Are "Free Content" Consumers Our Lab Rats?

In my Internet wanderings I came across a blog written by an anonymous guy who calls himself MrHeretic. Considering the stuff he’s posting, it’s no wonder he’s afraid to be identified. In a poignant post titled “You Killed Market Research,” MrHeretic condemns a series of practices that he thinks have written the obituary for market research.

I’m wondering how much of this heretical finger-pointing should be applied to marketing generally and, more specifically, to so-called “content marketing” within the direct marketing industry. Here’s what I mean.

Direct marketers are now buried in the Malthusian multiplication of online “content.” Increasingly, the “information” we’re fed may not be “information” at all, but rather a poorly disguised grab for our information. That might be okay, except much of what we get in return is awful offal.

You already know how the shill works. Whether it’s a whitepaper, webinar, webcast, video, podcast or simply access to an article, you must register to see it. Some would argue that’s a fair exchange. Amid the demand for open, transparent communication I, personally, would disagree, but willing trade or not, many of MrHeretic’s principles seem to apply to the development, dissemination, and data gathering tactics driving this “content” giveaway.

Obviously, service providers who openly share industry information deserve our thanks. Direct marketing has become increasingly complicated by integrated and multi-channel efforts and we all want to know what is working for others. What do “best practices” look like? What have we tried that didn’t work? How can we adapt to so much change? What does the future hold? Who can help us? The search for answers to these questions has made participation on LinkedIn’s direct marketing-related groups explode. We need each other and, if you know “something about something,” I will love your blog, appreciate your knowledge, and maybe even decide to work with you.

Meanwhile, a different response to our thirst for guidance has launched an avalanche of “bastardized information,” the primary purpose of which is to both beguile us and get our data. Are your in-boxes stuffed with this junk info, too? Here’s one example.

A respected industry resource uses its reader email list to push out content that vendors have paid them to distribute to us. So what’s wrong with that? Some might say it’s no different than receiving a piece of direct mail from an insurance company simply because we subscribe to The Wall Street Journal. What can I say? It feels different. Wait, darn it! It is different.

What comes to my inbox from a respected information resource suggests to me that any information they deliver has been vetted for value, right? Not so when money alone will get that information delivered to me. Not so, when the distributor isn’t telling me the “information” is “advertorial” or “product placement.”

Bottomline: I trusted you and you sold me out. Or, to edit MrHeretic a wee bit, “You killed [the value of your content] when you treated respondents like lab rats.”

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Holy Hoarders, Batman. Is Reality TV Really Real?

Big numbers on the reality TV show, “Hoarders,” over Labor Day. A&E publicized its third season like crazy, with images of possums in the kitchen and counter tops covered in inhuman filth.

The publicity campaign worked, as millions tuned in for an all-day marathon peek at piles of … well, anything you can imagine (and lots you don’t want to). Yesterday – the day after the show aired -- “Hoarders” was a popular topic on Twitter.

What’s wrong with this picture? Quite simply, it’s getting awfully real. “Hoarders” and every other examination of mental illness cast as human aberration is vastly more disturbing -- and frighteningly more common -- than it is entertaining.

For example, now that “Hoarders” has come out of the closet onto TV, media reports of the mental illness are growing. In Schaumburg, IL, a 79 year-old woman was found dead amid rubbish. Her 54 year-old daughter – whom social workers didn’t know existed -- lived there, too.

Why doesn’t somebody “do” something? Schaumburg officials say various laws make intervention nearly impossible unless the person cooperates. Hoarding expert Christiana Bratiotis of Boston University, says “The front door can be a nearly insurmountable obstacle, literally and figuratively … A true hoarder would never ever, ever let you in."

I started checking around and it turns out that everybody I asked knows two or three people who hoard. If you get into people-who-know-other-people-who-hoard, you’re swelling into double digits. A&E says 3 million Americans are hoarders. If you look at the number of American households, we’re talking 2.5 percent of our neighbors, easy.

While all hoarders pile up junk, the stuff of the illness apparently varies. Paper, other people’s discards, knickknacks, clothing, and even food are the downfall of many. Meanwhile, “animal hoarding” is exploding, say experts.

In his review of the Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate, journalist Aditya Chakrabortty observes that “The Godfather” and other popular stories about the Mafia have influenced the way Mafioso view themselves. No longer mere “gangsters,” these guys now believe they are “legitimate businessmen” whose practices of violence and intimidation can be practiced and perfected.

If “godfather syndrome” holds true for folks with too much “stuff,” we can expect mirroring to produce new levels of, and tweaks to, hoarding. After a marathon viewing of A&E compulsion, for example, maybe our own 750 bags from Target piled in the bedroom, or those boxes of mail dated back to 1998, won’t seem so bizarre.

Since, a lot of us are already detached from the broken lives and mental problems other people are suffering, maybe it’s not a giant leap to our own personal indifference about the possums, cockroaches, and dead cats, Maybe familiarity will breed more indifference than contempt.

If that seems laughably impossible, please consider whether, in 2010, it seems nearly normal that four wealthy women from New Jersey will put on fancy cocktail dresses, then go on national TV to yell and spit at their neighbors? Predictable, right? But, as observers, how did we get immune to that?

And how long before we also get accustomed to seeing three-year olds with lipstick, fake teeth, and tiaras? Driven to desperation, will it become commonplace to try to “treat” our loved one’s mental illness by staging our own “interventions”?

Possibly, like the hoarders – and without any catastrophic Wall Street collapse or terrorist intervention -- society will rot from the inside out, while it all seems “normal.”

Helping us accept the unacceptable will be reality TV – a joke we thought was on other people, but which may mirror more than we want to see.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Digital in the Headlights ... Why Worry?

I often blog (and worry) about the effects of technology on human development. This morning John W. Peterson, consulting futurist and strategist, sent me a couple of pdfs, one of which predicts likely developments in the timeframe spanning 2010 to 2040. Written by forecaster/futurist Marvin J. Cetron, president of Forecasting International, Technology Timeline 2010 blew me away (and shut me up).

If this stuff is even in the ballpark, there’s really no point in worrying about how technology will affect human society. As Cetron notes, “Ultimately, speculations may prove correct that we are approaching the ‘Singularity’s event horizon.’ At that time, our artifacts will be so intelligent that they will design themselves and we will not understand how they work. Humanity will be largely a passenger in its own evolution as a technological species.”

This thought already occurred to be during the BP oil spill, when I realized that – within the behemoth, 80,300-employee complex that is BP – no single person completely understood how the oil spill happened because no single person understands the BP beast. Sure, individuals know how to “fix” pieces of the system, but as a whole? BP – like all other global conglomerates -- has a life of its own, huge parts of which function via technology.

Nevertheless, some of what I read in Cetron’s predictions staggered me.

• Designer babies born outside the U.S. -- 2012
• Virtual reality used to teach science, art, history, etc. -- 2014
• Smart paint containing computer chips -- 2013
• Earth-like planet discovered -- 2012

And that’s just within the next four years. Looking further out, we have fantasyland:

• Robots for almost any job in homes or hospitals -- 2018
• AI (artificial intelligence) technology imitates thinking processes of human brain -- 2018
• Effective prediction of most natural disasters -- 2020
• Antimatter production and storage becomes feasible -- 2020
• Computer-enhanced dreaming -- 2020
• Living, but genetically-engineered, electronic toy/pet developed -- 2025
• Infectious disease eliminated from developed world -- 2028
• Emotion-control chips used to control criminals -- 2025

And in the 2030 decade?

• Robots are physically and mentally superior to humans -- 2032
• Development of an artificial brain -- 2030
• Robots completely replace humans in workforce -- 2035

Even if Cetron is off by 50 years, our children will likely see all of this and more. Turning salt water into fresh water will become economical; we’ll “discover” alien civilizations that travel faster than light; zero-point energy will be engineered/commercialized to the point where all other energy sources will become obsolete. Where are you now, BP?

In the face of all this, how many hours per day a given child is “plugged in” seems immaterial. In fact, no matter what any individual does, technology appears to be "doing what technology does." With or without us.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Can A Great Copywriter Boost Your Biz? Does Charlie Daniels Play A Mean Fiddle?

I got disturbed yesterday when I read Greg Sterling’s Screenwerk blog, in which he described how certain big media companies are turning to "content farms" populated by barely-paid "digital serfs." Ugh. Writers are worth a lot more than $5 an article. In fact, a good copywriter can save your business.

In its August issue, Target Marketing magazine featured a story about how the Mayo Clinic lifted its newsletter subscriptions 28 percent. Moreover, the boost in subscriptions happened during a price hike, a postal rate increase, and a looming economic recession. The copywriter did it. Marketing Director James Hale, Sr., explains. “I directed our lead copywriter .. to take the tough economic issue, actually acknowledge it, and demonstrate the good value and wisdom in buying our newsletter.”

Still not convinced? Ever heard the phrase "Does Charlie Daniels play a mean fiddle?" How about "I'll take the roast duck with the mango salsa"? Copywriters did that, too (and a lot more for Geico).

That’s right, marketing folks. Copy. Don’t leave the post office without it.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

ReBranding Is the Touch Point at Which We Decide To Trust You Or Not

Ping is my favorite Chinese restaurant. I can see Ping’s logo in my mind. It’s nothing special. The font is some ultra-light version of Bauhaus, and the graphic has a “bamboo” feel to it, though I can’t exactly tell you why.

Still, this logo means something to me. It visually encapsulates my total experience with Ping. I see the logo and I see (no matter how subconsciously), the slick, lean atmosphere, the friendly staff, the famous “Lucky 8” lunches, a terrific make-you-happy hour, very fresh vegetables, and the chef’s “way with food.” As soon as I see Ping’s logo, the entire dining experience comes to me in an emotional wave. I don’t break down the components, but I “feel good” about it.

That’s branding.

A company logo is the single most salient representation of any company. For us customers, everything we think, feel, and have experienced with a company gets all tied up in that single visual – the logo.

So how do customers feel when a company rebrands with a new logo? That depends, of course, on whether anything about the company has really changed. You see, to us customers, that’s what a new logo means -- that something has changed. A company is new, different, better, more contemporary…blah, blah, blah. Why else bother?

Strangely – or maybe obviously -- this little bit of marketing persona – a logo -- is the favorite “mess around” venue of marketing executives, consultants, and new CEOs who may be looking to brand themselves through the extensive corporate “rebranding” process.

If that’s the case – if a company hasn’t really changed – we customers will know because we've already decided who you are now.

Look, customers have a feeling about your company. As with my Ping example, our full experience with a product or service is embodied and connected to the corporate logo. Whether we like you or not, we see your logo and we feel it. We figure the only reason you'd change your logo is to change our minds about who you are, right?

So, a new corporate logo is a promise to both old and new customers. You can say whatever you want, advertise whatever you want, posture in any way you want. We will decide if you’ve changed. If you haven’t, we’ll never trust you again.

And that’s the truth.

--scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

But It’s In Newsweek. It Must Be True!

An article in July 19 Newsweek cites seven dos and don’ts for creativity, all under the title "Forget Brainstorming."

Authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman point to a 1958 study by Yale researchers, which, reportedly, found that “brainstorming in a group… actually reduced a team’s creative output.”

Jonathan Vehar, president and cofounder of New & Improved, is having none of it. The day Newsweek published, Vehar blogged a convincing rebuttal explaining that the Yale project only evaluated whether it is better to brainstorm alone or in a group. No indictment of brainstorming there. [FWIW, sometimes it’s better in a group, sometimes it’s better alone.]

Moving right along… the Newsweek article also reported on research by University of Oklahoma Professor Michael Mumford who, according to the authors, condemned available creativity training, calling it "garbage." Maybe Mumford did say that, but I couldn't verify it. On the other hand, Marty Baker, who blogs at Creativity Central, is convinced that “Newsweek got it wrong.”

“’[The article] is a manifestation of what’s wrong with media summaries," Marty declares. "It is a titillating and provocative sidebar that readers will remember without context ... It doesn’t say what Mumford identifies as commercially available creativity training. It does not give particulars about the Yale study back in 1958 -- over a half a century ago.”

True, I noticed all that. And yet... Bronson and Merryman cite a ton more research supporting their seven creative musts. “Don’t tell someone to be creative [Mark Runco, University of Georgia]; “Follow a passion” [Rena Subotnik, American Psychological Association]; “Explore other cultures” [Adam Galinsky, Northwestern]. Etc. Etc.

So where's the truth? I guess I could track down and verify every one of the citations .. and every one of the inevitable disclaimers to the citations. But even having done that, how sure would I be that anybody understands anything about creativity?

Beats the heck outta me. I’m just gonna get out my crayons and see what happens.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Free Advice to Wal-Mart from an American Consumer

The July 12 edition of Advertising Age tells the story of how Wal-Mart is dealing with its “assortment issues.” The company's Project Impact, initiated in September 2009, was meant to declutter the Wal-Mart aisles and make the shopping experience more “upscale.” Oops! Current research suggests that people can’t find what they want, so Wal-Mart is quietly putting all that junk back on the shelves. I say, "Don't bother."

In my personal experience -- and really, it is all about me, after all -- any retail effort to be "all-things-to-all-consumers" will tank.

Case in point: I shop mainly at Harris Teeter. It’s a smallish store, with friendly folks and solid prices, especially the ample two-fer specials. I'm always busy and I can fly around the store quickly, so I’m a fairly loyal HT customer. Sometimes, however, I go to Trader Joe’s, which carries amazing stuff like Kerry Gold butter from Ireland at $2.99/pound, flash frozen wild-caught Alaskan salmon, and inexpensive wine from Chile. Every so often I go there to get my growing list of TJ particulars. This multiple-shopping habit is not that unusual.

Case in point: Conversely, I have a friend who shops at Trader Joe’s all the time, but goes to Harris Teeter for artificially sweetened popcicles. Another friend gets groceries at Giant, but goes to Sam’s Club for huge bags of chicken breasts and big bottles of juice. I’m betting that even folks who shop at Wal-Mart hit-up some local market for certain “must-haves” or “taste-betters.”

American consumers – at least for now – have been given a lot of choices over the past decade, and in the process we’ve developed a great many “preferences.” Maybe the economy will punish that out of us, but it hasn’t happened yet.

In fact, I’ve been amazed how far out of the way people will go for a good Indian or Asian grocery store, a fresh fish market, organic locally-grown produce, good deli eats, and fresh baked goods. [Designer cupcakes have growing numbers of fans, actually. Who knew?]

In short, American consumers don't necessarily want to shop in any single place.. and no amount of finagling by Wal-Mart will change that any time soon.

p.s. Harris-Teeter recently dropped its Kerry Gold butter prices almost as low as Trader Joe's. Somebody is doing their homework.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo