Archive for December, 2008

New Yorkers have always had an interesting relationship with Senator Hillary Clinton. We weren’t quite sure what to make of it when she moved into our state apparently for the sole purpose of running for one of our senate seats, and we really didn’t know what to do with her during the now famous race against Rick Lazio. We do know now - on the eve of 2009 - that for the mostpart, we like Senator Clinton, and that she has done an admirable job in her role. She is battle-hardened enough to satisfy even the gruffest of City dwellers, yet thoughtful enough to be genuine. We wish her well as a member of President Obama’s cabinet.

With Senator Clinton soon to leave the legislative branch, Gov. Patterson has to perform a Constitutionally-mandated duty of choosing the much-discussed newbie. This is an awe-inspiring and worthy task, uh isn’t that right, “Governor F-Word”? One prospective name that seems to be circulating is that of a certain Ms. Kennedy - daughter of the last Obama. While Kennedy certainly meets the legal requirements to become a U.S. Senator, I have to wonder if she is up to the task of being one of New York’s crucial legislators.

New Yorkers (like me since birth) strongly dislike non-authentic types. We don’t do bullshit. If you aren’t going to talk straight, we wish you’d get out of our way. There are millions of people in our state and surely someone will give us what we need. That said, when Ms. Kennedy gave an interview to the New York Times, she repeated the phrase “you know” an astounding 142 times. One hundred and forty two! I mean… Palin may have been a public catastrophe, but she has to be cackling now.

Ms. Kennedy, we don’t know. We want to know what qualifies you to be in the Senate as opposed to, say, a public servant at a lower level. We want to know why the interest to become a political figure? All of the sudden? Why after 50 years of “leave me alone and let me raise my children in peace”-iness. Mostly though, we want to know why you don’t deserve comparisons to our dear friend from Alaska, who was ridiculed even by those who did not doubt her.

Objectively speaking, Mrs. Palin has infinitely more political experience than La Kennedy. Palin has been elected to municipal office and statewide office, no small feats, and was (still is) widely lampooned as “not experienced enough” for a shot at Washington. If she lacks experience, what does Ms. Kennedy have besides the President-Elect’s vote to escape this double-standardized criticism?

Look, Caroline (can we call you Caroline?)-we like Teddy. He’s a good man We loved your Uncle Robert. We adored your dad, and because we, like she, epitomized New York, we were beyond infatuated with your mother. We want to like you. But we’re smart and see through the noise.

Please give us something of substance. And add a decent public speaking course to your resume. Or your argument stops at “Gee, my name is Kennedy… you know?”

Bad news is the new good news. Jump on the bandwagon.

Bad news is absolutely everywhere. It is unavoidable. The economy is in shambles, 50 million Americans are without health insurance, unemployment is on the rise in numbers that scare even me, and 43 out of 50 states are now operating on a budget deficit. Meanwhile, some enterprising projects have figured out how to keep their heads above water and even prosper in some cases despite experiencing these bleakest of times by making the (now official) recession seem almost cool.

Kind of.

A great example of the general mopiness of society today is found on television. Maury Povich, the veteran host whose syndicated “talk” show is only slightly less cartoonish than Jerry Springer, has made a living for 10 (!) seasons telling people bad news and reveling in it. People parade onto his stage to be told after a DNA test that they “are NOT the father” or be made aware after a lie detector test that their partner has “cheated with more than 3 women.” (For a fabulous – and farcical – version of this concept, set your DVR to catch the haughty and hilarious The Life and Times of Vivienne Vyle with Jennifer Saunders on The Sundance Channel!)

Anyway, entering its 11th season, Maury is holding steady to decent ratings, even outpacing Martha-lite Rachael in some markets. People are apparently looking for anything showing that someone else is in even worse off than they.

Product marketers are also getting into the act. SC Johnson, A (Really-Large) Family Company, is playing up the economic crisis by advertising its inexpensive line of scented oil candles, Glade, as a fantastic alternative to paying more money for the same great-smelling (?) effect. In an ad now playing everywhere, each time a woman lights an expensive candle, it makes a cash register-like CHA-CHING noise. The implication is “Hey! You’ve got no money. Why are you spending 25 cents every time you light that candle, when you could buy a Glade (or “Glaw-Day” as they lampoon themselves as fancy and French in the ad) for a mere penny?”

Glade is still kind of a crummy product – there is a reason why it is so inexpensive – but $3 and a trip to Target sure beats paying Yankee Candle $25 for the freaking privilege of having my kitchen smell like fresh-baked cookies. (Who doesn’t love fresh baked, right?)

Even in what was once recession-proof New York, the local restaurants and businesses are pushing Recession Specials—as if we need a reminder. A popular sandwich shop in Park Slope had a grilled cheese and a cup of soup for four bucks this weekend (it was yummy!). Four bucks is larceny in the trendiest and yuppiest part of Brooklyn! On the last visit, Cookie couldn’t fry the gruyere on organic brioche fast enough.

So, kid, you want to generate some good news? Jump on the bad news wagon cause it certainly won’t be going away anytime soon, despite the overwhelming election of the anti-Bush.

It appears that be you baker, bank, or candle maker, you make people feel like they are saving some dough via your service or product and you’re the best thing since bread or bucks or beeswax, baby.

Self-styled marketing guru Martin Lindstrom has followed up Brand Sense with the much-discussed Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy, his own tale of a multiyear journey through the most in-depth scientific study ever conducted on why we buy what we buy and why some brands “stick” and others don’t. Lindstrom secured funding from international corporations and conducted his study in several countries in order to cast a wide net of subjects. The resulting book is entertaining and yet the results of the study are somewhat counterintuitive.

Without ruining the ending, which I would never want to do, the main thesis of Buyology seems to be that neuroscience and analysis can tell us far more about how the human mind handles the abstract concept of “brand” than traditional notions of market research can. This seems obvious. After all, humans are strange animals, and predicting our behavior is a crapshoot.

We must realize that research like Lindstrom’s isn’t the Rosetta Stone of marketing. The research is solid and pretty darn intriguing, but it does run into a problem now and again when it collides with the intangible human portion of the recipe.

Early on, during a section about a research project regarding advertising during the course of the ‘04 presidential election, the scientists reached this conclusion: “Despite widespread cries that political advertising emphasize “optimism,” “hope,” “building up, not tearing down,” and so on, fear works. It’s what our brains remember.”

This year, we have seen cases where it is simply not true. Have we encountered an exception to the rule or is there no quantifiable rule here after all? Why did Americans choose Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 in overwhelming numbers even when “optimism” and “hope” have been scientifically proven to be disqualifiers? There is something here that brain tech can’t grasp.

Then, another study in Buyology concluded that frequent smokers understand the risks involved with smoking, but that after being shown disgusting black-lung warning labels, they still want the sticks. The brain scans saw the brain processing the images, and recognized how bad they were, but that part of the consciousness disregarded this in favor of that ole nicotine high. Smokers ignore warning labels. Of course they do! They are physiologically addicted to the chemicals in cigarettes! Addicts cannot be dissuaded from behaviors that their body craves, even if they subconsciously know those behaviors are unhealthful. Yep, decades of research on that one.

The point is that while the overly conscientious research in Buyology should open the eyes of anyone involved in our marketing businesses it is not the be-all, end-all in the quest for data in marketing. Lindstrom reminds us that information-gathering is evolving all the time. Gallup polls may soon be antiquated (are they now?) and marketers will need to find crucial information about everything some other way.

Brain tech may be a key piece of forging this next frontier of figuring what the consumer really wants (Lindstrom made a compelling case in the previous book) but it simply cannot be the only one. There are human elements that are even less quantifiable than those thousands of brain scans. In Outliers the curly-haired Gladwell proves beyond a 5 o’clock shadow that humans are capable of devising wayward rules that affect and control the decisions we make—and our destinies. Maybe it wasn’t the best idea for Punk Marketing to read both of these books concurrently.

Pinning down the brain is nearly impossible—as humans we complicate everything we do. I realized as the book snapped shut that this, in the end, belies “buyology.”