And now for a little perspective…
I have a big problem with sloppy generalizations. Each time I come across one I get ticked off. Unfortunately once I get into that headspace it’s difficult to remember what the persons main point was.
Which leads me to this article by Martin Lindstrom, a man I respect and who’s book, Clicks, Bricks, and Brands, was one of my gospels when I was working in L.A. at the end of the Internet boom. Martin currently is evangelizing for social media and it’s impact on brands as far as I can tell. Truth be told, I was enjoying the article until I got to the second to last paragraph which claimed a whopper of a generalization, and poof! I can’t recall his salient points from the rest of the piece. I suspect I’m not alone in this phenom, it reminds me of how quickly consumers attention spans are lost when they hear or see something false in our new social networked world.
So what was it that caused me to become so discombobulated?
Most consumers see the Fortune 1000 brands as boring, slow, and old-fashioned.
Really? Crazy. You mean brands like:
- Home Depot
- Verizon
- Dell
- Target
- Time Warner
- UPS
- Microsoft
- Intel
And those were in the Fortune 50. Move into the Fortune 100 and you get to add in brands such as:
- Motorola
- PepsiCo
- FedEx
- BestBuy
- Coca-Cola
Now granted consumers may see these brands as slow, but that’s not really such a bad thing. They’ve been around for a while. It takes time to make things. People know that, they aren’t stupid. While they may not want to wait an hour for a download, they don’t mind waiting 2 years for the new X-Box 360. Ya know, they want the companies to get the product right before they sell it to them (okay, MSFT software not included).
Personally, if I were the CEO of #159 or #163 on the Fortune list and Mr. Lindstrom used that line on me, I’d laugh in his face.
Claiming that ‘most consumers think X’, is the same as saying ‘most MySpace users think…’ Umm, isn’t that completely contrary to engaging in a conversation with the customer and finding out what s/he think as individuals? This actually runs contrary to his wrap-up:
The brand manual can’t do the work any more. One-way communication can’t do it either. TV commercials are about to die. Print and radio are suffering immensely. The only steadily growing brand-building media is interactive. Two-way, multiway, reactive, responsive, receptive, and active communication is the future for brand communications. The consumer is ready to talk. Are you?
Well, yes, but not if you think you have all the answers already and know what I think.
And can we please stop saying TV commercials are about to die, or are dead. They aren’t. If anything, much to my chagrin, they’re becoming part of the fabric of the internet AND people are still watching them on TV. Hell, consumers are clamoring to make commercials for brands to air on TV (see: The Super Bowl). I’d also like a cease and desist put on claims that radio is dead (I think Clear Channel may beg to differ), print is dead, etc. The only thing dead in there are the trees.
Even Joseph Jaffe can’t shake the shackles of a TV mentality with his new title at crayon – Chief Interrupter. Humans evolve much slower than technology does.
It’s a big world out there and not everyone is hooked up, LinkedIn, texting, tagging, etc. People still go to stores because of the sales flyers that appear in their mailbox. They still recommend products that they discovered while in a mall to their friends when they’re sitting having coffee in real life. They still watch TV without cable, or god-forbid, a TIVO. Things are evolving and changing, yes, and in real-time, but trust isn’t built overnight or with one witty response to a blogger. So yes, your company needs to roll with it and allow the consumer to help drive, to have a sense of humour and a willingness to change, but you do still need to control the brand image and the direction of your messaging… and continue to make those products and deal with suppliers to get the item into the consumers hands. So if they take a day to answer a blogger and they’ve vetted it through their brand champion, I think I can deal.
What I can’t deal with is throwing around generalizations and acting like Chicken Little when trying to convince me I need to join the conversation.
[photo credit: fernando_graphicos on Flickr]
Tags: Martin Lindstrom; Fortune 1000
I had to laugh out loud with your reference to TV. I had never thought obout it that way…
The concept of “interrupting” (other than the literal interpretation) is what I describe as an “intervention” – the ability to disrupt the status quo and force an otherwise linear/predictable process/outcome to be affected and influenced by new and fresh variables (new marketing thinking and approaches)
It was actually given to me by my Coke client who calls me an Interruptor.
I guess it’s ironic that the roots of the meaning can be traced back to the very worst practise of the 30-second spot.
I guess I’ll get working on that…
:)
Great post btw…generalizations are always dangerous (hell, it’s exactly what the 30-second spot is all about), but at the same time I will defend the attack that the 30-second spot *in its existing form is either dead, dying or has outlived its usefulness* as an important starting point in any innovation and evolution conversation.
I ask every marketer this question: are you in the TV game or the video game i.e. sight + sound + motion? If the answer (which it always is) is the latter, then why discriminate WHERE the video is shown?
This conversation can also be evolved from video to content (consumer generated, long form, original, branded etc)
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 8:47 am | Permalink
Thanks Joseph, I had a wee bit of fun ranting, err, writing it. ;)
I agree we need to challenge the status quo, and provocative (and true in many forms) statements, like the one you quoted above, can be a useful catalyst in a conversation surrounding innovation. Too many of us get weighed down by our own perspective, or trapped in the ‘we’ve always done it that way’ mentality. There are many ways to approach it, but generalizing the core issues in order to make a point which can be made in a more defensible way, can actually lead to the very people we’re trying to reach tuning out.
Speaking of perspective – the example of your Coke story and the origin of your title, vs. my take on it without the background, is a classic example of perspectives colliding :)
It’s funny how even your description of an intervention could be challenged on a practical level by those who believe you’re forcing an intervention on them vs. engaging in conversation; when in actuality you’re advocating for disrupting the behaviour of corporations for the betterment of the brand/ consumer.
In terms of discriminating on where the video (or content) is shown, I absolutely agree. The medium should be agnostic and utilized as applicable for a given campaign, to reach a given consumer… one size does not fit all.
Posted on 04-Dec-06 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
[...] Full disclosure: I’ve worked with Chris in the past and respect his contributions and perspective on the social media space and tools. I’ve also posted a thought or two about Jaffe on this site in the past (I enjoy his work for the most part and respect his expertise and risk-taking). And both Chris and Joe are my FaceBook friends. ;) [...]
Posted on 18-Sep-07 at 2:58 pm | Permalink