Consumer Psychology

“Whether they’re joining a cult or joining a brand, they do so for exactly the same reasons – they need to belong, and they want to make meaning….”

For me, this quote from the video “The Persuaders” sums up the reason why people follow brands, or the next cool thing … they have an inward need to feel that they belong to something, in a culture that now stresses the individual and his/her needs. In the video, Ruckoff mentions the fact that having a cultural emphasis on the individual is great for marketing, as it makes targeting and persuading easier.

The discussions on political campaigns demonstrated how the strategy of craftin messages to more and more granular segments of the population was evolving. I was surprised by the correlation of Kerry’s winning several primaries and his campaign’s switch to this type of targeted message. This must have been something that emerged after post-election study, as at the time, I just remember everyone being surprised by his victories. You mean it wasn’t Howard Dean’s primal vocals that did him in?

Every time I log in to Amazon.com, I am bombarded by a list of potential products to buy, based on my past purchases. Is this trying to meet a need of mine, or is it trying to create one?

This is a theme that plays a dominant role in both videos…marketers are not exploring the likes, dislikes, and needs of consumers to actually satisfy them, but instead to figure out how they can package what their clients already have and sell it.

Roberts, of the famous now floundering advertising group Saatchi & Saatchi, comments that “creating loyalty beyond reason is where outstanding profits lie”. Only a few companies, like AT&T and Hallmark, have succeeded in creating what he terms these “love marks”.

Crispin Miller comments on how advertising has moved away from the “er” style of advertising – whiter, brighter, faster, stronger – and instead has become an invitation to a longed-for lifestyle, a ready-made identity. I found it hilarious that Song Airlines marketing went so far as to have an ad that said, “We are not an airline, we are a culture”… what, did they have to spell it out for those who might have missed their obvious marketing approach? At some point, broadcasting to everyone that they are a “savvy shopper” diminishes any meaning, because if it is on a billboard, aren’t you saying it to everyone? As with the Rage Rock bands, once they get packaged and promoted, don't they cease to be a distinguishing factor for those who want to feel different?

The section about Clothaire Rapaille was quite interesting. I do agree with his assertion that people will come up with justifications for why they buy something, but I think it is only when they perceive it is something that do not need, or falls outside of their limits (e.g., budget).

I also believe that there is truth in his assertion that words evoke emotions. After all, he is quite in demand, and garners a large fee, so his output must have some worth. It is the way they are developed that I do not agree with. According to his theory, we are imprinted with images whenever we learn a word, and carry those with us subliminally. First, I cannot believe that imprints people obtain when they learn words are the same across cultures, socio-economic classes, etc. We may think of the color white as pure and virginal, but in Asia it represents death. So, if there are code words, are they different for each culture? This is not discussed. Second, I think that the associations that people have come not from the time they learned a word, presumably primarily in their childhood, but instead are the result of years of mass marketing.

The association is not some inherent association, but one that has been created from years of hearing advertising associated with products. And if there are any similarities across cultures, I would assert that this has to do with the global saturation of American media and marketing, and not any ingrained connection. Go back one hundred years, and I do not think Clothaire would be able to pitch his services, as without mass advertising, I don’t think there would be these readily identifiable “code words”.

Reptilian Hot Button? Oh, please. And when questioned on this by Douglas Rushkoff, that it would be better to educate the public rather than feed this supposed basal need (Hummers vs. ecologically sound cars), he defends the choice of promoting the Hummer. He asserts the public “won’t buy small cars”. Well, they sure in heck did when gas went above $4/gallon and the Hummer is now extinct, like the reptilian ancestor who supposedly triggers the button.

As if Clothaire were not enough, we are then introduced to Frank Luntz (although I had seen discussions with him before on Bill Maher’s show, so I was prepared). Like Clothaire, his business revolves around the importance of language in presenting the message - the crafter of phrases like the “Death Tax” (instead of estate tax) and “War against Terror” (instead of War against Iraq). I do agree – words carry associations and they are important, but his assertion that he is not manipulating the public by using phrases like “climate change” instead of “global warming” is just bogus. Luntz also has a very reductionary view of people – “80% of our life is emotion, and 20% is intellect”. As the journalist Lemann (New Yorker article) mentions, Luntz does not research or present issues, but instead the language around issues… how to talk about it, and how not to talk about it.

In his work for a utilities company, when his focus group had identified the magical words of accountability and reliability, it became clear that Luntz would go back and sell the company a concept, and whether their policy actually embodied any of these traits was inconsequential. As long as you use the words, people will perceive it as so. Rushkoff muses, “Do the words he’s found help the public see the issue more clearly, or do they disguise it? Is Luntz listening to us, so his clients can give us what we want, or so he can figure out how to make us want what they have to sell?” Again, the theme emerges.

Almost exactly the same phrase comes up in the other Frontline video, “Merchants of Cool”, in discussing the marketing machine designed around teenagers, who represent a $150 million market. Sprite soda becomes the perfect example of how a market is created by created a connection between consumers and products that transcend its real purpose… it is no longer a drink – it is a part of the Hip Hop lifestyle. The incestuous relationship between the different outlets of VIACOM and how they mobilize to create demand was an interesting and important revelation.

The video spends a great deal of time talking about how the advertising machine finds “the next cool thing”. Well, I’m not buying it. I do believe that in the beginning, agencies that could identify and tap into trends were able to market products more effectively, but I have a more sinister view of this machine now. When you look at the complex relationship of VIACOM’s auxiliaries, and the “under the radar’ approach of marketing, pretending to be teens and monitoring chat sites, Facebook, YouTube, etc., why do people believe that they are not manipulating this as well? Do they really look to see what jeans Paris Hilton is wearing and then promote it, or are they first securing her silent endorsement, and then the masses copy. Why would they manipulate so much and not this aspect?

I was just amazed by the interview with the producer of the TV show “Dawson’s Creek”, who talked about teenage shows and sex as if she were no part of it – she uses the term “they” as she describes how sexual freedom is promoted in shows aimed at teenagers. She makes sure to say that she personally does not think that teenagers should have sex – this from the head of a show whose first episode depicted an affair between a teacher and student. But, THEIR show presents it responsibly. Maybe this is what you have to do to live with fostering an “end justifies the means” approach to capturing a children’s market.

To me, the most interesting aspect behind all this is the one that is not really discussed. Why do people now look to things for meaning in their lives? How is it that a piece of plastic equates to community? I think it has to do with the inherent need for humans to feel connected to a greater whole. People used to be part of various forms of community – their family, their neighborhood, their religion, their ethnicity – a whole host of aspects that made one feel part of something bigger. Has the increasing focus on the individual caused these connections to decline, or is it the other way around? I don’t know, but the end result is the same.

Relationships based on personal community and group identity (family, religion …) has lessened, and people have looked to things to fill that need. The VP of a marketing organization in the “Merchants of Cool” video talks about the “guilt money” that parents give to their children because they cannot give them their time. So, is it any wonder then that these same children start to associate things you can buy with this money as affection?

To fill the need of belonging, of being part of a group identity, some people join cults, others join gangs, and those with money buy products that sell them a piece of plastic wrapped in the illusion of lifestyle and experience.

Finally, you may have noticed that I said “after I got over my initial disgust” after viewing these films. Why disgust? Because I look at all the money and intellectual energy spent on getting people to spend money, a lifestyle that has caused global recession, and yet I see none of the same money or intellect going into investigations on how to keep teenagers in school, how to prevent the contraction of AIDS among teenagers, the largest growing segment of the global population to contract the disease. I long to start an “under the radar” campaign to have the younger generation focus on obtaining their identity through something more meaningful than an iPod or can of Sprite.