and value and how us schmucks who aren’t millionaires get led to purchasing behavior by the schmucks who are millionaires.

“The rich adopt novelties and become accustomed to their use. This sets a fashion which others imitate. Once the richer classes have adopted a certain way of living, producers have an incentive to improve the methods of manufacture so that soon it is possible for the poorer classes to follow suit. Thus luxury furthers progress. Innovation “is the whim of an elite before it becomes a need of the public. The luxury today is the necessity of tomorrow.” Luxury is the roadmaker of progress: it develops latent needs and makes people discontented. In so far as they think consistently, moralists who condemn luxury must recommend the comparatively desireless existence of the wild life roaming in the woods as the ultimate ideal of civilized life.” – Ludwig von Mises

<note: that last sentence is priceless>

It may seem obvious to everyone (but just to be sure I am writing about it) but there has always been a relationship between luxury and value.

Not “in the moment” but rather as a future tend indicator.

A lagged effect.

Huh?

Well. Here is what happens (simplistically)

A luxury item or service is developed.

Only the richest (or those who decide to splurge) can afford it.

It gets a lot of press and people become more aware of the luxury items.

People desire it.

The item manufacturer recognizes one of 2 things:

It will become obsolete (or less desirable to the 1% who can afford it) as more people own it <and they then develop something new & different>
They can make a shitload more money by selling it at a lower price to the masses <once the 1% has moved on to another item they have just developed and are making a shitload of profit on>

All the everyday schmucks <that is you & I> then start buying it and everyone on the street has it.

There you go.

Now.

Some really savvy business people stare at the luxury category <sometimes even cross eyed> and try and make sense of which luxury products & services are likely to trickle down to the mainstream consumer … and even more difficult … when it will trickle down.

It is more difficult than you think it would be <note that this is different than ‘early adopters paying more to be the first’> … but if you know what to look for <and I am not one of those who knows what to look for> luxury is a pretty reliable indicator of what next generations will consider basic necessities.

“Luxury consumers are spending more, in many cases lots more, on life-changing experiences, while their need for luxury goods is waning. Spending on luxury experiences in the US, including travel, dining, entertainment, spas and beauty services and home services.” (source: Pam Danzinger, Unity Marketing).

So sometimes luxury is not just things and widgets … but also experiences.

Oh.

And then there are toys. A toy industry consultant said “the toy industry has always reflected adult culture.”

(I was sad just typing that)

Oh.

But it gets worse (for us americans at least).

Britain is Europe’s biggest toy market, followed by France and Germany, according to Frédérique Tutt, an analyst at NPD EuroToys. British parents buy an average of 41 toys per year, which is almost a toy per week.

In Spain, by contrast, children receive few toys outside the Christmas season.

Britons seem highly susceptible to marketing campaigns <but no one is more susceptible than American consumers>. Britain’s toy market is similar to America’s in favoring entertainment over education, says Gerrick Johnson, a toy analyst at BMO Capital Markets. About one-quarter of toy sales in Britain are license-driven, which means they are based on characters from Disney films or television series.

The proportion in Germany is just 14%.

German parents are bigger on engineering. Last year building sets accounted for 13.4% of German toy sales compared with only 8.6% in Britain. Germany is the biggest European market for Lego, the Danish maker of colorful bricks.

Oddly … even UNICEF has stepped in with an opinion:

UNICEF, a United Nations agency, slates British parents for encouraging “compulsive consumerism” in their children.

Ok. I apologize. Toys really don’t have shit to do with luxury and ‘fad to functional’ other than the fact we mostly buy toys for entertainment <fad> and not educational <functional>. But. It gave me a chance to throw around some research I actually did.

Anyway.

All the examples aside … there is a really odd <interesting?> thing happening in the middle <between luxury and what us schmucks are buying>.

The middle of the middle is disappearing.

The explosion of choices at the low priced <but with quality> and the high priced <with high quality> is leaving run-of-the–mill products in desperate straits.

In fact … no one is buying them.

Oh. How do you recognize the mediocre middle? They are the folks couponing like madmen and cranking out buy-one-get-one-free deals like shit through a goose.

This explosion is also making it more difficult to discern fad from functional.

Yeah.

Discerning what is fad <in other words … what will disappear over time> and what is functional <useful and/or humongously important> is really really difficult.

And becoming even more difficult in our world of instantaneous hype.

A combination of transparency online <and sometimes the transparency is bullshit but if you don’t invest the energy to discern between the bullshit and the truth it all becomes blurry> and the fact that the global entrepreneur business brain attacks high priced items thinking how to offer a designer/quality version at a lower cost <not by cutting corners but simply building it better & more efficiently> is making the luxury category a turnstile category.

Anyway.

This topic became a great excuse to highlight one of my favorite sites <and thinkers> … 50topmodels.

They have once again humorously <but smartly> mapped the hype cycle which tries to predict the beginning of corporate marketability of technological innovations.

They note that it maybe also predicts the time you will marry … but that’s their interpretation.

The model cuts a new technology roughly into five periods in its life cycle (although real time is phased differently and individually):

- Technology Trigger — the product is on the market and you hear the buzz all over the place. Kind of a breakthrough in visibility.

Comes along with: “Have you checked this out? It’s great!“

- Peak of Inflated Expectations — The hype is on top, but more and more people uncover that the product or services is just half-baked.

Comes along with: “It’s great, but…!“

- Trough of Disillusionment — the technology fails to meet expectation and becomes boring for early adopters. There’s hardly any press about it, but still, people use it.

Comes along with: “It would be great, but they should change this and that!“

- Slope of Enlightenment — press stopped covering the technology, but some businesses take time to experiment with it or they invest in it. The feature becomes more practical. Maybe 2.0 version.

Comes along with: “I use it, but in another way.“

- Plateau of Productivity — now it’s a real benefit for the users. The technology is accepted and maybe even broadly spread (within it’s purpose to serve).

Comes along with “I knew it!“

The 50topmodels little drawing shows parts of the 2008 issue (german). Compared to 2006 (german), Web 2.0 went from “peak” to “disillusionment” – just as the market researchers of Gartner predicted.

Anyway.

It is more difficult to select that which is in luxury which will make it into the everyday schmuck’s home than you think.

But give it a shot.

Its fun to think about it.

The only thing you can be really sure of?

What looks like an ‘indulgence’ today … will be a ‘necessity’ tomorrow more often than you would like to believe.

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

They will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

- Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

- Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

- Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest & nearest data point.

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

Increasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ <I assume this is “analyzing the data” in academia> to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

marketing is evil?

March 27th, 2012

“What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising? Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.” – vilhjalmur Stefansson

Now.

Vilhjamur was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. And I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising … but he did say this.

And because I opened with the quote let me address the whole marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical) with this little “my point of view” overview.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>
2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>
3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

And it would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale. But I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broadness in terms of interpretation and lots of caveats and excuses. And before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said … I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy <before they saw the marketing>.”

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look.

I am all for capitalism and selling stuff … but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all … but some <a lot>.

And what makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment. That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles. But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.” – Kristen Hersh

Ok.

How awesome and insightful is this thought?

There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought … much bigger than just about the fashion industry. Relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue.

And suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style.

Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So.

Substance creates beauty all on its own … and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

O, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok.

Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance.

And marketing truths.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths … we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people.

In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

Let me try this on for an example:

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall” (Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season.

The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again … is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”?

This is a really really gray area.

Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales … inevitably they are just trying to create more interest.

And they do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often. Because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff.

And they do all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days.

That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run.

And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

Let’s try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil.

Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil … let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

- Superbowl

- New Year’s Resolutions (January)

- Lawn and Garden (April)

- Back to School/College(July through August)

- Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

- Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

- Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

- Spring (March to May) includes Easter, Graduation Day, Mother’s Day

- Pink/Women’s Health October includes displays of pink products and stores offer women’s health screenings.

- Fall Gatherings (Late September through November)

- ‘the day after Thanksgiving event,’ aka Black Friday. Includes gifts and splurge items. (November)

- Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

- Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there … as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong … but … you get the point)

Why do they do this?

Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons.”

And even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look.

I don’t believe marketing is evil … but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior.

No.

Here is a truth.

Impulse or not … marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do.

And, in today’s world with return guarantees and such … it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business.

And you can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible.

And by “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.”

In addition … they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire.

I think most people just try to do the best they can.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important.

Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say but how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are not evil … just absurdly annoying … which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness).

I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them.

According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer … and which act as a repellant.

If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions.

And if marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect.

Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.” – PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.”

For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon.

Okay.

Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself.

Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

- Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

- Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

- Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger.

And here is where marketing runs into its most trouble … marketing people.

Ok. Maybe it’s not the people … it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble.

All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas … and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.”

Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out.

Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … impoartnt.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY impoartnt.”

This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence.” (which I have written about before)

It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh.

Of which many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers.

You always have time to tell the important truth.

And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end … I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd.

In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)?

Well. Possibly.

Evil is a strong word. It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent.

And that may seem evil but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself … I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think … and ultimately can affect what they do.

With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Christianity Part 3: the Pope fails yes or no test with a maybe

April 2nd, 2010

So. This is a follow up to the post I wrote on what I believed the Catholic Church was doing right (putting a stake in the ground for what they unequivocally stand for).

This one points out where I believe the Pope had an opportunity to continue down the right path to re-identifying the Catholic Church (and Christianity because while not everyone is going to want to hear it but if the Catholic Church missteps all of Christianity missteps). The Pope took a yes or no test and answered ‘maybe’ to a dismayed (and disappointed) world.

While the Irish child abuse situation is the current focus we need to accept that the church is guilty of a systemic failure over child abuse within its ranks (beyond a shadow of a doubt). While I would imagine the sheer number of child abuse situations throughout the system and over the years is probably a miniscule percentage each ‘event’ is a huge example of everything the church (and Christianity) abhors and deserved a disproportionate response.

It is also certain that the recent letter published from the pope to Catholics in Ireland, apologizing for the scandal, is pitifully inadequate.

Inadequate because the abuse deserved a disproportionate response. A response that would have unequivocally shown that the Pope, and the church, find such actions unacceptable at any time and any place.

Usually, when old and powerful institutions are found guilty of some systemic failure, the stock response is to promise reform. To be honest, I don’t want to hear about reform. Reform turns out to be “words” and I believe I want “actions.”

But it seems that is not the way of the Catholic Church whose secretive methods make changes slowly, oh, and rarely. But. Once again. I have already see signs of change within the church (that was my last post).

But. In this situation I want action.

I truly believe it is this contradiction (knowing they did wrong but not doing anything visible about it) that explains why the church has been trying, and failing, to put the abuse crisis behind it for well over a decade now. These horrific offenses to children, and the failure of the church to take any real steps to stop them, has re-emerged again to haunt another Pope (and the church … and Christianity).

It is a fact the abuse is more heinous because it took place within the Catholic Church construct. The church may not want to accept that but they better do so soon. When a priest uses a child as a sexual object he is attacking a precious human being and maiming their personality for life – spiritually and personally.

This represents not only a crime against humanity but also shows the most complete failure to understand the principles of Christianity.

The Church “employee” who takes it upon himself to commit such a crime cannot possibly fulfill the role of a priest and must be fired, without forgiveness, on the spot. Because to have taken that action he never was a priest for he never understood Christianity. Unfortunately, the failure of the hierarchy to understand this seems to make them unfit for their roles too (hence the reason i am kinda pissed at the Pope).

So. Catholic Church. Heads up. Here is what I would do.

Once again I am going to compare the church to a business and suggest how to close off the issues and move on (because for all my gripes with the Catholic Church they do seem to be trying to get their shit together). Oh. And once again I am going to probably suggest something seemingly unreasonable.

The problem the Catholic Church is facing in reality has nothing to do with current actions but rather past actions. Those past actions probably represent less than 1% of all their actions but that less than 1% is heinous in reality and so exponential it haunts them as an organization enough to wipe out all the good they do.

So. Action. Decisive action. That is how they get past this situation:

Those that were part of the acts are out. Goodbye. No forgiveness. While Catholicism is all about forgiveness the actual members must be to higher standards. Sorry. We don’t forgive those who should act to higher standards.

Those that were aware but did nothing. Out. You had a chance to maintain higher standards but didn’t. In this case not speaking out or inaction is as heinous as the actual act. Your inaction doesn’t show any leadership qualities necessary to lead an organization through this as well as it shows a lack of understanding of Christianity “right versus wrong.” Goodbye.

Those that were aware and did something (maybe not publicly but within organization attempted to right the wrong). You stay. We (as public) need to understand there are shades of grey. Not all businesses share their dirty laundry with the public. I don’t care how you deal with it as long as you deal with it (although I do believe publicly would help you out a lot … and Christianity as a whole).

Victims. Gosh. I don’t know. How can you ever make something like this right? Will someone ever accept just an apology from the “boss” (the pope)? Once again. Heck. I don’t know. Child abuse is a crime. Abusers should be prosecuted. Employer fires them. What more can be done? Just make sure you take care of them as much as possible so they can live productive lives.

Victims Part 2. The church needs to stop the past bleeding to be able to move on. To steal an idea from the IRS. Okay victims. Now or never. Speak up within the next 6 months privately or publicly or forever hold your peace. We will deal with it. We want to know the truth. And this will help us understand the extent of the truth. But. The past is the past. We have dealt with the organization moving forward. We accept we made some unforgivable things in the past but we need to move forward.

That’s what I would do.

A letter of apology? You may as well throw it away. That’s its value.

If the Pope (and the church … and Christianity) wants to pass the test, give me some action.

And I want the action to appear to be disproportionate (if it can ever be so with a crime against a child).

Christianity at its best : The Direct Mail Campaign

February 18th, 2010

So. I have written a number of things about God and religion not because I am religious, but mostly because I get grumpy with how some people use (or misuse) God and religion and the Bible.

With that said, my friend sent me a mailer he received from Saint Matthew’s churches with a mailing address of Tulsa (not picking on Oklahoma although I am still a little pissed about having to pay a $3.50 toll every time I tried to drive on any paved road in the state). Anyway. The mailer.

Not only could I use a prepaid business reply card to get a free “golden prosperity faith cross” but I could also check a box (although I assume I could check multiple boxes) for:

Pray for my finance

Pray for me to receive a continuous money blessing

Pray for ‘I need a job’

Pray for my blood pressure? Huh? WTF.

“List other needs you have” (so I could order a specific prayer if I wanted)

Ok. I don’t know God. Never met him. But I have been quite near the top of a 350+ employee organization. So. With all that goes on in that position, I did tend to filter out some things from employees (“we want French Roast instead of Breakfast Blend in cafeteria”, “why is TV in lobby on CNN instead of ESPN”, “are shorts really appropriate on casual Friday”, “is it ok to not wear underwear” … things like that). I am kinda thinkin’ God, who has slightly more than 350 employees, ain’t focused on answering a prayer so you can afford another big Mac (or Budweiser if that’s your thing).

Ok. Ok. That’s extreme. But. C’mon. Prayers for financial support? (I won’t even touch the blood pressure). This is the kind of shit that gives God an ulcer (assuming he or she has one). Heck. It makes my blood pressure go up (but I promise I won’t pray to relieve it).

Next. While the mailer does not ask for money (I don’t know what you get when you get the cross you requested by sending back the business reply card) it does suggest if you receive this cross wealth will follow you.

It says .. “God has made these promises to you in the holy bible .. for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth.”

Oh my.

In addition. If you doubt the meaning (or are maybe slightly confused on what God is promising), there are some nifty testimonials:

“God blessed me with a home and a gas station”

“I was in need of $2492.00 for income tax. God blessed me the next day.”

“After I received the Cross God blessed me with $1000.35. I was so far behind I was almost broke.”

“I wrote to you to ask you to pray that God would bless me with a larger house. God answered my prayer by blessing me with a beautiful three apartment building. It is called a triplex because it has three apartments and I own them all.”

Wow.

Linking prayer to receipt of wealth scares me (and I don’t scare easily).

Do I mind prayer for spiritual health and well being? Nope.

Do I believe God wants people to have wealth? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm … spiritual wealth absolutely. Financial wealth I tend to believe he doesn’t really care. (he didn’t seem to have a lot of dinero himself)

If religion (Christianity) ever wonders why it seems like it is always fighting an uphill battle this little mailer becomes a showcase example for why. Soliciting a belief in God using “financial relief if you contact us” in my little packaged goods marketing world would be construed as possible “bait & switch.” And in my wacky world that is illegal. If God were here I would tend to believe he would not only find this direct mail campaign as offensive but also “illegal” in his law of ethics. But that’s me.

why Islam appears to be kicking christianity’s ass

January 15th, 2010

(note: kicking ass for now)

I am not a theologian nor particularly religiously knowledgeable. However Christianity, and its role around the world, is very important to a number of people I care about and respect. Through work and some friendships I have been on the periphery of the religious discussion and Christianity’s place in today’s world. I have an opinion and this point of view shares it. You will see some numbers which I have used to provide some perspective. I have used as sources a variety of online/USA Today articles and research.

The situation (or challenge)

There is absolutely a decline of Christianity (no matter how you look at the numbers). Suffice it to say within the world’s largest democracies Christianity is a declining portion of the population in all but South Korea and Japan. Conversions away from the faith are the mainreason. From 1990 to 2008, the portion of American adults who self-identify as Christians has dropped 10 percentage points (from 86% to 76%), while the portion of those who report no religious affiliation has almost doubled — from 8% to 15%. All the while Atheism and other forms of non-belief have been expanding in the United States.

The total number of Muslims is a little more than one fifth of the world’s population, over a billion Muslims in the world, a majority in 50 nations. Just 2% of the world’s Muslims live in the West. The growth rate of the Muslim population, which averaged 1.9 between 2000 and 2006, is also far higher than the world’s population growth rate, which averaged 1.2% in the same period. It is also much faster than any other major religious group.

Nevertheless, even if a Muslim majority is coming it probably will not be soon. Over the last six years the Muslim population has grown only about two thirds of a percentage point a year faster than the world population.

It is interesting to note (and relevant to this writing) that a conference of Muslim leaders in Mecca in 1899 was called to discuss the decline of Islam. From then the second half of the twentieth century has seen a Muslim revival.

Possibly most importantly, Islam is growing in organizational strength, not just numbers. It has undergone massive restructuring in the last five years. Mosques and other institutions are proliferating, and Muslims are exerting their influence in such fields as education, censorship and politics. This is no accident. A document produced by a prominent Muslim leader in the UK in the early 1980s described the Islamic movement in the West as ‘an organized struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic Society with the Qur’an and Sunna as its base’.

Islam is organized and focused and has momentum.

Okay. Let’s not haggle over the exact numbers. Christianity has an issue and Islam is taking advantage.

Attacking the Issue: Separate Religion from Church

I believe Christians need to separate their belief in the religion from their bias toward a particular church. To me religion is the practice of believing in a higher power, or at minimum, subscribing to a particular set of values while the Church is simply a place, or a construct within, you go to learn these things.

I believe church (or churches) are confusing people. Each church seems to have a different set of rules as well as a different interpretation of the bible. Most critically it has become difficult to understand what is unifying between all the different church groups (and I admit .. it may be there .. that unifying aspect .. but the individual church rhetoric is so noisy I cannot hear it). Suffice it to say the current situation has discouraged even some of the faithful.

Let’s get more people to consider Christianity (then offer a specific church group).

Hey. I am not against competition. And I believe every spiritual path has the right to be passionate with regard to their beliefs and their path. What I do believe is troublesome is when the “in fighting” creates confusion and the entire industry suffers in totality.

Every Christian church group should be passionate about their path to God. BUT. It shouldn’t come at the expense of the bigger issue – Christianity.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the US Armed Forces. I am quite sure that behind closed doors the Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy (and maybe the National Guard and Coast Guard and whatever) are pushing and pulling for their own self interest. And each branch has an identity and does whatever it can do to remind people of the difference. But come war the objective is clear, differences put aside and they work together to win. They understand the overall objective is more important than the individual constituents. Is there some chafing? Sure. Is there alignment on doing what is best for US interests? Sure.

There will be debate. There will be arguments. People will get pissed at each other (or whatever version of pissed off Christian leaders are permitted to be). But in the end the whole is stronger than the parts. I am confident no one, and I mean no one, can beat an aligned focused US Armed Forces initiative. And I would argue the same for Christianity.

Discipline. Rules.

One of the people I admire most in the world is a Marine highly decorated from his service in Vietnam. But my admiration and respect has little to do with decorations (although I admit it earns my ultimate respect), but rather with the man himself. He is a master coordinator, organizer and inspirer. As a CEO of a global franchise organization, he put in place the discipline and set of rules that defined who could be on his team and be successful. But that was the basics. He set out a framework of attitudinal “rules” and values as well as defined an organizational attitude. Instilled with these additional parameters, this organization, and others he has been associated with, clearly defined itself in the marketplace, gathered likeminded people and ultimately became globally successful and wealthy. So rules can include attitude as well as “things we have to do.”

Maybe Christianityneeds the same discipline and rules as a successful franchise organization.

I apologize to theologians by comparing religion to a global franchise organization but the parallels are too great to ignore by a non-believer such as I. Disparate locations with a common goal and an objective to be more successful than the competition. If a 3000 unit franchise organization can figure out how to remain aligned enough globally to be efficient focused and successful, surely a Christian organization can.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: convincing people to buy shit they don’t need

Enlightened Conflict