Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: facebook

who gets fired?

September 24th, 2012

…”we helped leave this race a statistical dead heat.”- stated after spending $250 million dollars

The Wall Street Journal outlines that an unprecedented amount of money is being spent in the American election. The total is somewhere near $500 million to date in advertising (here is tracking to date: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/track-presidential-campaign-ads-2012/).

Oh my. Think what that money could be used for … okay … that is a different article.

The spending, and number of ads, has become a little wacky this year because it isn’t just the candidates money nor is the majority of spending being done by the actual candidates <now there are random political ‘super pacs’ … people who say what they want to say and spend what they want to spend>.

Regardless.

Apparently all the spending hasn’t done jackshit to influence voter opinion.

Here is a humdinger of a Republican quote “we believe we have kept a number of races competitive and put important issues on the table.”

That is code for “our money didn’t do jackshit.”

Another quote <republican> …”we helped leave this race a statistical dead heat.” Please note that this was said despite the fact Romney’s poll numbers continue to lag the incumbent.

Wall Street Journal also did a spectacular job highlighting the spectacular ineptness of the advertising in specific areas where republicans overinvested in order to create the desired behavior <vote Republican> and reported spectacular failure to do so <in some of these states/areas Romney’s scores have actually declined>.

So.

Here is my question.

Who is getting fired?

Why do I ask that? Well, let’s try this whole situation out in the business world.

P&G spends over $4billion (in the US I believe). Pepsi spends an estimated $2.1 billion a year on marketing, McDonald’s $1.2 billion, and Coca-Cola is not far behind at $895 million. Let’s get closer to apples to apples comparisons … State Farm spends $860million, Apple around $650million and Volkswagen $730million.

I am either the CMO or the advertising agency standing up at the end of the year giving my report (just to be clear … any sane CMO would be putting their advertising person up at the front of the room to tell this story).

-          “Gee. The <plug in any of the billion or million dollar number from above here> kept us competitive. We didn’t gain any sales but, gosh darn it, statistically it was a dead heat! In addition … I would note we were absolutely disappointed with the lack of results in the places where we made investment spending <translation: we overspent and under delivered>.”

Needless to say … I am fired.

Heck.

I would fire me.

Why? Because some smartass <like me> is sitting off to the side saying something like “how the fuck do you spend $250 million dollars and get no return or increase?”

But you don’t even need a smartass like me sitting around in the business world because in the general business world $250 million is a lot of money and people expect to see some <positive> results if you spend that amount.

However, let’s assume that didn’t get me fired.

I actually make it to Q&A. I guarantee you someone <most likely the CFO because that is the person who seems to ask this question the most> will ask “what did we actually do and do we have any thoughts on whether it was the right thing to do?”

Here is where I figure out how to shift from my 110 page powerpoint presentation, where I had manipulated numbers to mask the disappointing results, to video so I can show the television executions. Yup. Of which almost 80% are negative messaging.

Needless to say … I am now fired.

And, once again, I would fire me.

Let me begin here by saying that with this large a budget I could live with running some <maybe 15-20%?> negative ads because they speak directly, and only, to my core audience who wants to think bad things about the other choices. Inevitably the negativity solidifies my base because I am simply saying what they want to hear <even if it may not be completely true>.

All that said … if the majority, the significant majority. Of my messaging is negative … well … ‘Houston, we have a problem.’

In general business negative advertising is specious at best in a short term effort and never an option long term.

In politics negative advertising is (1) unbelievable to the general audience, (2) polarizing in an unhealthy way and (3) well … as the British would say … ‘it’s just not cricket’ … <the equivalent of “not according to Hoyle”> ,in other words, it is diminishing through negativity rather than expanding through positive. Negativity increases your value by diminishing the other (so you could simply become the tallest midget). Negativity has never been an effective communications tactic and it has never been proven to build long term brand value.

I would tell politics the same thing any business industry knows … in a negative war of words no one wins. The entire category loses.

I would stand up in front of any politician right now and unequivocally state that the advertising war currently going on is not only a losing strategy for the candidates but a losing tactic for the country’s psyche.

Regardless, this isn’t a business lesson; this is me wondering who is going to get fired for wasting $500 million dollars.

I find the entire topic if not insane certainly inane.

Well.

The only people who I can envision taking solace in this entire insane topic are the Belarusians.

Huh? Belarus? Yup.

Belarus just had a round of elections in which the opposition candidates were ignored by television and newspapers declined to publish information.

Someone should send the opposition party the Wall Street journal article and suggest they just saved a shitload of money because any advertising they did was not going to make any difference anyway.

the futurist

July 11th, 2012

This is going to discuss a book called The Futurist <by a guy named Ottmer>. But before I discuss the book … this overall topic is one of my favorites … ahhhhhhhhhhhh … let me clarify … one of my favorite cynical topics … the fact that there are these bullshit slinging presenters and trend watchers wannabes who make an amazing living off of sound bite thoughts.

Do I begrudge them the ability to find a sound bite? Nope.

What I do have a grudge against is that I, and many other people, then have to invest an inordinate amount of energy explaining to people that the sound bite is just that … a sound bite … a simplistic meaningless irrelevant concept in the real world.

And then I found a book with someone who apparently has the same cynical attitude with regard to these ‘trend spotters.’

<note: I wish I had written this book>

So.

I have a stack of books next to my bed which invariably has some books that have been waiting a while to be read. I just finished The Futurist. In case you don’t want to read this well written quasi-fun, quasi-cynical fictional look at the “buzz creator” future trends world, here is nutshell look at these pop-culture bullshit artists using the opening speech at the Futureworld conference (a fictional conference) by JP Yates (a fictional person/futurist) in the book:

I realized this morning over breakfast that I’ve spent a good portion of my life seeking the approval of people I can’t stand.  Including myself.

The truth is, I know nothing. Understand nothing.

I try. I am not lazy. But the more I try to understand something the more intertwined and complex it seems. The more I realize I am out of the proverbial loop. The literal loop. The existential loop. The more I think of things the more I question whether anyone is properly looped. In fact, I challenge the very existence of the loop, proverbial, literal or metaphorical. So this is a fundamental problem, being out of a loop that I don’t even believe in.

Most books or movies or creation myths have a hero who knows all there is to know about at least one thing. And he uses that gift to overcome an obvious and blatant evil adversary. He has insider knowledge. Special gifts. Ingenious ways of getting to the core of things. The answer. The solution. The truth. He knows what’s right and wrong. He knows what’s next. And he knows what to do about it.

I don’t.

I don’t understand the present let alone the fucking future.

Yet we claim to understand. Pretend to. Some actually believe it, that they do know. You know the people. The ones who talk about such things with such cocksure passion that you think, shit, maybe they do know, maybe they really do. They speak in absolutes. Blacks and whites. They speak with soothing partisan simplicity. They speak with their hands and use Powerpoint like a sword. They quote people you ought to know more about. They work on a privileged higher plane and posit their views with a condescending subterranean confidence, convincing you not to worry, that forces are at work on other levels, levels that simple folks like us cannot even begin to fathom, so it’s best not to worry your pretty little head about it and trust them, the experts, that this is the way it is. And the way it will be.

People get rich and powerful operating this way, perpetuating the myth of the uber level, the exclusive loop. Dispensing their wisdom and opinions and edicts to the masses.  Breaking down the conflicting moral, political and economic issues of 52 billion people into a binary proposition. Yes or no. War or peace. Good or bad. With us or against us. Ginger or Mary Ann.

Presidents work on this level. And dictators. Talk show hosts. Professional wrestlers. Actresses on the steps of the capitol. Conservatives. Liberals. The members of VFW Post #442. CEOs. Madison Avenue. Wall street.  Sesame Street.

They’re all in the loop. All working on another level.

I’m not.

I don’t believe in the scared loop or the secret level.

In fact, I think the more people claim to absolutely know, the more clueless and insecure thery absolutely are.  Of course, I can’t be sure of this.

Which brings me to us. And to me. Who do we think we are?  Who did I think I was?

How can I call myself a futurist when I missed the most cataclysmic event of our time? How can I predict tomorrow when the world is on fire today?

How did I see reality TV coming but miss this?

And let’s be honest: we all did.

We make all these pronouncements but none of us ever goes back to check on their accuracy. Shit, if the people in this room were right just 1percent of the time, we’d all be telecommuting from Tahiti, eating dinner in a pill form, and having literal sex with our virtual selves. But if you talk shit long enough, sooner or later you may actually be right, and if by some fluke that is the case, watch out, because any successful prediction is always followed by the cannibalistic scramble for credit – the blood grab to brand an original thought as your own.

We all want to be the first to be there to identify a “click moment”, but we live in a world that may never click again.

We’re great at telling people the future they need to buy into instead of the present they should be making the most of.

And what’s hilarious is that we all believe it. That we are geniuses. That we are all responsible for and deserving of our wealth. More deserving of the privileged life than, say, a teacher or a mason. A cleric or a hot dog vendor. Despite the fact that 99% of us did not create our good fortune. The markets did. Or luck. Or heredity.

I believed it.

But not anymore.

You see, we may be able to identify cool, but we can never invent it. Cool is never manufactured. You never try to be cool. It happens.

Same goes for goodness. And truth.

And the only truth I know …is that I know nothing. And even though you may dress the part – the missoni scarves, the yellow jumpsuits, the tiny glasses, the all-whites, the all-blacks, the Nehru’s, the sandals, the glittering gadgets – none of you know anything either. Sorry about that.

We are not innovators.  We are fucking abominations.

To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.

In the meantime, I know absolutely zilch.

I am the founding father of the Coalition of Clueless.

Ok.

“We are not innovators, we are fucking abominations.” <note to everyone: awesome>

Cynical? Sure.

Have I felt this listening, or reading, to some of the popular trend spotter ‘gurus’? You betcha.

Do I wish I had written this? Absofuckinglutely.

Ok. The book.

It is the kind of book that may remind you of Joseph Heller (Good as Gold and maybe a business version of Catch-22).

By the way … a ‘futurist’ is one of those nifty bullshit words business nowadays uses for those pop psychologists who identify trends and recognizers of ‘future cool.’

And I also loved the book because it permitted me a glimpse into why I could have never been a successful ‘futurist’ … well … beyond the fact I suck at identifying meaningful trends of course … and that is futurists need to be blindingly optimistic with regard to prosperity … and I would be screwed because I am too pragmatic.

That said. If you are a cynical pragmatist like me and you care about this topic you will love this book.

Each chapter has a paragraph summary of former achievements of the protagonist/Futurist.

“He once spoke before the graduates of a Bible college in Virginia about the future of God and one week later delivered the keynote address to the Adult Video Distributors Conference in Vegas about the future of porn, and received standing ovations at both.”

<awesome … and real life practical truth>

Another. The Futurist as described by one analysis in the book:

“He used to believe that things were getting better. He thought that science had a heart and that progress had a conscience. Then came doubts, followed by questions and alarming insights. Soon this high-profile, big-ticket trend prognosticator was prophesying doom and gloom.

He began to criticize the present, and he warned of a more damaged tomorrow if we refused to change. He gave heads-ups and watch-outs, supported by facts and scientifically validated forecasts and cautionary tales. But this kind of outlook left his audiences feeling troubled, which was not the desired effect. It was suggested that he might want to put a bit more of a smile back on his work. So he switched gears and began telling those audiences what they wanted to hear.”

That is a truth.

I guarantee it. Seth Godin. Faith Popcorn. Tipping Point guy.  First of all they are not sharing unique ideas … they are simply <mostly … just to give some ideas the benefit of the doubt> taking other people’s ideas … or thoughts … or portions/fragments of thoughts … and re-presenting them not only with gusto but also in a slightly different sound bite <sic: bullshit> way to capture the interest of whomever they are writing to and for.

a stern light

July 11th, 2012

This is a follow up thought to the Futurist. A follow up maybe because this has to do with the present … and learning from the past.

“if men could learn from history what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which only shines on the waves behind us!” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1831)

So often in our desire to ‘figure out’ today we stand upon steps built upon hopes of tomorrow. Our lessons from history to often shine upon the waves behind us instead of maybe lighting our way. It is unfortunate. Because while I not only believe we can learn from the past I also believe that much of what happens is a derivative of past actions <if you look hard enough>.

Well. That is certainly a valid thought but there is  more important thought with regard to the present.

And I think Max Dublin says this thought the best:

“It is myopic and evasive to forget that most questions that can be posed about the future can be more meaningfully and forcefully be posed about the present.  If we only used the knowledge we now have, and used it only for the good, we could have heaven on earth, without one further innovation or discovery, and thereby create a better world than any of our false prophets are capable of envisioning. It is not a matter of ingenuity but of character, and it is the key to any and all possible futures. ” – Max Dublin

Max is correct.

Oftentimes we are so unhappy, or possibly so fearful, of what is … we invest a shitload of energy seeking and sinking ourselves into what could be <notice I didn’t say ‘what will be’>.  It is natural. If today doesn’t look that good inevitably we cast a hopeful eye to the horizon. Heck. I know I do.

But.

What if.

What if we used all the energy and knowledge we currently have to try and solve what would be good for today … whew … I bet we could create a pretty kick ass world for everyone. Today … and, well, tomorrow.

Yeah .. yeah .. yeah. Maybe we wouldn’t have the 15th version of the i-phone or a new even lighter creamier but less caloric mint double chocolate chip ice cream but maybe we would have less poverty or less obesity or less of something bad that needs to be solved.

I sometimes believe in our capitalistic fear of being left behind we ignore what is.

I imagine it is a real fear that one stops thinking about the future and others invest in the future and they get it wrong and get passed by … and I imagine all businesses have this fear.

But.

Here is a truth.

We do not need a 15th version of the i-phone.

We do not need a new improved lower caloric ice cream.

We do not need a lot of the new innovations that are constantly thrown upon us.

Ok. Do we ‘want’ … or maybe ‘like’ the new innovations? Sure. We are human.

But do we ‘need’?

C’mon. Be serious. Of course not.

A Max truth <which I agree with>.

It is not a matter of ingenuity … it is a matter of character. And, as usual, character is the key to all possible futures <not making money>.

Yeah. I know. This is a pipe dream in the world of business.  A world where “creating a sustainable world” is simply a bolt on to “how much money can I make” in the corporate world.

But <this is a huge but>.

What if some company invested all their innovation money in not coming up with a new widget but rather  coming up with a better way to use what we have?

I know.

Heresy.

Maybe myopic and evasive <as Max says>.

Oh. Maybe it is just not what Futurists want to hear.

Oh well.

It is a great quote. A smart quote. And, more importantly, a great thought. It’s the kind of thought someone in a position that matters should be thinking.

unfortunate timing affects credibility

June 16th, 2012

So.

Using a paid spokesperson is tricky. You can not be stupid about it <that is a big deal … because companies get stupid when they pull out their wallets to pay for some spokespeople> … you can even find someone who fits well … and even find someone who will not embarrass you <the company, the brand, the product> and then … well … some unfortunate timing occurs.

An example.

Toyota just featured Grace Potter for one of their smaller more economical models. She is from Vermont. She seems practical and down to earth and when you saw her with the Toyota it really wasn’t a stretch to believe it. And I thought it was a good choice.

And Toyota, being a savvy marketer, placed the television advertisement in the new VH1 Storytellers featuring Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. That was a good choice. Ok. Actually awesome use of compatible editorial environment.

Oh. Oops. Here is the unfortunate timing … during the storyteller portion of the show Grace had just finished a delightful story about how she took off in her car for 4 or 5 days driving back roads trying to unlock writer’s block. Unfortunately she said “I took my car … a Fiat … and just drove.”

Is it a big deal? Heck. I am probably one of a dozen people who noticed it <consciously at least>. There are probably a few more who subconsciously knew something was wrong and it just felt like a disconnect for some reason. But. Here is the deal. If you are gonna pay the bucks to have a paid spokesperson you gotta have some of the details under control … or … well … its just not worth paying the bucks.

Was it unfortunate? Yup. Was it avoidable? Yup. Was it bad for credibility? Yup.

smile America but do it britishly (over a bbq)

June 8th, 2012

Ok.

This could either be considered nitpicky (otherwise called … “irrelevant dancing on the head of a pin”) or craftsmanship.

So.

Marketing can be effective any number of ways. So this isn’t about effectiveness. But it is about attention to detail. And in that detail I get to discuss craftsmanship.

The other day I saw a wonderful Burger King ‘smile America its BBQ time’ television commercial that I am not really sure sold anything in particular <which is okay because I know who burger king is and I don’t need to be bludgeoned with another promotion> but it was …well … American <it opens with a screen sized American flag for gods sake>.

It surprised me a little coming from burger king but that was okay because it made me feel good.

And made me think about Burger King in a slightly different way (a good way).

Ah.

But me being me.

The ad had a really nice Dire Straits song playing as a bunch of beautifully shot patriotic & bbq visuals and supers showed up onscreen.

Here is my issue.

Dire Straits is a British band. Silly? Yeah. Possibly. But this is my post and this is about craftsmanship.

Here is the commercial:

Smile America BK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoB_zm_UDb8

Anyway.

In thinking about my issue with this advertisement I put this in the same category as when we were talking new business in our company and someone asked me about the new Belks department store marketing <being a south regional department store they finally decided to leverage their southern roots>.

I said the new positioning (southern focused) was smart.

I said the execution was okay (seemed slightly off from positioning and kind of unspectacular visually).

I said the music was a spectacular mistake. It was a great song from KT Tunstal … who is from Scotland. Now. She may be from south scotland but I am fairly sure Belk’s wasn’t talking about that south.

<note: Oh. Someone must have heard me … because now the music is ‘She Sets Me Free’ by Tim Halperin … from Omaha … at least in america …>

Regardless.

Nitpicky?  Sure.

Make a difference to 99.9% of consumers? Nope. It won’t.

Make a difference within the organization? Maybe. Consistency with regard to a positioning is important. And you need to be ruthless in pursuit of it.

Craftsmanship? Yeah. It makes a difference. Great marketing is about the details.

And it just isn’t that difficult to insure you use an American band piece of music if you are going to take an American tone in your marketing communications.

Just as if you are going to suggest to people <with a new ‘brand campaign’ no less> that you are embracing your ‘southernness’ than, please, for gods sake, use an artist from America if not even from somewhere in the south.

In the end this kind of stuff doesn’t matter much to people.

But.

I have to tell you. if you don’t take it seriously than people who matter to you won’t take it seriously.

You can still create fun, entertaining, musically driven marketing and still ‘stay on mission.’

I am sure someone will agree this is nitpicky.

I may suggest that in this fragmented communications world you have to be nitpicky. Small things like this can have big repercussions down the road.

cell phones and 8 year olds

May 14th, 2012

“Adults — digital natives or not — can’t imagine what a childhood mediated by mobile, social technology that didn’t exist 10 years ago is actually like.” – Senior editor The Atlantic magazine

I admit.

Technology has created a significant new challenge to parenting. I struggle to think of anything since the printing press that would affect parenting as much as technology <smartphones, cell phones, i-pads, etc.> is doing.

Television was different (it’s not portable).

Cars was different (cannot drive until 16).

Anyway.

3rd grade children are, on average, eight years old.

20% of 3rd grade boys and 18% of 3rd grade girls already have a cell phone <2011 Massachusetts study of elementary, middle, and high school students>.

By the time children reach 5th grade, 39% of the kids have cell phones.

More than 83% of the students have a cellular device by middle school.

I have mixed feelings.

And frankly its not because of kids having access to this technology at too young an age … its more because of the quote I began with … we <older folk> cannot imagine a childhood mediated by technology.

And because we cannot imagine it … we have a propensity to limit it.

We all focus on ‘my kid is attached to their cell phone’ or ‘all they do is text’ or <fill in the blank>.

Is that wrong?

Geez. Parts of it doesn’t sound wrong and yet parts of it does sound wrong … because they are already living in a world I struggle to even imagine.

And <to increase the challenge> I cannot even come close to imagining what their adult world will look like.

Part of me thinks it is silly to restrict their usage of something that is already integral to today’s world.

Another part of me understands that we adults <including teachers and the overall education system> are not set up to manage their usage (unless we use guidelines from our own youth … which seems unbelievably silly).

Regardless.

I have another post where I will note the increasing % of children below the age of 5 using computers <there are even kindergartens that have this now> to learn.

I have had multiple debates with other TED participants with regard to the ultimate effect on cognitive learning <I am on technology’s side and I am in a minority>.

It is a whole new world.

And while we older folk may try and keep up with the technology we run the risk of not keeping up with our children’s’ world.

No. I don’t have an answer.

Yes. I do believe we adults need to come up with an entirely new set of ‘rules’ that will make us feel incredibly uncomfortable in dealing with our children.

Here is what I do know.

It will not be long before that 83% having cellular devices will be at the 3rd grade level.

It will not be long before over 80% of ALL children (any age … including less than 5) will have access to the internet.

We either need to accept it and do something to take advantage of it or we run the risk of creating the largest generational gap <and ensuing friction> since maybe age of the printing press.

Oh.

One day after I published the first version of this post I received the new Economist and had to add the following letter to the editor to my post:

SIR – Your special report <the third industrial revolution> is a warning bell for America’s outdated education system. Digital technology surrounds every facet of our lives. But when children walk into school they are usually told to give up the tools that power this new digital revolution and travel back in time to the days of Henry Ford’s factories. Indeed, classrooms in 2012 would seem normal to students in 1912: a teacher at the front, a board behind her to write on, two dozen children lined in rows who come and go as the proverbial steam whistle lets them know their shift is over.

We left that world a long time ago, and the customised and innovative tools of digital learning are long overdue in our education system. The disruptive nature of the digital revolution may bring more prosperity than either of its predecessors, but if the West cannot change its 19th-century model of education we will cede this wealth to others.

ADAM PESHEK

American Legislative Exchange Council

Washington, DC

True, so true. We need to leave a world behind and need to make the changes that will make us feel uncomfortable … but needed.

augmented reality

May 14th, 2012

Augmented reality is … well … a reality.

Augmented Reality: engineers are pulling graphics out of your television screen or computer display and integrating them into real-world environments. This new technology, called augmented reality, blurs the line between what’s real and what’s computer-generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell.

On the spectrum between virtual reality, which creates immersive, computer-generated environments, and the real world, augmented reality is closer to the real world. Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptic feedback and smell to the natural world as it exists.

Ok.

And I will be the first to admit, as a quasi-marketing person, marketing is already making a hash of it <abusing it, misusing it, etc. it>.

Regardless. I see lots of possibilities with augmented reality mostly in that it provides an opportunity to add dimension to whatever story someone is telling.

The story could be a children’s story.

It could be a ‘product’ story. It could be a presentation story. It can enhance ANY story.

With that in mind the following link takes you to an incredibly appropriate use of augmented reality to enhance a story. Please don’t be fooled that it is so good just because it has to do with magic … the idea can add magic to any presentation and/or story.

Imagine any presenter, doesn’t have to be a CEO, presenting with this type of presentation.

Imagine a marketing message being given this way.

Imagine a class being taught this way.

Here you go (this is awesome):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marco_tempest_a_magical_tale_with_augmented_reality.html

Hope you enjoyed.

And hope you recognize that augmented reality technology is here … now.

spinal tap marketing

April 23rd, 2012

Ok.

This is about the senseless marketing inflation that is becoming prevalent in the marketing world and I am going to use the movie Spinal Tap to show how bad it is.

Just in case you don’t remember the movie Spinal Tap, or the moment I am going to reference, here it is:

“Our speakers no longer just go to ten … they go to 11! Well, it’s one louder, isn’t it? It’s not 10. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at 10. You’re on 10 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you’re on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?”

<Nigel Tufnel, explaining why his amp goes up to 11>

Here’s the deal. Look around at some marketing these days. If you are kind you will call it ‘value inflation’ … if you aren’t kind it is puffery.

And good ole The Economist actually gave me some great fodder in a recent edition (so I am going to steal some of their words shamelessly).

Their article showcased an aspect of how marketing is inflating everything.

Marketing inflation?

-          Take the grossly underreported problem of “size inflation”, where clothes of any particular labelled size have steadily expanded over time. Estimates by The Economist suggest that the average British size 14 pair of women’s trousers is now more than four inches wider at the waist than it was in the 1970s. In other words, today’s size 14 is really what used to be labelled a size 18; a size 10 is really a size 14. (American sizing is different, but the trend is largely the same.) Fashion firms seem to think that women are more likely to spend if they can happily squeeze into a smaller label size.

-          Inflation is also distorting the travel business. A five-star hotel used to mean the ultimate in luxury, but now six- and seven-star resorts are popping up as new hotels award themselves inflated ratings as a marketing tool. “Deluxe” rooms have been devalued, too: many hotels no longer have “standard” rooms, but instead offer a choice of “deluxe” (the new standard), “luxury”, “superior luxury” or “grand superior luxury”. Likewise, most airlines no longer talk about “economy” class. British Airways instead offers World Traveller; Air France has Voyageur. Sardine class would be more honest. The value of frequent-flyer miles is also being eroded by inflation: it is increasingly hard to book “free” flights; they cost more miles, and redemption fees have increased. This was inevitable: airlines have been issuing so many miles (for spending on the ground as well as in the air) that the total stock is worth more than all the dollar notes and coins in circulation.

-          Food-portion inflation has also made it harder to fight the flab. Pizzas now come in regular, large and very large. Starbucks coffees are Tall, Grande, Venti or (soon) Trenta. “Small” seems to be a forbidden word.

I believe this shameless hyperbole has become a plague in marketing. It is puffery at its worst.

And it is shameful for 2, among many, reasons:

-          It inspires confusion.

Confusion in that the value equation has been disrupted. Marketers have assumed we will value a ‘7 star’ over a ‘5 star’ because … well … it has more stars. Instead marketers have simply devalued an individual star to a point people are so confused they simply assess value on their own. Oh. And by doing THAT people will inevitably focus on the wrong things (commodity attributes & price). Confusion is bad in marketing.

-          In inspires distrust.

Because in the act of building false value <under the guise of differentiation> we are discrediting what we actually do. Inevitably this makes people basically lose trust in what we say. With the lack of trust marketers have no value to people … leading to simply ignoring or tuning out any messaging. Oh. And if marketers have no value then why have them? Regardless. No one is clear what is the ‘truth.’ And when that happens they disregard what is being said and simply ignore it. And ignore it for what it really is <as a truth> hyperbole.

Oh.

And it is shameful because it is lazy. Yes. Lazy. I fully admit that it is significantly harder to discern what is really true in today’s world. But that is no excuse for marketers. In fact rather than try to take the ‘easy road’ <albeit the road with some horrible long term repercussions> marketers should be focusing on the more difficult road – truth.

Anyway. Back to the spinal tap marketing issue. The Economist suggests it is a form of inflation.

I am less kind.

It is hyperbole. And the worst kind. Because we are trying to skew what people think by stretching the truth <is that lying?>.

Lying sounds harsh but what else do we call it when we ‘create’ differentiation.

I fully understand that marketers need to respond to the market in order to help ‘sell their stuff.’ In this case this bad marketing behavior was exhibited in response to a couple of trends as identified by trendwatching – Mass Class and its opposite trend Massclusivity.

Increasing general prosperity spawned millions of new consumers interested in copying the tastes and preferences of the ‘rich & famous.’ This meant that manufacturers jumped on the enormous economies of scale as represented by this new mass of consumers by imitating the best of the best with lower cost alternatives. In some cases they imitated well. in other cases they simply imitated … with a lesser product. Regardless of their true quality, or non-quality, they imitated. And in doing so ultimately lowered the value of that which actually deserved the value.

This trend also spawned the next level called Massclusivity. Offering a level of privilege or status to the masses. Unfortunately it most likely offered neither privilege nor status to the traditional old style upper middle class.

So. In order to try and solve the problem marketers started ‘creating value’ in these absurd ways. The real problem? The imitators did it as well as the ‘real quality value’ providers. The imitators, in their falseness, blurred value.

It is too late but one would have wished that marketers would have been strong enough to stand up to the false imitators and stopped the problem before it began. But I imagine that means the marketing ‘hacks’ would have left money on the table and missed out on their opportunity for personal prosperity.

Oh well.

Marty DiBergi: David St. Hubbins… I must admit I’ve never heard anybody with that name.
David St. Hubbins: It’s an unusual name, well, he was an unusual saint, he’s not a very well known saint.
Marty DiBergi: Oh, there actually is, uh… there was a Saint Hubbins?
David St. Hubbins: That’s right, yes.
Marty DiBergi: What was he the saint of?
David St. Hubbins: He was the patron saint of quality footwear.

An entirely different level is of absurdity is that marketers also create spokespeople for random products & services hoping that they embody some type of credibility. In the attempt at borrowed interest the marketer simply gains a lack of believability. Ok. Good intentions … bad result.

Hopefully it never becomes as absurd as a ‘patron saint of quality footwear.’

And, yes, even beyond the spokespeople endorsers … it all becomes absurd at some point.

And in its absurdity it actually devalues everything it come in contact with <the second most disturbing would be the devaluing of trust>.  The foremost disturbing is that it distorts behavior because so many people are confused they aren’t sure what is actually the best thing to do <because inflating thru marketing suggest there is no real ‘best’ alternative>.

I imagine to be fair to those in marketing it appears this senseless inflation is prevalent throughout society.

There is grade inflation, the tendency for comparable academic performance to be awarded higher grades over time. In Britain the proportion of A-level students given “A” grades has risen from 9% to 27% over the past 25 years. Yet other tests find that children are no cleverer than they were. A study by Durham University concluded that an A grade today is the equivalent of a C in the 1980s. In American universities almost 45% of graduates now get the top grade, compared with 15% in 1960. Grade inflation makes students feel better about themselves, but because the highest grade is fixed, it also causes grade compression, which distorts relative prices. This is unfair to the brightest, whose grades are devalued against those of average students. It also makes it harder for employers to identify the best applicants.

There is job title inflation, where a fancier-sounding title is cheaper than a pay raise. Companies now have an excess of chiefs and directors. Job title inflation has economic costs if it makes it more difficult to assess proper compensation for skills.

Anyway.

Now that I have been fair to marketing people I will suggest it is no excuse.

I have already mentioned the professional laziness.

But, the bigger issue is that marketing, in many ways, can influence society and attitudes and ultimately behavior.

Marketing can lead.

Marketing has in fact a responsibility to lead society. Inflation is ultimately a value equation. If marketing establishes non-absurd value equations attitudes are established.

I know it seems absurd that I wrote a serious piece about marketing using Spinal Tap.

But it moves beyond absurdity with me when I realize I can write a serious piece on marketing using Spinal Tap as an example.

It disturbs me.

Which leads me to the close:

“It does disturb me, but I rise above it. I’m a professional” – Nigel

Trying to inflate value simply means we devalue what really is.

And if marketing does it ultimately it establishes a devalued benchmark. Yeah … yeah … yeah … some smartass is going to suggest that marketing is establishing a ‘new value economy.’

Baloney.

It is simply devaluing the existing one.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Enlightened Conflict