framedsheep

Brands are dead. Advertising no longer works. Weaned on TiVo, the Internet, and other emerging technologies, the short-attention-span generation has become immune to marketing. Consumers are “in control.” Or so we’re told.
In Buying In, New York Times Magazine “Consumed” columnist Rob Walker argues that this accepted wisdom misses a much more important and lasting cultural shift. As technology has created avenues for advertising anywhere and everywhere, people are embracing brands more than ever before–creating brands of their own and participating in marketing campaigns for their favorite brands in unprecedented ways. Increasingly, motivated consumers are pitching in to spread the gospel virally, whether by creating Internet video ads for Converse All Stars or becoming word-of-mouth “agents” touting products to friends and family on behalf of huge corporations. In the process, they–we–have begun to funnel cultural, political, and community activities through connections with brands.

This might become the next hype book on the minds and lips of the marketing industry professionals. It might not. Who truly knows where “Serendipity Meets Strategy” these days; not just for this book, but for many other products or services that are marketed to “The Unsuspecting, but Curious World” today.

Yes, what lies between the two quoted titles above are books that could be, might be and some might even say, should be. They are my creations; off the cuff and on the fly.

Buying In vs. Selling Out

Let’s get more Marketingexistential - okay, so that was a mouthful and meaningless.

When and whilst I was studying Franklian psychotherapy - and we’ll dip in to what this means in a second - Logotherapy - we’ll hit the following assumptions:

1. The human being is an entity consisting of body, mind, and spirit.
2. Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable.
3. People have a will to meaning.
4. People have freedom under all circumstances to activate the will to find meaning.
5. Life has a demand quality to which people must respond if decisions are to be meaningful.
6. The individual is unique.

Okay, so maybe that looks a little mumbo-jumbo-ish - so we’ll reduce a little further.

1. Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
2. Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
3. We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or a least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering.

So, how do I link Marketing to Franklian Psychotherapy? Quite simple. Values. Marketing has by and large got a lot to do with addressing and communicating to what people value. What’s important to them. Franklian Psychotherapy has got everything to do with addressing, communicating to and helping to find what a person values.

Now if you’ve noticed the “Words of Wisdom” on this blog, then you’ll see Aristotle appear from time to time reminding us that we are what we do. We do what we value. Our values do not necessarily have to be lofty ideals of what we should value - nope. People can also value fear, anxiety or even stress - along with courage, calmness and being relaxed. Sounds a little bi-polar now, does it not? We’ll not plumb that depth in this posting.

I’m going to oppose the notion that “Brands are dead” - I’ll say that they are even more alive today than they ever were before! Having 8598 friends on Facebook - personal branding on speed. Having 287,321 friends on MySpace is personal branding on speed and steroids. Branding is far from dead. Branding is coming alive - or rather - has the opportunity to come alive - if only it were seen more that way.

I’ll also challenge the assumption that “Advertising does not work.” Come on now, get real! Of course it works! I think that quite often, the assumptions that are made to make such pronouncements are wrong, wrong and wrong again. Why? Advertising through the “Big 3 of Media” might seem dead-enough - or - deadish - but they’re not dead. Bleep. Bleep. Bleep. Yes, the monitor is still working.

What has changed and this is absolutely no secret, is that fewer people are sitting glued to the TV’s exclusively these days and/or only are receptive to Outdoor Advertising and Print Advertising, where it is relevant to them and their interests. The thing is - again - no biggie - is that there is just a whole lot more media out there, competing for the attention of people. Let’s use a simple analogy.

You go to your favourite restaurant. They have 3 items to select from for a starter. You’ll pick what you like best. They have 3 items for the main meal. You’ll pick what you like best. They have 3 items for your after dinner treat. You’ll pick the one you like best. There might be 3 other options for a beverage; tea, coffee and water. You’ll pick what you like best. Simple.

A few years down the line, you’ll go back to that restaurant. There are now 30 starter items. 30 main meals, 30 after dinner treats and 30 drinks. If you’d been living in a cave for all that time inbetween your last visit and your new visit, you’d naturally be overwhelmed.

If on the extreme end and out of curiosity + excitement, you decided to live large and ordered absolutely everything as well as had the time, patience and stretchable clothing to manage what was coming up, then you could at the very least, sample everything and decide on what you liked and what you did not. You’d think it was a good idea to take note of what you liked and provide this feedback to the restaurant manager. The results of this process were that you definitely knocked 10 of each off your list, so reducing what you think you liked to a more manageable number, hopefully, you think, allowing you to decide on a little less the next time you came around for a bite. The manager makes note of these preferences you have stated.

You come back a few months later, having worked off the excess you accumulated from your marathon eating run. So, the manager presents you with a menu that resembles your selections from the last time. Super. However, you’re once more overwhelmed at the delicious choices so you go wild once again. This time though, you order less. Less time is consumed to go through all your sampling and less time is spent working off the excess, once you leave again. You do however, decide to reduce your preferences down to a list of 10 from each category. You’re pretty sure, you like those best. You’re actually getting a little fed up now from all that sampling. You want something simpler. You stick with this - as a decision on the spot and then tell the manager of your new selections. Great! They are noted.

The next time you come in, you get your menu again and you’re pretty satisfied with it. The manager might tell you that there are now more choices, lists them and you might decide to add one to your list, shuffling out one of your choices you previously selected, because it was already a 50/50 decision you made whether or not to include it on your list. This may happen from time to time in the future, however you don’t consciously think about it. Someone else can do the legwork for you and if you’re in the mood, you’ll give a go. Why not? It is “new” and probably better - right?

So, on this, your third visit, you settle down to one of each. You’re happy with this, tell the manager to keep the others on your menu, so that you can have some variety when you come back again. Great!

You’ve decided what you like and those who make and serve it to you, know this as well. That’s optimal. You can also experiment and substitute. The reasons for this may vary because you’ve heard about or seen another dish that you might fancy. You still though, have your core faves and those who filter in and out of popularity as time goes by. Nice.

The same can be said of other things and going back to reality. There are for the most, loads of substitutes on the global menu of products, services and ideas that you value. Things that are important to you or you think they are important to you. You select and sample, based on how you think and feel about what is being offered to you. The thing though is, and returning to the restaurant analogy, is it now your restaurant or rather an extension of the type of food you’d like to see coming out of your kitchen or is this some sort of value enhanced or value added experience that gives you some meaningful pay-off to your food desires? Further to this, if the concept of ‘yours’ extends beyond the idea of ownership of property, might we not say that it is the ownership of your emotions and the values you bring in to being to attach personal value to what’s on offer that are most important here? You don’t own the restaurant. You visit it and pay for what you want. You make choices and those choices have meaning and by that virtue, have value. Are you “Selling Out” or “Buying In” - do you know the difference / similarity? Conundrum The Barbarian!

How about “Buying Out” and “Selling In” - man - now we’re talking!

More seriously, what brands seem to miss sometimes are that there are more and more and more … choices.

Why? There’s more and more media. This means more and more menus, with growing and growing alternatives to their products. Saturation points are like tides; they rise and fall. Brands that saturate rise and fall. Some even die. People have become more critical - no doubts on that. The chat at the pub / bar / local watering hole about a brand or brand experience has now been flung open to the world. A gripe can be amplified, if identified with, around the globe in no time.

Vice versa, a positive experience can also follow the same path. Both will have money implications. That’s where it will count and that’s where it will hurt or help a brand. Especially the big brands. The masses don’t care if Bradley Pitbull, D-Grade actor suddenly due to a badly done root canal, crashes his VW Beetle in to a lampost. Who is he anyway? If Brad Pitt did that. Well now, would that not be news? Perez Hilton, [you Teflon lubricated stalker] would be all over that like a very bad rash. You somehow identify or empathise with Brad, but not Bradley. One you know, one you don’t know and for those who do know Bradley, they might care, they might blog about it, put a petition online to save his tooth / career / VW Beetle.

So with the menu overloaded with choices and options, your Inbox looking like a wildly infested garden filled with weeds that you decided to subscribe to, your social networking profile jam packed with every little niche, nook and cranny you can think of to ‘describe yourself’ as well as your RSS feeds overflowing like a Tsunami on a bad hair day … arrrghhhh … you’re doing your head in. On top of this, you’re having advertising thrown at you. More choices about what to do with your time, money and headspace. Maybe that cave is not such a bad idea after all!

That’s if you take this all too seriously. You should not. What you should do is be able to decide on what you like, when and how you’d like it and be able to communicate this to others. You need to be able to set some boundaries and adjust them as you adjust and change. That’s you as the person. The brand should be aware of this and check with you from time to time to see that what you wanted before is what you still want now. What if their newsletter is no longer relevant to you? If a brand offered you the option to either switch over to some other news or opt-out altogether, then maybe you’d think they were pretty damn cool. They were thinking about you and not for you. Maybe also if people were not so hyper-critical and realised that certain brands make certain products. A hair stylist is there to style your hair. Simple. You go there, have your haircut and voila. Done. The brand of jeans you like; you buy them and wear them. You don’t ask them for a haircut now, do you? Get real. They don’t do hair. Their passion is jeans! Do the brands that offer cross-overs know this from you though? Probably not. You’ve got no means to chat about what they offer you, so you don’t have a bi-directional conversation with them to - change the menu - to what you like. You, as a person though, have to honour your requests though, and that’s not unreasonable to ask. It costs money, time and headaches to give you what you want. Don’t be rude and then bugger off when you get what you actually want.

Wow, we have digressed some now, have we not?

From a new book on the shelves to existential psychotherapy to choices, to showing some love for the brands you like or even love. The parts of this whole are encapsulated in the meaning of this diatribe and that is you - the individual and the collective - are important. You can help make changes; meaningful ones that add value to your lives and the lives that brands live - through you. Technology has not just increased the amount of media and decreased the cost of media, but it has also increased the amount of players that can enter a market and decreased their costs of having a chance to survive.

And here we end this posting. Loads of open ends. Lots to talk about. It is just a matter of when. You have the how.