In this post, I plan on merging two things that really shouldn’t be merged, politics and business, or for that matter, politics and just about anything. I am, by nature, a cynic, so discussing politics with most anyone seems to boil down to a few fairly fatalistic points, and those who don’t understand that about me, or my style of argumentation, can become frustrated. If my audience falls into this group, I apologize in advance.
After seeing the segment on Frank Luntz on The Persuaders, it seemed as though marketing and politics had reached a nearly perfect point of unison. If, as Luntz contests, the correct wording makes all the difference, and simply rephrasing the issue can change (modify) the way your constituents think, feel, and act about an issue, the way I view modern politics may be drastically changed. The idea that a politician, with the right market research, can position anything to masses in the most favorable possible light, is a bit frightening. Not that this is an entirely new concept, or even something that isn’t already prevalent in many other fields (namely sales, where the importance of framing something “correctly” can make all the difference), but it can be frightening to contemplate the possibilities. Calling the privacy violations/travesties of the Patriot Act “information sharing” or raising taxes as “adding value to America” would certainly be more pleasing to the ears and minds, but is essentially nothing more than keeping a population lax and copacetic. Yet for politicians, it is adding value where that level of experience was not previously, one of, if not the most basic functions of marketing; modifying our experiences to sell more ideas, simply by a careful selection of words.
Which brings me to a tale of two politicians, whose level of success certainly varied, but their constituent experience was certainly one of the driving forces in their campaigns, and in many ways, their destinies. Granted, every campaign greatly depends on enthusiastic campaigners, but both movements seemed to have an unheard of level of support in modern politics.
Our tragic hero would be the infamously radical one man island, Dr. Ron Paul. I am fairly hesitant to disclose around mixed company that I was once highly involved in his campaign (MANY of his supporters are those I would consider mentally unsound, and I’ve taken efforts to dissociate myself from them), helping coordinate his rally on campus, participating in the Austin Tea Party rally, campaigning in Iowa just before the caucus, and donating to the campaign. From an insider’s view, it was the grassroots movement that could. The experience was built around an uncompromising man, who had no problem ruffling feathers and standing up for what he believed was right, even if he was the only person to do so (or occasionally joined by a very similar Dennis Kucinich). The idea seemed beautiful and simple, a firm dedication to the most American and revered of documents, the Constitution, will ail most of society’s ills, and the rest will follow into place. And it attracted a few million of the nation’s most ravenous supporters, fundraising an incredibly amount of money, in a small amount of time, from an even smaller group of people. Yet the position was simply…off. From a pragmatists point of view, while the constituent experience for the Ron Paul’s campaign worked very effectively, there were very few “passive” Paul supporters, his message (and certainly the way it was presented) turned off a large number of potential supporters. Not to say his stance would have won over everyone if positioned correctly (it was far too radical for that), but it seemed the campaigners could care less about attracting voters, and more about pushing their beliefs. Having rolled my eyes countless times after hearing campaigners, or even Dr. Paul himself in public situations, refer to taxation as “legal theft”, or proposing a return to the Gold Standard, it really brought to light the idea that “one man’s garbage is another man’s treasure”. The constituent (customer) experience was brilliant conceived, and captivating, but only to a very shallow, and niche market, settling the campaign as nothing more than the brilliant grassroots movement that could.
On the other side of the fence, now President Barack Obama crafted a brilliant campaign around….essentially what people wanted to hear. That is not to say the campaign was not genuine, or that the ideas were fabricated in any way, but it is not hard to imagine the words “hope” and “change” being isolated by a man like Frank Luntz as keys to the campaign. So much so, that the user experience became “Hope” and “Change” in a time when every politician, democrat, republican, or other, was trying to distance themselves from Bush and doing so by contrasting how things would change, or be different. So much so, that Barack began to receive a projection of “hope” and “change”. College students and minorities, two typically underrepresented voting groups, came out in full force. There were many reasons for this, but encapsulating two ideals, making a group of seemingly disenfranchised voters believe their vote could actually encapsulate “hope” and “change”, is certainly one of the reasons.
“Hope” and “Change” are not issues, but rather ideas with very individual connotations. For America, in 2007 and 2008, a politician could do no better than to self brand themselves behind these ideas, regardless of party, platform, or values. Both Barack Obama, and Ron Paul rallied supporters behind these cries, but different segments and in different numbers altogether. Where Ron Paul preached for the “revolution” (something that worked very effectively, for the radicals) Barack preached for “change”. As an ex Paul supporter, with this insight, I truly wonder if the campaign ever wanted it to be viable, or simply ruffle as many supporters as possible, and network the diehards for further battles. The defining slogans and campaign experience would lean toward the latter. As a student of marketing, I can say with certainty the experience created around hope and change was strong enough to aid our current President into office, and will certainly play its roll in defining his legacy.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Authenticity Above All
Maybe I am just getting older, or maybe I am actually learning/observing, but it seems as though marketing has taken some pretty drastic changes during my lifetime. From the increasing (and many times seamless) product placement, to defining exactly what irrational attributes are enticing to buyers, to messaging on an unbelievably personal level; it seems there is a growing need for marketers to be more subtle, rather than more upfront, to grab our attention in this world of advertising overkill. The recurring theme, determining why some efforts are massive successes, and others tremendous failures, lies in authenticity. Much like defining or trying to imitate “cool” (which many times, is something authentic in it’s truest state), people can very easily sniff out who is trying too hard, imitating something (poorly), or simply out of place.
This seems to be where the “magic” of marketing comes into play. Success comes either from integrating seamlessly with what is authentic to the consumers (take the Absolut Hunk example), or not hiding any of your motives, but still creating an authentically worthwhile product (BMW’s films). Failure would come from straying from these principles, and merely feigning authenticity (see the Pontiac commercial posed as 2 hour made for TV Movie). The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry….
Similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s piece in Blink, Dr. Rapaille (and his 3-stage technique) is intent on finding out the underlying, possibly subconscious reasons consumers’ act the way they do, and gives very limited credence to what respondents actually say. I’m sure most of his study subjects would agree, irrational is a much kinder adjective than ignorant. Starting by asking test subjects to actually espouse what they think and feel (Dr. Rapaille believes it is important to appeal to their egos and logic), the next phase is an attempt to confuse the subjects, followed finally by exercises geared towards bringing out what the underlying, frequently undiscovered factors are in decision making. These results, what he would call the reptilian code, are what attracts us to a given product or service, like bees to pollen. According to Dr. Rapaille, it is no surprise the Hummer enjoyed such great success (before environmental and monetary concerns destroyed it and SUVs in general), as the reptilian code for buying SUVs would lead us to the largest, most powerful and frightening vehicle on the road.
The Song Airlines experiment was like watching a train wreck as it was happening. I have always been under the impression that business travel is a major income for all airlines, from the Southwest Airlines of the world to the American Airlines and Uniteds. Choosing an ideal customer base and segment that did not fit that is fine, but a marketing strategy that would do nothing but isolate a major profit maker? And the authenticity? It seemed as though the marketing team honestly bought into the entire premise and were willing to back it 100% of the way, however anytime someone makes efforts to be different, simply for the sake of being different, it seems to backfire hard. The green people and the storefront lounge seemed undeniably odd (and unsuccessful). I do have to give Song credit for encompassing the Song lifestyle in all parts of the brand, however, from the company culture, to the consistent display of the lifestyle in advertisement and onboard. JetBlue has managed to incorporate a fun and unique lifestyle, and unique travel experience, while also appealing to a larger market, and frankly seeming more authentic and less gimmicky than the now defunct Song.
This seems to be where the “magic” of marketing comes into play. Success comes either from integrating seamlessly with what is authentic to the consumers (take the Absolut Hunk example), or not hiding any of your motives, but still creating an authentically worthwhile product (BMW’s films). Failure would come from straying from these principles, and merely feigning authenticity (see the Pontiac commercial posed as 2 hour made for TV Movie). The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry….
Similar to Malcolm Gladwell’s piece in Blink, Dr. Rapaille (and his 3-stage technique) is intent on finding out the underlying, possibly subconscious reasons consumers’ act the way they do, and gives very limited credence to what respondents actually say. I’m sure most of his study subjects would agree, irrational is a much kinder adjective than ignorant. Starting by asking test subjects to actually espouse what they think and feel (Dr. Rapaille believes it is important to appeal to their egos and logic), the next phase is an attempt to confuse the subjects, followed finally by exercises geared towards bringing out what the underlying, frequently undiscovered factors are in decision making. These results, what he would call the reptilian code, are what attracts us to a given product or service, like bees to pollen. According to Dr. Rapaille, it is no surprise the Hummer enjoyed such great success (before environmental and monetary concerns destroyed it and SUVs in general), as the reptilian code for buying SUVs would lead us to the largest, most powerful and frightening vehicle on the road.
The Song Airlines experiment was like watching a train wreck as it was happening. I have always been under the impression that business travel is a major income for all airlines, from the Southwest Airlines of the world to the American Airlines and Uniteds. Choosing an ideal customer base and segment that did not fit that is fine, but a marketing strategy that would do nothing but isolate a major profit maker? And the authenticity? It seemed as though the marketing team honestly bought into the entire premise and were willing to back it 100% of the way, however anytime someone makes efforts to be different, simply for the sake of being different, it seems to backfire hard. The green people and the storefront lounge seemed undeniably odd (and unsuccessful). I do have to give Song credit for encompassing the Song lifestyle in all parts of the brand, however, from the company culture, to the consistent display of the lifestyle in advertisement and onboard. JetBlue has managed to incorporate a fun and unique lifestyle, and unique travel experience, while also appealing to a larger market, and frankly seeming more authentic and less gimmicky than the now defunct Song.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Malcolm Gladwell Brought Out the Snob in Me
Always the pessimist, this chapter in Blink kept giving me the feeling that no one really knows what is going on. Consumers are not sophisticated enough to describe why they actually enjoy anything at all, and furthermore, become even more unpredictable when asked to describe almost anything about a product or service. Marketers go to extravagant and expensive measures to hedge their bets, conducting huge trials and experiments, only to see their “sure thing” turn out to be a total flop. Those with expertise or success in a particular field can pick a diamond out of the rough, but many times have to go through herculean efforts to get it to the masses. So there is the vicious circle; consumers don’t know what’s good for them, marketers think they have obtained this knowledge only to find they were running down the wrong rabbit hole, and those who know what is going on can only sit back and laugh at how absurd it has become.
Of course that is all a grossly pessimistic view of the case brought forth by Malcolm Gladwell. Sure, consumers are irrational, and many times moronic, but there is so much to consume it is nearly impossible to be fluent in everything all the time. Experts in a subject matter really do have a keen knack for dissecting it into a million components and variables, which is incredibly helpful, but what is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. Marketers don’t always study the wrong variable and confuse correlation with causation in testing environments, and have poor hunches frequently.
One thing I found incredibly revealing was the idea of risk, and particularly how tolerant people are to it, and the measures they will take to avoid it. When reading about the record exec who could tell in 5-10 seconds whether or not a record/artist has the “it” factor, my jaw was dropped nearly to the floor. As a self described music junkie, I can barely formulate valid opinions on a band or CD before 2-3 listens of the entire album. 5-10 seconds??? After reading through the rest of the article, about the Herman Miller chair, about the CBS sitcoms, about the food it all began to make perfect sense: determining consumers aversion to risk with their purchases, and a company’s aversion to risk in what they put to market, can make all of the difference. The idea of an “acquired taste” comes to mind, and as a food/music/movies/entertainment snob, I can profess that those who have a low tolerance for risk are truly missing out. When designing a new product, creating product improvements, or trying to modify your market, it seems as though understanding exactly where your target market’s comfort zone lies, and how willing they are to try something new, is essential. Although it seems they were asking the wrong market, for Kenna the record company concluded his genre ambiguous/blending style was too risky for their consumers. For Herman Miller, although the aesthetics of the chair seemed to be too risky for most to tolerate, the company had very little aversion to risk, and powered on.
In my own life, I have considered opening a gourmet catering company, geared at college students living in upscale apartments, where I would deliver the meals to the door. Understanding a college student’s palate and comfort zone would be key. Do college kids consume hoards of pizza and fast food simply because it is inexpensive and easy, or is it actually better suited to a college student’s palate. Would my target market be willing to try a smoked pork loin with a Guinness and peach BBQ Sauce, or a baked chicken with apricot, orange, and pecan stuffing? I know there is a market for the service, I know the product passes the expert’s analysis, but would it be too risky for the market?
What was also startling was how, in spite of research saying the opposite, companies release products that have every indication of failing, and end up succeeding as the environment changes. Herman Miller famously went forward with a chair that by every marketing research study’s indication, would fail miserably, but became a best selling item. CBS went forward with All in the Family, even though Archie Bunker was ahead of his time during the market testing. If possible, it seems as though testing the correct market on an experimental product could make all the difference. If there would be a way to isolate innovators and early adopters in related industries or products, and test their feelings, it may provide better insights into what the market will respond like months from now, rather than today’s sentiments. Seeing who the talk of the town is during SXSW music festival may yield some interesting results in what bands will be popular this summer.
Of course that is all a grossly pessimistic view of the case brought forth by Malcolm Gladwell. Sure, consumers are irrational, and many times moronic, but there is so much to consume it is nearly impossible to be fluent in everything all the time. Experts in a subject matter really do have a keen knack for dissecting it into a million components and variables, which is incredibly helpful, but what is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. Marketers don’t always study the wrong variable and confuse correlation with causation in testing environments, and have poor hunches frequently.
One thing I found incredibly revealing was the idea of risk, and particularly how tolerant people are to it, and the measures they will take to avoid it. When reading about the record exec who could tell in 5-10 seconds whether or not a record/artist has the “it” factor, my jaw was dropped nearly to the floor. As a self described music junkie, I can barely formulate valid opinions on a band or CD before 2-3 listens of the entire album. 5-10 seconds??? After reading through the rest of the article, about the Herman Miller chair, about the CBS sitcoms, about the food it all began to make perfect sense: determining consumers aversion to risk with their purchases, and a company’s aversion to risk in what they put to market, can make all of the difference. The idea of an “acquired taste” comes to mind, and as a food/music/movies/entertainment snob, I can profess that those who have a low tolerance for risk are truly missing out. When designing a new product, creating product improvements, or trying to modify your market, it seems as though understanding exactly where your target market’s comfort zone lies, and how willing they are to try something new, is essential. Although it seems they were asking the wrong market, for Kenna the record company concluded his genre ambiguous/blending style was too risky for their consumers. For Herman Miller, although the aesthetics of the chair seemed to be too risky for most to tolerate, the company had very little aversion to risk, and powered on.
In my own life, I have considered opening a gourmet catering company, geared at college students living in upscale apartments, where I would deliver the meals to the door. Understanding a college student’s palate and comfort zone would be key. Do college kids consume hoards of pizza and fast food simply because it is inexpensive and easy, or is it actually better suited to a college student’s palate. Would my target market be willing to try a smoked pork loin with a Guinness and peach BBQ Sauce, or a baked chicken with apricot, orange, and pecan stuffing? I know there is a market for the service, I know the product passes the expert’s analysis, but would it be too risky for the market?
What was also startling was how, in spite of research saying the opposite, companies release products that have every indication of failing, and end up succeeding as the environment changes. Herman Miller famously went forward with a chair that by every marketing research study’s indication, would fail miserably, but became a best selling item. CBS went forward with All in the Family, even though Archie Bunker was ahead of his time during the market testing. If possible, it seems as though testing the correct market on an experimental product could make all the difference. If there would be a way to isolate innovators and early adopters in related industries or products, and test their feelings, it may provide better insights into what the market will respond like months from now, rather than today’s sentiments. Seeing who the talk of the town is during SXSW music festival may yield some interesting results in what bands will be popular this summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)