Posts tagged marketing
confessions of an ad man
Jan 29th
Well.
Maybe its because I get to talk with a lot of teen/20somethings or maybe its because all my friends are cynical bastards … but I seem to defend the advertising business a lot.
And maybe because of that I thought I should take a moment and share some truths.
Because the business (for the majority) is not made up of liars, hucksters, clowns, alcoholics and smarmy assholes.
And mostly we try and tell the truth to businesses and consumers. I say mostly because I admit that there are some moments inside an agency where one of the minority (from the above aforementioned majority) find a voice (most typically with regard to new business) and says things that send a shiver up my ethical spine.
Regardless.
Some truth (I imagine this is just an abbreviated list of truths of which we could add many many more if I were to think about it more).
Advertising is not always about just selling stuff.
Advertising isn’t just a catalyst for buying (or convincing someone to buy) … it is a catalyst for how people see things, think about things and, sometimes, actually do things. I heard Spike Lee once say .. “I feel a responsibility for everything I create <because millions will see it>.” Advertising may be the most powerful thing out there to affect people. We know we are in a business but we also know we impact people significantly more than the sales numbers ever reflect. We in the business never forget this (albeit it may look like we have on occasion). Ok. Let’s just say that the people in advertising who really ‘get it’ never forget this.
That said …
Yes. Creativity is about results & awards (or recognition).
We understand what we do makes an impact … and should be measured by some type of results. On the other hand … because it is creativity we like some creative validation that you didn’t just have to throw mud against the wall to make something stick. The truth is that advertising people thrive on both. And we have to because sometimes bad advertising can generate results. And people get fooled by just looking at sales results (and not examining the results in terms of what people actually think … because that impacts future behavior). Good advertising can generate better results (and better long term impressions). And awards help better delineate between the crappy advertising that shows results and good advertising that shows results.
We like results & recognition. And we like people talking about it … speaking of which …
Social media is actually not that social.
We care about social media. Probably more than most business owners actually do. Many businesses create an illusion of ‘social’ but in reality maintain a relatively non-social business model (as defined in traditional social terms). So. The truth? The term social media has taken on galactic size proportions standing for everything … and nothing. Here is the truth. Most social media vehicles are simply information disseminators. They aren’t social. They permit people and businesses to narcissistically spew forth ad nausea about themselves. What makes the web different is that there is an OPPORTUNITY to respond. If you take part in responding … well … it still isn’t social … it has simply become a dialogue (sort of). It only becomes social when there is some interaction like talking with someone at a party. Trust me on this one … in most cases it remains at stage one (the spewing part). For the most part the current social world is a monologue.
Oh. Just like TV.
Now. This doesn’t diminish the importance of social media and the future … it’s just that the good agencies keep perspective and actually recommend what is going to be the best for a clients’ business.
Ok. Back to TV.
Television is not dead.
One TV ad on American Idol can reach more teens then a PitBull tweet. And make a bigger impression (because you have those funny moving picture thingies).
Anyway. As long as tv executives keep their heads out of their asses often enough to actually produce programs people will watch … there will be TV ads. And as long as there is TV advertising there will be a maddening mix of insightfully educating entertaining executions and pedantic pedestrian drivel waste of :30 seconds.
Why is that? ….
We don’t know what works (for sure).
Sure. There are some basic principles that can insure your advertising will be in the “good” portion of the gene pool but, in the end, setting research aside … people are fickle and clients (in general) find it difficult to make the hard choices (because they prefer to ‘please’ rather than ‘prod’ the mind) needed so that the advertising actually has enough sharp edges on it to stand out. I will say this … give a good advertising agency (not a hack agency) one year to do whatever they believed was the best thing to do and I would bet over 80%+ of everything they did would be good (people like it) and effective (creates results).
Anyway. We are probably like songwriters. We write songs and we know some are better than others when we write them. We also kind of recognize when we write a hit – on the off chance when we write something like that – but you can never be sure until it is actually out there for all to hear & see.
And we do care what people think …
We do care about clients (most of them).
There is nothing better than knowing you have created something people like and generates results in partnership with a client you respect.
Nothing.
The only advertising people who have no/little respect for their clients or nothing good/nice to say about their clients (most typical comment is “they just aren’t that smart”) aren’t good advertising people. And you don’t want to work with them anyway.
And we do care about the people who buy the stuff too, but …
The consumer is not the king/queen.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble but if they were (kings & queens) they could demand anything they wanted and businesses would go out of business chasing their fleeting whims.
Here is the truth. A sale is a partnership between the seller & the buyer. At its best it is a marriagelike relationship. In either case … things are balanced … with one not significantly more important than the other. And why is this important? Well. With balance there is trust. And that is the basis for any long term brand or business proposition. Treat them like a king/queen? Yikes. At some point they will believe they are one and … well … treat the company like a serf (that is bad by the way).
Speaking of how people are treated …
Creative people always have a thread of insecurity (or fear).
If people want to wonder why creative people (or agency people in general) do wacky things … well … try this on for size. Remember what it felt like the first time you were in love and decided to say it out loud? You were scared shitless it wouldn’t be reciprocated. Or, worse, someone would just laugh. Well. That’s life in advertising on a daily basis. Creative ideas and ads and thoughts are emotionally, typically insightful, parts of our soul we elected to have the kahones to share with the public. In the end no client is the enemy, the consumer isn’t the enemy … fear is the enemy. Understand that and you understand the people in the business.
Ok.
I am sure I missed some other truths, but those are probably the biggies.
Good advertising people don’t lie. Either by omission or in actual ‘untruths.’ And they actually have the clients’ business interest in mind with almost everything they do … because when a client is successful, even if an agency may not get credit, they almost never get fired.
That’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (at least for today).
hard choices
Jan 25th
Ok. Let’s talk a minute about Kodak.
And the fact that their demise had nothing to do with lack of foresight or inability to innovate (because they actually invented the digital camera). Kodak is about leadership, or the lack thereof, and people and decisions (or the lack thereof). 
When an iconic company and brand like Kodak goes bankrupt everyone should think about hard choices and people who make them.
Oh. And people who don’t make them.
I am sure in 1976 when Kodak had 90% of film and 85% of camera sales in the US and was regularly rated one of the world’s five most valuable brands that it would seem inconceivable to company decision makers that the company could disappear. I do not have to imagine that we the people couldn’t conceive it.
In addition.
What’s not often recognized is that it was actually Kodak that invented the digital camera (in 1975). And, interestingly, four years after that a Kodak executive issued a report that predicted, in some detail, how different parts of the market would switch from film to digital with an inevitable digital mass market by 2010 (whew. Pretty close, huh?).
Look.
This is surely not the first time a company, and its leaders, has decided it is so self-important it can ride out what is happening in the market.
But I believe people are focusing on the wrong things.
Successful organizations are rarely successful because of foresight (or fortune telling or predicting the future). They are typically successful due to thoughtful reaction and response to change … and making the inevitably hard decisions when the change is truly disruptive to their core business.
Yes.
Decisions get significantly harder when a company is faced with truly market disruptive innovations/actions.
And, no, corporations don’t have to inevitably die. It depends entirely on their adaptability.
So. Let’s talk about the decisions to adapt.
What I mean by that is … why couldn’t Kodak and its leaders make the hard choices to avert this demise?
I disagree with the popular opinion that it was their lack of vision with regard to the role digital in the photo business that led to their demise.
Why?
Many organizations make big innovation or lack of vision mistakes and don’t go bankrupt. Why don’t they? They make the hard decisions to course correct.
Yup. Hard decisions are called hard because they are just that – hard.
Difficult.
Not soft.
Not soft?
“I want (and need) to make significant changes. But I want to retain the core.”
(Oops … that is decision with high potential for ‘soft characteristics’).
Why? That core, or what is deemed most important, always seems to grow and grow when being discussed internally. It is almost within the DNA of an organization to think in these terms. And, inevitably, those ‘significant changes’ become soft changes.
Hard means sacrifice. Not cutting back on the decision. Making a real sacrifice.
I wrote about it in a post called “how far would you go to solve a problem?” http://brucemctague.com/how-far-would-you-go-to-solve-a-problem
Hard decisions could have saved Kodak. I truly believe that.
But let’s maybe discuss why hard decisions are hard to make (even by people who are quite capable of making a good hard decision).
Here is something to ponder.
Hard choices harden the person who makes them.
You have to harden yourself. You have to harden yourself, insulate yourself a little, from the human aspects of the decision and focus on the bigger picture and the horizon. Please don’t mistake this for minimizing the ‘little people’ or the individual. This is the forest or trees type decisions leaders need to make. It may sound callous but it is just like firefighting a big fire … burn some trees to save the forest.
Oh. And sometimes burn a shitload of trees to save the forest.
Leaders make the same decisions. In this case it is people & buildings and not trees.
Regardless.
The big hard decisions, when they are made, harden you as a person. It’s just life. It’s not personal.
Here is what makes it even tougher.
I believe all of us who make hard decisions worry a little bit that it … well … becomes too easy.
That we become so hard that we lose sight of everything else.
Oddly Richard Gere in Pretty Woman reminded us of this – if you got past the fact he was hiring a hooker in the Beverly Wilshire Hotel – in that his character lost sight of ‘being human’ as he became quite good at making hard decision for business successes.
And it was a true depiction of what can happen. Hard decisions are difficult because there is not only a financial risk & toll … but a personal toll. Each one affects you.
As with everything in life (it seems) … it is a balancing act.
I say all of this to try and share that there is a human aspect of any hard decision. And leaders don’t overlook that (despite what everyone else may want you to think).
Every one understands the repercussions.
Every. One.
Now. Having said that.
Someone at Kodak couldn’t make the hard decision.
I truly believe that.
Were they soft with regard to people or whatever? Heck. I don’t know. I believe they just inevitably made soft decisions. Soft decisions that possibly gave a glimmer of hope but once you begin the slippery slope of business issues (particularly if you are a large company and gravity really takes over) the glimmer becomes dimmer and dimmer over time.
To stop the slide a really hard decision needed to be made.
A big hairy audacious decision.
Anyway. I often believe business leaders could learn a lot from the military on how to win a war.
Do I believe a general wants to lose a single soldier’s life? No. He does not.
Do I believe a general understands that he needs to lose soldiers’ lives? Yes. He does.
Do I believe those decisions weigh upon him (even if we elect to judge the decision on the final successful outcome)? Yes. I do.
But they make the hard decisions.
And no one at Kodak did make the hard decision.
It wasn’t lack of foresight.
It wasn’t a lack of understanding of what was happening in the market (trust me … they probably saw dozens of reports of what was happening in the marketplace).
It was a lack of ability to make the hard decision.
And … it’s a shame.
jeep & robert frost
Jan 24th
Ok.
It is very difficult in the car advertising business to make your advertising stand out.
Car manufacturers spend zillions of dollars (ok … only billions of dollars) and it is difficult to find something truly new and relevant and interesting to say.
So sometimes you just have to find a different way of saying the same thing and hopefully it stands out.
Jeep Wrangler Arctic just did it (for me at least).
In the television ad I saw I heard a poem I sort of recognized … and I couldn’t figure out who the voice was who was saying it (but it sounded dated).
The poem (and words used in the ad)?
“Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening”
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
The author? Robert Frost.
Holy cow.
Some copywriter dug around in his/her literary mental archive and saw these words and said “shit … I bet if we put some amazing footage of a Jeep Wrangler (Arctic to be specific) driving through some impossible snow underneath these words … well … it would be the shizzle.”
Then he/she thought some more and said …
“Oh. No. Let’s do better. Let’s use Robert himself.” (thought bubble attached: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … I wonder if there is a recording of Robert Frost reading it?)
Holy shit (instead of ‘cow’ this time). Yes. There is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfOxdZfo0gs&feature=related
And then they edited it to make this Jeep ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHeG8J5b1U4&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3F36F72A7E0D8CB7
(by the way … if you stay on the link and let the next Jeep Compass ad run it is a great border collie ad)
Ok.
Is it brilliant advertising? Maybe not.
It is a brilliant creative way to say what you want to say? You bet.
It is an incredibly creative way of saying something that almost every ‘rough ‘n tumble’ car manufacturer has said.
Will most people know it is Robert Frost? Hell no.
But it sounds cool and tough and timeless and the words are relevant and if you do know it is Robert Frost … well … it make you feel like you are a smart Jeep owner.
Anyway.
Here is the entire Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening poem:
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village, though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound’s the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Good stuff Jeep.
Oh. I have read a couple of commentaries on this advertising where some people were getting in a tizzy (a technical term) on using Robert Frost to sell Jeep Wranglers. Geez people … get over it. Get a life. It is a smart idea. And it’s not like they are using his poem (and voice) to sell feminine wipes or erectile dysfunction drugs (not that there is anything wrong with either of those). This was artfully and thoughtfully done.
Once again. Well done Jeep.
facts and creation
Jan 23rd
“Without the hard little bits of marble which are called ‘facts’ or ‘data’ one cannot compose a mosaic; what matters, however, are not so much the individual bits, but the successive patterns into which you arrange them, then break them up and rearrange them.” - The Act of Creation
I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic and uninspired in the workplace.
Yes. Tragic. Because it is such a waste of not only mindpower but, well, will power. And it is also tragic to the work company because lethargy does not lead to ideas/ideation/creative thinking.
To me? The real problem lies with the older folk (in manager positions) who seem to lack a comprehensive relevant view of learning. Or maybe better said … they have an archaic way of viewing the way it should be done.
There are a lot of leaders (management whatever you want to call them) who appear to be guilty of classifying learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience.
This is in combination with the fact they also tend to have odd views on ‘how to make it fun.’ Oh. And to complete that thought … they have a belief that they have to ‘make it fun’ because learning is difficult/frustrating. Therefore it is a flawed belief system.
Look.
Creative thinking and innovation does not arise out of a vacuum but must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment. To experiment with facts, with ideas and products. With the hard little bits of marble as it were.
Original thinking and new ideas has to be nurtured and rearranged in successive patterns … not destroyed and scattered.
We can all encourage creativity by helping young people learn to assess the bits of marble and take intellectual risks in their work & ideation. Does this have to be “made” fun? Nope. And it is, frankly, silly to think it has to be.
Instead this is like providing a spark to combustible matter. I am not suggesting it should be painful but rather fun is slightly less relevant than providing the inspiration to learn and become engaged.
Ultimately I don’t believe management should teach people how to create ideas.
The goal should be to prepare young people to be competent and original in their thinking.
Do that and they will create mosaics like you have never seen before.
Oh.
And in successive patterns.
(by the way … that is a good thing)
global latin American
Dec 29th
Every once in awhile you come across some magazine advertising that makes you actually stop and look (rare … I know). It isn’t annoying, smelly (those damn cosmetic ads), condescending, impossible to figure out what they were trying to say (or why they did it) or have some random half naked model in it.
I saw one. In the Economist. This is about Itaú, a Brazilian global bank, and its advertising campaign.
I would imagine that most North Americans have no idea who Itau is. In 2010 it was listed as Latin America’s largest bank and was, for the second year in a row, ranked as one of the world’s 10 largest financial institutions. The bank operates 5,000 branches and nearly 30,000 ATMs, with 108,000 employees throughout the Americas, Asia and Europe.
It is one of the region’s most international banks, with Itaú-Unibanco branches in New York, Tokyo and Grand Cayman; Banco Itaú Europa branches in Lisbon, Madeira and London; and Itaú BBA offices in Shanghai and Nassau. It also offers retail banking in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay.
But.
The advertising campaign.
It is a wonderful strategic decision to leverage its roots, its current customers, its growth focus and its global feel. All in one ad campaign.
“I am a Global Latin American” is a brilliant use of what Latin American professionals are doing outside the region.
And I love the tagline … “The Global Latin American Bank” (mostly because I sense the majority of people don’t necessarily think of Latin American as global … in any sense of a definition).
And it’s a pretty cool print campaign (well art directed and written).
The full-page ads feature some leading Latins declaring why they consider themselves a “Global Latin American”:
Argentine Polo star and Ralph Lauren model Nacho Figueras.
Brazilian actress Alice Braga (Alice is best known in US for her role in “I Am Legend”).
Brazilian Artist Vik Muniz (full name … Vicente José de Oliveira Muniz … makes me wish I had been born in Brazil or Spain ).
Argentine ballerina Paloma Herrera (one of the premier ballet dancers in the world – named as one of the 30 artists most likely to change the world of culture).
The copy is personal and, while humble, certainly ends with a sense of accomplishment. It is one of the best use of celebrities I have seen in awhile.
And the ads were created by one of the world’s hottest ad agencies – Africa (they do some nice stuff).
I also like the campaign because despite the fact Itaú has been listed as one of the 100 most valuable brands in the world (ranking first among Brazilian banks ) by Millward Brown BrandZ rankings, it is a nice natural evolution of a thoughtful multi-year brand management effort. This stage in the effort seems to focus on increasing the type of awareness they desire (strong local but strong global). It is nicer stuff than simply saying “I have a shitload of deposits and ATMs.”
I sometimes believe larger institutions waste advertising dollars talking about themselves and it all blends together.
This ad campaign certainly looks & feels different.
And it makes them look different.
Well done Itau (and africa).
you know you have done something right
Dec 5th
so.
You often know you have done something right if you have pissed someone off.
Ok. That was extreme.
How about not everyone. Just some people.
Really? (you say).
Yup.
Great ideas and thoughts tend to be polarizing.
Now.
Let me be clear.
Some ideas are polarizing because they are just, well, stupid & bad.
That is why I opened this with “often.”
What made me decide to write about this is because a pretty good Axe deodorant commercial was banned. And if you would have told me I would have typed “pretty good Axe commercial” a year ago I would have laughed out loud.
I have found most of their advertising banal, juvenile, simplistic to the point of being mindless and pointless.
However.
I cannot argue with the fact Axe knows exactly who their target customer is and what makes that customer tick.
And I also admit I love the focus. Too often companies want to be everything to everyone … and even if they do make a choice they don’t make the hard decisions in their communication to go for the jugular with that target customer.
Axe is about late teen/young 20’s guys.
Axe is about what matters to these guys is girls. Oh. And not just any girls but good looking girls (you may not get them but you certainly want them).
And recently some Christians took offense to how Axe approached that thinking and figured out a way to get the commercial banned.
In my eyes?
Any time Christians (or any group driven by a philosophical stance for that matter) gets your commercial pulled you have probably done something right.
Here is the Axe ad:
Angels will Fall: http://fashionetc.com/news/beauty/3620-axe-deodorant-ad-ban-christians?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=launch
Being polarizing at its best means you are not just reacting subjectively or spontaneously but rather the thinking is anchored in some kind of truth. Sure. The truth may be demonstrated in some vivid or extreme terms … but it is a truth.
Axe?
Young men want to have beautiful women attracted to them.
Even more of a truth?
Average looking young men want extremely beautiful women attracted to them.
Even more of a truth?
Average looking young men want extremely beautiful women SO attracted to them that they don’t have to be overt and take a chance of getting turned down and have the women come to them.
That is what Axe has anchored their over the top vivid metaphorical advertising on.
Should it be banned for its metaphor? No. In fact it is silly to do so (although Axe has to be ecstatic for all the free public relations they are getting).
Should Axe be lauded for using this metaphor? Yes.
It is good advertising.
It is actually smart advertising (beyond the fact it is actually entertaining advertising).
And my sense it is effective advertising (what young man doesn’t want to think beautiful angels will fall from the sky for them).
Look.
Doing something marketwise that gets banned (and actually knowing you have done something right versus just something that was stupid and should have been banned) has to begin with a mature, realistic, insightful and rational perspective.
By definition, oppositional thinking means you are aware of some existing premise or position and that you are thinking in comparative and contrasting terms.
Great communication captures the distinct individuality of the brand/product/person and often challenges or pokes playfully at the conventional belief. And, yet, through vivid metaphors encourages fresh and evocative/provocative expression.
Sometimes this is called be ‘smartfully disruptive.’
Sometimes it is just called being smart.
Expressively being disruptive, or taking the status quo and making it absurd, is just good ole plain smart oppositional thinking. And with Axe they have used great target insight in that it combines a challenge to authority or ‘the way it’s always been’ tradition.
It’s a beautiful use of skewering the high-minded and the rigid and/or self-righteous (which young men in particular love to do).
As a guy named von Oech said in his book, Whack on the Side of the Head, said …
“Sacred cows make great steaks.”
As I said upfront … I have never been a big fan of Axe marketing but this idea is brilliant.
And it is EXTREMELY well produced.
Oh.
And it must be working because I just heard that Axe deodorant is in the top 5 (#4 I believe) items most often shoplifted from grocery stores. Now that, my friends, is advertising creating demand.
VW
Nov 16th
Ok.
VW has always done some really nice advertising. They remain one of the few companies who really has understood that what differentiates them is their product’s brand character and not really their features (or the lack thereof).
What I mean by that is while they will talk about a sometimes quirky appearance or how much gas mileage a VW owner can get from their product (a feature) … a feature, by the way, that everyone is talking about so it is all kind of a blur to everyone watching … they decide to talk about their features within what seems to be a very well defined brand character.
In other words they highlight a feature but do it in such a charming brand personality driven way that it becomes distinct.
And entertaining.
And fun to watch.
And, frankly, just makes you feel darn good about a VW.
If you own a VW you end up saying “hey, did you see that VW tv commercial?” (and feel great that it is your ‘brand’).
And if you don’t own a VW you actually chuckle and get what they were really trying to say (and maybe the next time you are in the market for a car you may take a look at a VW for no other particular reason then you feel good when you think VW).
The most recent example of what I have seen that speaks to gas mileage but does it in a very VW way. In fact it was this tv commercial that made me decide to write this post. Very well done. Clever. And VW to its core.
Vamanos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsTqGa2gd0E
And, of course, the VW Darth Vader tv commercial is spectacularly charming.
And it is the penultimate example of how do differentiate based on brand character.
I struggle to envision how some agencies would even present an idea so brand character driven … let alone the fact that most of car manufacturers wouldn’t even produce it.
The advertising, even more than selling a car, is a reflection of the company and brand itself. Envision the fact that almost 50 seconds of the entire 1 minute commercial has nothing to do with the car itself. And, yet, the advertising is unequivocally associated with VW.
Darth VW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R55e-uHQna0
And then a commercial that involves a slice of ordinary life which everyone can relate to.
Somehow in this commercial they covered pretty much any and every one who could possibly be considered in their potential demographic profile by finding something similar within everyone’s life … that moment when we sing to ourselves.
Rocket Man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWy-LCGDsd8&NR=1
So.
Ever since Bill Bernbach infamously touted a VW Beetle in a print advertisement as a “Lemon” VW has maintained a sense of believability and charm and understanding that communicating product ‘truths’ within an honest brand character can create value in people’s minds.
Are VW’s REALLY better than other cars? Nope.
Is there another car brand that REALLY makes the same kind of self-image statement about its owner? Nope.
Others may make different statements (Jaguar, Porsche, Ford trucks, etc.) about their owners but not the same as a VW.
Good stuff.
Oh.
And you know how I know they understand their brand so well?
Doesn’t matter who their advertising agency is (DDB, Crispin, Deutsch) the advertising remains good.
That is a sign of a company that understands what is important.
doing the right thing
Nov 1st
“Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” – Mark Twain
So.
This one has been stewing in my pea-like brain for awhile.
Every once in awhile you have a conversation with someone that makes you think … because it kind of rocks you to your core of being.
I had one of those.
I had dinner with an old friend. This is a friend who may qualify as one of the nicest guys on the entire planet … and a guy who has seemingly lost faith in human race’s ability to do the right thing.
Sound harsh?
Well. It sounded tough sitting there too.
And it made me not only think about him, and what got him started down this path and the ultimate place he current resides mentally, but it also made me think about us … as people.
I will begin with the crux of the discussion.
He began with “Why don’t people do the right thing when they obviously know what the right thing to do is?”
And said it with a cynicism and disdain in talking about why people don’t do the right thing (even when it is so obvious it is impossible not to know).
This was a 3 pitchers of beer type of ‘how do I wrap my head around that question and why is it true?”
So.
The issue seems simple at its foundation.
Simple because knowing what’s “right” isn’t enough. People can easily discern the difference between right and wrong. We all really know the right thing to do.
Well.
Lets say 99.9% of people do.
And I say this upfront because I believe a lot of people get caught up focusing on the wrong things when thinking about this issue (because a BOATLOAD of people are thinking about this issue).
It’s in our actions that it all seems to start falling apart.
“I know I shouldn’t do this, but I’m going to do it anyway.”
Some people are so far gone that this thought is fleeting prior to taking action. But, thankfully, for most people this is a thoughtful – or thoughtful enough that it is recognizable mentally – process.
Therefore I want to focus on what happens between what we know we should do and what we actually do.
Whew.
Let me suggest several things about not doing the right thing:
- we are not born wanting to do the wrong thing. In fact as children we see the best in everyone. We have hope that good is the majority and is the strongest and will win out over “those who seek to do wrong.” So something goes wrong over time (ok. So something happens over time that skews that perspective).
- it doesn’t happen overnight. Sure. Some ‘big thing’ can happen that swings you 180degrees in terms of cynicism and self focus. But more likely we begin to see questions of “do they have good intentions” creep in when assessing what actions we SHOULD take and slowly cynicism overcomes ‘light with dark’.
- it is now a cultural/generation issue (so I am saying it is a BIG issue). It appears we are shifting as people who used to believe ‘innocent until proven guilty’ to a culture of ‘guilty until proven innocent’. That, my friends, is a big thing. A really big thing. And, frankly, I worry it will affect children’s attitudes as they grow up. Regardless. We are becoming a people focused on“ I have to focus on what’s right for me because if I don’t I am gonna get screwed.”
And that means while we often referred to the Millennials as the “me generation” we should be altering that to say we are ALL now in the “me generation.”
Ok.
Let’s be clear. I am NOT writing about social responsibility. This is about individual responsibility.
This is about ‘me’ making a decision (with an eye on how it impacts the overarching ‘we’).
Look.
The gap between understanding what is right and the action is manageable – society pressure withstanding. Even though you may know something is wrong and you have a desire to want to do it you, an empowered individual, need to figure out how to leave it, this ‘me-focused-desire-thing’ in your head’s fantasyland.
Unfortunately. We are human. And the outside world affects how we think and how we behave.
I am not going to suggest this is a moral or ethical discussion (although much of it is).
I am going to suggest that the true battle today on this “do the right thing” war is more about the individual.
And I do so to make a point about the individualism versus collectivism construct battle (an “I versus a “we” moral construct … or ‘what is right for me’ versus ‘what is right for the ‘we’ battle).
Because the battle is, and should be, fought individually.
This is about pessimism winning out over positive.
Or even cynicism overcoming optimism.
And all these things become important because a thought becomes a belief. And a belief becomes an action. And, ultimately, an action becomes our behavior.
All of these words I am using should be suggesting that there’s more to this issue than a simple question of right or wrong.
There are many things wrapped up in “why aren’t people doing the right thing more often.”
“I just try to do the right thing at the right time. They may just be little things, but usually they make the difference between winning and losing.” – Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Yeah.
This is about winning and losing.
Winning and losing in life. Not a game.
Plato and Socrates believed that moral virtue was the most valuable thing.
Essentially, they believed “virtue is its own reward.” The key to this lies in the notion that “virtue is the health of the soul.” Therefore doing the right thing doesn’t translate into anything tangible (ignore the whole concept of “good things happen to good people”) but rather something of a higher order self-benefit.
Uh oh.
Trouble.
Because the intangibe ‘health of soul’ doesn’t mean shit when you start thinking about tangibles when we begin to view the rest of the world as “out to get me.” And we begin cocooning our decisions and center everything around “what’s in it for me” (or “I have to look out for me because no one else will’).
Yes.
I do understand that all of us have an interest in adding to our happiness, whether that is some pleasure of the moment, success in a job, or whatever it takes.
If what is right and what is in our own interest coincide, we have no problem doing the right thing. Or maybe we’re willing to do the right thing (and avoid some guilt) only if it’s a little inconveniently “not the right thing for me.”
But. It is when what is right and what makes us happy are opposites (or we feel significant risk to our benefit and happiness) when we reach a real dilemma (problem).
I am not naïve. I know that at times like this, when strong desires pull us in opposite directions, it’s hard to do the ethical ‘right’ thing.
And when we do resist the temptation of doing something other than the right thing we usually want to feel that somehow we’re going to get something for it. That may not be very high-minded, but most of us, when confronted with moral dilemmas, really want to ask: What’s in it for me if I do what’s right?
It doesn’t have to be fame and fortune, it may just be a good feeling about who we are, or it can be pain avoidance (I didn’t get screwed or yelled at or whatever). But most of us want a good positive response reason to be good.
Enough already.
Back to the core issue. Doing the right thing.
Why should we do the right thing?
A simple question. The answer, although it may seem simple, is probably the most difficult task in ethics. Legal systems and religious traditions seemingly have an easy time giving us the answer.
“We should do what’s right in order to avoid punishment for doing wrong–either in this life or the next.”
But real every day life just isn’t that simple (see the word “legal” and “religious” I used in the sentence prior and the nuances and debatable aspects of both make your head spin).
All of this is very hard to do.
Yet. It does boil down to something really simple in concept.
This all seems to boil down to “step up and do the right thing…” or “just do the right thing…”
Sounds easy.
But, once again, even that isn’t simple. Doing the right thing isn’t that easy. In fact, it’s pretty near impossible some of the time.
Someone online outlined a couple problems as examples:
1. Doing the right thing is hard work and horribly painful. – It hurts. Doing the right thing is always harder than doing the wrong thing. That’s why it’s so easy to not do the right thing. You naturally just slip into the behaviors that hurt you the least. When you have to make hard, painful decisions that affect you and the people that you love, doing the right things suddenly looks like the wrong thing.
2. Doing the right thing isn’t always clear. — What is right today might look horribly selfish and self-centered a year from now when you look back. Isn’t it better to have that introspective discussion now rather than a year from now? And even when you look at the choices in front of you with an open mind there are always a few options that you probably haven’t considered. You don’t know everything. Choosing “good” might look bad if a “better” or “best” were clear.
In every aspect you can think of it is difficult to do the right thing.
Any aspect.
Figuratively, emotionally, financially and even physically.
But. Here is the deal (as I get close to finishing this rant)
In general, being successful has always been about doing the hard things.
So doing the right thing falls squarely into this category.
Yeah.
Once again. I get it. It shouldn’t be hard. And we shouldn’t have to feel pain (financially, emotionally, whatever) if we do the right thing.
But.
The only way you can truly get a grip on this ‘do the right thing’ issue is to wrap your head around the fact we are all in the hope business.
All of us.
Every day.
Even seemingly inconsequential type actions.
We all are dealers of hope. Because if we don’t do the right thing then we give no one ‘hope’ it can be better or get better.
And if we do not look at it that way then it becomes a doom loop of ‘doing the wrong things.’ How to break the loop?
Well shit. Do the right thing.
Why? You have forgotten something. Cynicism and the belief you are gonna get screwed if you do the right thing has made you forget you can make a difference. And even if the difference is one person … or one event … that one person maybe begets another person … and another … and then, well, you are starting to make a difference.
But someone has to be the first.
Because if we don’t step up and start doing the right things I fear in the end we will not be able to measure our lives in anything but material and tangible things.
In “here is what I have and did” rather than “did I do the right thing” measurement.
The first is great from an individual standpoint.
The second is better because it shows up on your gravestone and people stop and read it and they smile and they feel better.
It impacts others not just ‘self’ (although it does affect self in a very meaningful way)
In religious circles they state this as “setting aside pride, lust, materialism and act based upon love, compassion and self sacrifice.”
So.
As I stated earlier in this little diatribe of mine … this is NOT about social responsibility. This is about individual responsibility.
This is about ‘me’ making a decision (with an eye on how it impacts the overarching ‘we’).
That’s what it takes to be a hero, a little gem of innocence inside you that makes you want to believe that there still exists a right and wrong and that decency will somehow triumph in the end. – Lisa Hand
My friend’s discomforting discussion reminds me we all need to step up and be a little bit of a hero. On a day to day basis. And not for the sake of being called an actual hero but for the sake of … well … what is right.
And the impact you can have on one person … and in this case a friend. Someone who could easily have been called the nicest guy in the world and life has eroded to a state of cynicism. Because someone didn’t step up … and do the right thing.
all that said.
And if you agree.
Then just do the right thing when you have the opportunity.
“Be a first rate version of yourself, not a second rate version of someone else.”
Judy Garland, to her daughter, Liza Minelli
one hundred monkeys
Oct 3rd
Ok. Everyone knows I love trying to understand why people do the things that they do (attitudes, behaviors, etc.). therefore I am hoping no one is surprised that I find the 100 monkey theory fascinating.
It is almost like a different version of crowd clout. But with a twist.
As some of you may be scratching your head at the moment – here is the 100 monkey theory:
In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it. She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them. The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt. Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.
Imo’s practice catches on.
Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes. Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends. More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.
It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).
This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.
So. The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” (an attitude or behavior) that this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. Yup… mind to mind.
I believe the truly stunning aspect of this theory is the ‘island to island’ aspect.
And these monkeys didn’t have internet.
Nor a classroom.
Nor any physical content.
This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, that the 100 Monkey Phenomenon suggests when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people.
And while I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone. The implications to this is interesting particularly in a business sense (not just culturally).
This suggests finding a group of influencers, or early adopters if that makes it easier for you to get a handle on, is more important to future success than simply grinding out success building “awareness.”
Anyway. There is a book on this theory, “The Hundredth Monkey,” by Ken Keyes, Jr. I don’t suggest reading it because, well, the concept is pretty simple and you don’t need a book to explain it nor do I believe a lot of ages with graphs and explanations will convince you.
Let me explain why I like it as well as how I rationalize it.
First. Trying to explain behavioral transition from specific tactics is very difficult – and it aggravates me when people try to associate specific expenditures or activity to create behavioral activity. This whole idea with 100 monkeys is about doing things, real behavior, creating enough critical mass so that it gets recognized and absorbed in some subconscious way which inevitably creates the behavioral change desired.
Oh. By the way. The fashion industry should take note of this one.
Anyway. I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone can focus on “the 100.” Creating change by focusing the few. Gosh. Sure would make life a little simpler huh? (some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior).
Second.
100 monkeys (or any individuals with brains) is enough critical mass to ensure either extensive collaborative thinking or the presence of a superior individual innovative mind. Either way the group attains the same objective – an innovative idea. Combine this with my overall belief that great minds puzzling over similar situations are quite likely to have the same idea & thought (and inevitably the same innovation) then the 100 monkey theory is not as wacky or cerebral as it may seem at first blush.
You may not buy it.
You may not think people are related to monkeys.
You may think 100 isn’t enough.
But you should think about this (while eating a banana of course).
getting different points of view
Sep 16th
Whew.
If you ever want to get a really different point of view go read the Pravda (a Russian newspaper. http://english.pravda.ru/). The newspaper was originally the voice of communism and while it currently claims to have no resemblance to the original communist Pravda its mission remains “to report the truth and nothing but the truth” (Pravda means truth in Russian). And. It still leans mightily toward a pro-Russian/communist point of view (just as say a NY Times leans mightily toward a pro-American/democratic point of view).
Anyway.
I cruise the Pravda website on occasion and their columnist editorials never fail to screw my head up.
Their point of view on a variety of topics will make your head spin.
They write about the Caucasus (which I will comment on later).
McCain … this one is a real headache maker .. “the bleating of senile old goats” should inspire you to take a look at this one … http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-08-2011/118867-senator_mmccain-0/ …)
Moslems.
Oh. And Libya … On one side of the divide, the Satanic and dark forces of NATO and on the other side, those who see themselves as the guardians of what is right and good and just. It is good versus evil, it is God versus Satan, it is about implementing international law.. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-08-2011/118919-libya_truth-0/)
Yeah. There is stuff in this paper that will truly make your head spin.
And at the same time make you think a little … a little about “how much does our own media spin the story?”
For wouldn’t we be foolish to completely disregard what we read in this paper (named Truth)? At minimum there should be a grain of truth in what they write and in their opinions.
And, also at minimum, millions of Russian readers are reading this paper and, similar to the USA, millions of points of view are being molded by what they are reading.
And maybe that alone is a good reason to read foreign newspapers on occasion. If only to be exposed to what other people are creating points of view from.
Yes. We may scoff. We may scratch our heads in disbelief. And we may even believe it is all blarney.
But it is news to someone.
And a lot of someones.
And a lot of someones who are building their own points of view on things.
And if we were the ones reading it every day there would be a boatload of people right here who would be taking it as unassailable fact and truth.
Ok.
And then I read the following article about the Caucasus.
And of all the seemingly insane points of view I read this one hit with like a hammer of sanity.
We in the USA very quickly jump to the popular (and in theory I also like it and agree with it) self determination theory (likeminded people creating countries) when discussing the dissolution of the old Soviet Union (Russian and extended ‘states’).
But, honestly, there is a practicality which eludes us when discussing it simply in platitudes.
And this article did a nice job of pointing out some really practical issues.
Practical issues surrounding country/geographic boundaries. And in bringing that up it seems like we should have some facts as we grapple with this topic. Some background.
The Caucasus a geopolitical region at the border of Europe and Asia. It is home to the Caucasus Mountains, including Europe’s highest mountain (Mount Elbrus).
North Caucasus comprises:
* Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Adyghea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachai-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, Krasnodar Krai, Stavropol Krai
South Caucasus comprises:
* Armenia
* Azerbaijan (including disputed Nagorno-Karabakh)
* Georgia (including disputed Abkhazia and South Ossetia)
I believe the article below focuses on North Caucasus region which has about 5.5 to 6 million population, at least a dozen languages, a lot of raw mineral wealth, high unemployment and a lot of confusion about its desire for independence (because Chechnya desires an independent state and the other components have not expressed a large desire to be independent).
The article:
Russia may bid farewell to Caucasus?
The program for the Development of the Northern Caucasus in 2012-2025 prepared by the Ministry of Regional Development stirred up the “separatist” wave in the society that threatens to erase once and for all Adygeya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, North Ossetia, and of course, Chechnya from the map of Russia.
The “pro” arguments are well-known: 1) we feed them (huge subsidies from the federal budget; 2) they are blowing us up (the Caucasus as a permanent source of terrorism), and 3) they do not respect us (a number of facts ranging from ethnic crime to the national dances at the Manege Square).
Certain circles believe that only radical measures will solve all aforementioned problems in one swoop and then everyone else will be happy. The “separatists” do not bother with the practical side of the issue of the construction of the “Great Caucasus wall.” It is very simple: strip them off the Russian citizenship, move them out of Russia, install a barbed wire fence and ban the re-entry.
It is hard to come up with a better excuse for a civil war. Does anyone think that the process of disengagement will be quiet and peaceful? It would seem that the example of the “independent” (factually) Chechnya of 1996-1999 should have once and for all shown that even being separated the Caucasus would not leave Russia and would not dissolve. On the contrary, the following would happen:
- The power on the rogue territories will be taken by the rogue, whose raison d’être would be a constant battle with the hated neighbor. This means that at least chronic border disputes are guaranteed;
- There will be an endless series of lawsuits against Russia with territorial and property claims, with the full approval and even whole-hearted support of the Western countries;
- The final solution of the “Russian issue” in the North Caucasus will be just around the corner. Objections that there is no Russian-speaking population left there are not true. Besides the nearly mono-ethnic Chechnya, there is Adygea where the Russian population is the majority (approximately 65 percent), and Russian Mozdok in North Ossetia, as well as numerous Cossack villages scattered throughout the region. In a full-scale conflict aggravated by a forced relocation, the Russian-speaking inhabitants would perish first.
Separatists from other autonomous regions such as Tatarstan and Sakha Republic will get an example to follow. The country will experience the formation of the notorious “fifth column”, this time capable of blowing Russia up from within. The new “foreign countries” will be happy to help.
I repeat: we can certainly say goodbye to the Caucasus, but it will not leave us. The desire to wait it out behind the proverbial wall is equivalent to the decision to lock oneself in the apartment and not go outside because there may be hooligans there. If someone does not want to abide by the rules of human coexistence, it is necessary to punish the rogue specifically, without making global generalizations.
It is even stranger to call this position “patriotic.” Patriotism, for those who do not know, in ancient Greek means “fatherland” and dictionaries treat the term more broadly – “the love for one’s country.” Dr. Samuel Johnson who uttered his immortal “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” in 1775 meant that the scoundrel has still some hope if he loves his country.
It seems that in the 21st century the aphorism of Johnson is turned the other way around. Patriotism in a distorted understanding has truly become a refuge for scoundrels, for it is a very convenient cover for stupidity, cowardice and betrayal behind the hypocritical mask.
Stupidity – because there is no simple, painless and effective mechanism to remove the Caucasus problems. Have people failed to learn from the last parade of sovereignties? First we said goodbye to the “unnecessary” Baltic States, then bid farewell to the Soviet Union.
Cowardice – because the withdrawal from the Caucasus can be described by a brief, but telling slogan – “Holes instead of mountains.” Betrayal – because even though Russia is great, there is not enough space to retreat.
Ok.
Excellent article. Makes you think. Maybe enlightens a little.
And I love the fact a Russian editorialist quotes Samuel Johnson of all people.
This all seems to have come to a head not through anything Chechnya did but rather in January 2010, the Kremlin announced the establishment of the North Caucasus Federal District (which includes all the republics of the North Caucasus except Adygea). With the creation of that district the North Caucasian republics were separated from the Southern Caucasus (and united Northern republics under one federally administered district). The explanation behind this move was that it would allow for better focus to be paid to addressing the shared problems across the republics of the North Caucasus. However, this decision could also be seen as an attempt to improve the effectiveness of Moscow’s financial support to the North Caucasus, and ultimately a step toward establishing the region’s financial independence from Moscow, which has become particularly urgent considering that Kremlin funds are becoming increasingly stretched due to economic constraint and its costly development projects.
Other theories have been stated to explain the move but suffice it to say none of this kind of detail enters (r very rarely does) into our discussions here.
To us Americans is “give them freedom.”
And it really isn’t that simple.
Is the Pravda giving us “the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” I doubt it. But does it give us something to think about?
You bet.
It is always good to see what other parts of the world think.
It is always good to at least know other people’s points of view.
