Special Message: Chellie Pingree

February 25, 2008 at 7:04 am | Posted in Collective Responsibility, Communication, Decision making, General, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

I have tried to make this blog in no way personal. I have made extreme efforts for it to avoid my former bastion, the realm of politics. It is only on this rare occasion that I write this special post. I hope you read it and consider it carefully.

Chellie Pingree was my boss as president of a national, non-partisan advocacy organization in Washington, DC. Originally founded by a Republican, and supported over the years by politicians of every stripe (including Dem. Russ Feingold and Rep. John McCain), Common Cause has been the citizen’s lobby for over 30 years. And under Chellie’s leadership, we expanded from the traditional topics of campaign finance reform and electoral ethics to also include media consolidation and making sure every vote is counted with new voting machines. These were issues that effected all Americans.

Now, Chellie is running for Congress and she’s got a real shot at winning. And I have to tell you, I cannot think of a better person to have in the Congress. Chellie is without a doubt one of the best, and most ethical, leaders I have ever met.

I encourage you to visit her website, join the Facebook or MySpace group, and, if you can, help her campaign financially. You don’t have to live in her district in Maine to support her; after all, when she is in Congress, she will do the right thing for the country, not just her district. Please read up on her life, her work, and her beliefs. Regardless of party, we want good people in Congress who will make the right decisions when the going gets tough. And Chellie is that kind of person.

I’ve taken myself out of politics but I can’t get politics out of me. Regardless of your party affiliation, I trust you won’t think less of my blogging efforts. A big part of marketing is communicating what you believe is important about the subject to the audience. I hope I have done that today.

Advertisements

3 Marketing Disasters (Sort Of)

January 29, 2008 at 6:29 am | Posted in Advertising, Boomers, Communication, Companies, Decision making, DTC, General, Generations, Marketing, Merck, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Pharma, Politics, Responsibility, Schering-Plough | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I started thinking about this blog entry in response to something I saw while standing on the Clark and Lake El platform.

Adventures in Stupidity

The last train car was wrapped up in advertising for the new Samsung Blackjack II. And the URL? http://www.blackjackll.com. That’s right, they used Roman numerals in the URL! Does anyone there know the internets? Are those written as ones, or “i”s, or “l”s? Or just a two? Guess what? None of these addresses work. Samsung spent all this time making a phone and didn’t think about how to communicate it. Fire your marketing people.

The Old Way: Marketing Lies

When I got to work, a friend emailed me Dan Froomkin’s new article. The Center for Public Integrity (a non-partisan and highly regarded beltway watchdog) assembled 935 instances in which members of the Bush administration lied or mislead the public regarding Iraq. Despite what side of the aisle you reside on, you have to admit we might have gotten sold a pack of false goods there.

Froomkin’s article is different from a marketing perspective though. The folks at Samsung just made a stupid mistake; they didn’t think about the arena in which they were operating. The Froomkin article is about flat-out lying. And it relates to a trend that has been going on for several years: people – highly intelligent, well-educated CEO-types – do not seem to understand that you can’t lie anymore.

The New Way: Leveling With The Customer

Marketing is changing. While there is still a healthy serving of “spin” (or “creating a compelling narrative,” as I prefer to think about it), this is changing because of the massive amount of information online combined with incredibly advanced search capacity. There is a glut of information available to the customer. (My job in the future will be more about creating value for the customer and my next blog post will be about the yet-to-be-created position of Chief Conversation Officer – subscribe so as not to miss it.)

Yet still, these old-school guys think they can lie and steal and no one will find out about it. Sometimes they get the money before someone finds out (see: Enron) and sometimes they just get busted (see: following paragraph). Forget the subterfuge: just tell the truth. If you make a quality product, you won’t need to lie about it. And if you don’t make a quality product, why are you working for those people, anyway?

Poison Pill

Which bring me to my third marketing disaster. Much like the Froomkin example, it deals with a huge organization knowing that it is lying to people. It turns out that Vytorin (with the eye-catching ads comparing people to food) does not work and is actually worse than a generic worth a third of the price. This isn’t the debacle; this is simply a bad product. The debacle is that 1) Merck and Schering-Plough continued to spend millions on marketing this drug after they knew it was ineffective and 2) that S-P execs allegedly sold stock after the trials failed.

Of course I care about the health risks. And of course I care about the older folks who bought this useless drug instead of food or other medication. But for right now, let’s focus on the sheer stupidity in a company brazenly lying to the public. The halls of business are positively littered with the bodies of executives who thought they could get away with it. And maybe in the old days, they did. But this is a new world.

It makes me wonder if (especially younger members of) the marketing department brought up the uselessness of lying. Surely they do Google searches of their company, they know the regulations involved in pharmaceuticals, and they’ve heard all the stories of companies being discovered of lying. Did not one of them raise the issue? “Maybe we should just confess? Instead of spending millions marketing a junk pill and making thousands from shady stock deals, we should consider the billions we may be fined or that will be lost in company stock after this is exposed?”

Instead, they kept quiet. Now, in addition to losing their own jobs and likely an executive or two, they risked countless lives and have further degraded an industry already in peril. What kind of golden parachute do you get for those results?

The Gist

I know this is wearing on a bit, but my point is this: there is an epic change occurring in business. The marketing guys are no longer the sniveling spinmeisters. Now, we are responsible for good business and good communication.

Feel free to comment on either other marketing disasters caused by stupidity (Blackjack Deuce) or dishonesty (Bush, Merck/S-P). Or, better yet, comment on how the marketing department saved your company’s ass through honesty or open conversation. Those are the stories up-and-coming marketers really need to hear.

Marketing My Engagement

January 24, 2008 at 6:05 am | Posted in Communication, Decision making, Email, General, Marketing, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

I got engaged a week and a half ago. I did not blog about it because it didn’t have to do with marketing and it was kind of personal. But, unbeknownst to be, the way I handled the news had a big effect on how I market myself.

On January 13, I asked the Beautiful Girl (BG) to marry me. We spent an hour and a half calling her family and mine – that’s how long it took for just immediate family, mind you! – and we were exhausted by the end of it.

Now, I hate talking on the phone. It is a tedious, blind, unnerving exercise. As a writer, I would much prefer it if conversations came with a backspace button.

Instead, I simply changed my status to “engaged” on Facebook and approved an evite to go out for an engagement party to which I had contributed names and contact info of recipients. This would avoid:

  1. More phone time
  2. One of those self-congratulatory emails to everyone in my contact book
  3. Using time and energy I don’t have. (In addition to the engagement, the past couple weeks have been quite full enough with a potential mortgage and closing, finding renters for our current apartment in winter in Chicago, the detail of the move, car trouble, and BG has been sick this week. Isn’t that enough?)

I was attempting an experiment in active communication but passive conversation (and being a wuss about the phone).

What I forgot is that not everyone is like me. From the way they communicate to what they hold important. BG and I have been dating for almost two years and admitted we were planning nuptials at least six months ago, so the actual ring-on-the-finger bit was less climactic to me than perhaps others viewed it.

Plus, many of my friends and family are not online. I am online and/or writing for at least nine hours per day. This has altered the way I prefer to transfer information. But because I was thinking from my own perspective rather than that of my audience, I came off as a jerk. And maybe I am. So, this is the official apology to disappointed friends and family (especially Alexia and Mandy, but all the others too). If I wasn’t writing this at 5am, you would get a personal phone call, but I promise to try once the dust settles here.

One surprise from this experiment was the lovely, organic dialogue that came from several friends who did notice the change on Facebook or read the evite. They were able to contact me at a time of their own choosing in a medium of my choosing (emailing me, writing on my Facebook wall, etc). It was very natural and now I have those messages to keep and reflect on.

So this exercise reminded me to always, always, always consider how your audience will receive a message. I spend so much of my day thinking about how to craft the message that I let down my guard in my personal life regarding the reception.

Half-life in Politics and Marketing

January 22, 2008 at 6:11 am | Posted in Advertising, Books, Communication, Decision making, General, Jaffe, Joseph - Join The Conversation, Marketing, Online marketing, Politics, Responsibility, Web 2.0 | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In his new book “Join the Conversation,” Joseph Jaffe explains the faults of the one-to-many model of marketing. The idea goes like this: if you throw a big enough net, you’re sure to catch a fish or two. Junk mail is the perfect example. But you can narrow down this model by knowing a little about your audience. Jaffe says:

“One-to-many assumes that it is possible to divide and categorize human beings into generalist buckets, using artificial variables such as age, sex (yes, please), occupation or education, and, to a lesser extent, attitudes, interests, and opinions.” (Jaffe, pg. 13)

In a way, this goes against what I have learned in politics. Generalizations, polls, surveys, and focus groups all get you close to an idea of what people want. So much is determined by these methods. It makes sense to do a Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign in the district that voted most heavily for your candidate’s party in the last election. It makes sense to want to know that when you’re talking to a middle-aged, white, suburban mother that you should talk about your candidate’s national security stances while you might want to discuss the environment with a local college student (and about their voting eligibility).

The natural result of this obsession is Mark Penn. He is a chief strategist to Hillary Clinton and developed the idea of “soccer moms” for Bill’s run in 1996. His new book, “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes,” seems amazingly misguided in this new era. Or perhaps I can just feel this mode of thinking going extinct more and more every day. This NYT article does a good job of breaking down Penn’s thesis.

It is against this model that (I believe) Jaffe rebels. In the brave new world of personalization (real personalization), how useful are broad polls or trends? In fact, in an effort to know our audience, don’t generalization/trends/polls get us close, but in tandem ensure that we don’t reach this last intimacy with our audience?

In science, a half-life is the time it takes for half of the radioactive atoms of a given object to decay. Imagine this is a pie: first we cut it in half, then another half takes it down to a quarter, then another half takes it down to an eighth, continued ad infinitum. But by this method you are guaranteed never to get rid of all the radioactive atoms completely. Despite the small size, there is still half that decay and half that stays.

Likewise, polls and the like get us close to our audience. We do learn important facts that have helped win elections. But this method also guarantees that we will never truly know our audience. By the very manner of data extraction, we are generalizing all the time. A candidate could have a personal connection by talking to Jane Smith. But a candidate can never have a truly personal connection by talking to a “soccer mom,” or “NASCAR dad,” or any of these other ridiculous groupings of people that make up Penn’s microtrends.

It turns out that people are more complex than that. They can’t really be grouped this way because we don’t think in lock-step. Heck, most of the time we’re not even logical. Knowing people is difficult. Perhaps we can learn something at the intersection of science, politics, and marketing.

Water Bottle Guilt (Now with Diagrams!)

January 10, 2008 at 5:38 am | Posted in Advertising, Collective Responsibility, Communication, Decision making, General, Marketing, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility, Usability | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Updated: Welcome Fast Company readers! If you like the post below, don’t forget to subscribe. Enjoy!

This morning I was reading an insightful post at the QualityWriter.com blog where Phil mentions the new Starbuck’s ethos ad. Basically, for every couple of bucks they make selling this water, Starbuck’s will give a nickel to a poor, starving kid (examples Kebede and Abu found here).

I’m not going to comment on the usual rant material here. I find giving money to poor kids generally good, Starbuck’s and their ads generally so-so, and the taste of their coffee pretty damn awful. That aside, I did want to comment on the recent trend of water bottle guilt.

Fast Company details all of the stomach-churning, mind-boggling details in the cleverly named Message in a Bottle article from this summer. But the gist is this: a whole bunch of people thought they were doing good by switching from soda (“pop,” if you will) to water. Everybody felt good and felt better about themselves, too. Only after a couple of years and a huge increase in the water business, did we question all of the plastic bottles we were throwing away. All this while tension in the middle east rose and wars started and “oh yeah!” that plastic is not only clogging our landfills on the back-end, but it’s a petroleum product to start out with!

Hey, I’m not blameless. We recycle, but I’ll still buy water from time to time. But the sheer guilt that is growing at an exponential rate is what I’m fascinated in. The problem has a lot of angles – the environment, oil and global politics, waste in a country of plenty, the blur between what we need and what we want – so I thought we could use a little visual assistance. Though it is positively not comprehensive, I put together a venn diagram of sorts to being to plot the aspects of water bottle guilt (both the diagram and this post are positively facetious, however).

It features Kebede (or is that Abu?) in the middle of our messy little problem. In what way do you feel guilty about the burgeoning water bottle crisis and its effect on humankind? Click on the image below for some ideas:

Guilt 2 200×200

Good For Consumers (And Businesses): Social Media Gets A Glimpse Of Measurable ROI

December 19, 2007 at 5:51 am | Posted in Collective Responsibility, Communication, Decision making, Facebook, General, Marketing, Online marketing, ROI, Social Media, Usability, User generated content, Web 2.0 | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

We recently had one of the worst weeks ever. It included (but certainly wasn’t limited to) taking the car in to replace an insanely expensive hose, losing our heat during a Chicago winter, getting sideswiped by a Chicago trolley right after leaving the dealership, and the subsequent arguing with and lying from the trolley driver to the cop about how she was not involved. Needless to say, there were not a lot of bright spots in the week.

But when the dealership tried to squeeze another $470 from us for a CV boot, I did a little research. Yelp.com and a few other sites extolled the virtue of the mechanic right down the street. He did the job in a couple of hours for $188. Amazing.

What does this all have to do with online marketing? Well, I was not surprised when I read this study from comScore. Not only are 1 in 4 internet users consulting reviews before purchasing offline, but they are willing to pay more if the service is ranked as excellent. It seem that after the year of exuberance that was all about Facebook and twitter, business is finally getting around to answering the question of how social media effects ROI.

If you have been questioning this yourself, you are not alone. I have seen at least 5 webinars in the past week and a half on this question alone: How do we determine our ROI on social media? And there are two distinct undercurrents in this discussion: 1) a low-lying anxiety on the part of marketers regarding keeping up with current trends and 2) trouble convincing an old-school CEO or other higher-up that this is of value to the company. I am a victim of the former and may blog about it in the future, but relief for the latter is beginning to emerge.

Among the best of the webinars and white papers discussing social media ROI are those from TNS Media Intelligence/Cymfony. Anyone who is trying to convince their fellow employees about the value of social media must read their white paper, Making the Case for a Social Media Strategy. (Just so you know, I’m not connected to the company at all – I just really do like their work.)

They begin by going through an evolution of digital communications and present research on what people are doing online. They then explain how social media is a blurring of communication and content (the two activities people do the most online) and give salient examples of how struggling industries (especially newspapers) are embracing social media and seeing profits skyrocket. Among the quantifiable ROIs:

  • momentum
  • influence
  • prototyping
  • direct conversion of buzz into sales
  • market feedback/testing
  • crowdsourcing
  • recommendations

And each of those quantifiable ROIs has at least one example from a major, dynamic company. Consider these:

  • Crowdsourcing: “Intuit created a community with discussion boards on their site so customers can help each other with questions…According to Business Week, this community now has over 100,000 members discussing topics across 50 subject areas.” CEO Steve Bennett’s 2005 annual report letter to shareholders stated, “positive word of mouth creates a durable advantage for Intuit that translates into sustained revenue and profit growth.”
  • Recommendations: “Analysis of [Petco’s] web traffic revealed that users that [sic] sort the list of products by customer ratings spend 41% more than users who search with other methods like popularity or price… Emails that feature customer review content receive 50% higher clickthrough rates.”

Helpfully, there are also cases where social media hurt companies, but a fair review notes that it was not the tool that caused the problem, but the poor PR skills of the company. Many are not adept at responding quickly, especially to a crisis situation. These examples serve as a good warning to be prepared for what you are about to take on.

In the end, social media is just a tool. But this study and others can give you the quick-and-dirty version (with stats) to help convince your more traditional bosses. It’s a scary new world but at least we’re all in it together.

Last Minute Gift Ideas For The Social Good

December 13, 2007 at 5:52 am | Posted in Advertising, Collective Responsibility, Communication, Decision making, General, Marketing, Online marketing, Responsibility | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you are planning on doing any of your holiday shopping online (and I suspect you are), then here are some ideas for gifts that keep on giving to the social good. Forget the “socks ‘n’ underwear” presents this year, Grandma – why not help change the world instead?

BooksWeLike

I use the BooksWeLike page which benefits my former employer. Just search for the book, CD, or DVD you want and it will display with purchasing options of Amazon.com, Powells, Barnes & Noble’s, etc. You can purchase from the online store of your choice. After you click on the store’s button (on the right after you find your product), you will notice that the URL is changed slightly (i.e. it ends with “we_like18-20). This is how the referral program tracks everything and a portion of your purchase will go to whomever you have selected.

Would you like human rights with your coffee?

Not many people know that coffee is a prime example of a cheap commodity for America that has historically (and royally) screwed over the people that produce it. Since some of the best coffee is grown in poorer counties, distributors have routinely manipulated the price, forcing the growers to produce more no matter what the cost in quality and human rights. My first job was as a barista and coffee has been an integral part of my life every since. (And if you are ever in the Youngstown or Canfield, OH, area, stop in at Peaberry’s and tell them I sent you.)

Here is a list of other coffee vendors also changing the world:

  • A friend of mine used to work for Counter Culture Coffee and I am so impressed by their standards. They fly out and meet the growers, ensure they get a fair price for their goods (fair trade certified), and insist on safe practices (for the grower and the consumer) by pushing organic and environmentally sustainable practices. Look around and then buy some coffee or gear. (Did I mention that the coffee is delicious? If you’re in DC, stop into Murky Coffee – they brew it and have the best staff in the whole world.)
  • Crop to Cup Coffee looks to be along the same vein, focusing on family farmed coffee. Check out their beans and the awesome gift basket at the bottom of the page. (Added bonus: when you buy, apparently you can donate extra to that particular farmer – great idea!)
  • As I type this, I am sipping on some Just Coffee coffee. Both the website and the packaging shout out transparency – these guys let you know where every cent you’re paying is going along the supply chain. You can learn about the importance of air roasting, pre-financing, and sustainability from their website and packaging. (A note about the packaging – while I love that you advertise delivery by bike or longboard in Madison, how about adding a URL?) I recommend the Ethiopian Harrar…so good.

Do good for do-gooders

So often people are frustrated because everyone on their list has everything they need. Use this opportunity to support something good in the world. Imagine you are the person who is impossible to shop for: would you rather have another sweater or buy a cow for someone in Africa? One gift will keep you warm for a season; the other for a lifetime.

Here is a list of groups we support, monetarily or in spirit (plus, most or all donations are tax-deductible).

And if you have read this far, I want you to know that my gift is having a readership who cares about communication and the success of this modest blog. It is a gift every time you send a post to a friend, bookmark this site, subscribe, and vote for me. I can see who you folks are and it means so much. Thank you for that gift.

Debunking 5 Bamboozles About Cookies

November 16, 2007 at 6:08 am | Posted in Books, Communication, Cookies, General, Marketing, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility, Turow, Joseph - Niche Envy | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Joseph Turow’s book, Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age, is driving me crazy. He is happy building up premises and then leaving out the keystone: the logic of human interaction. Never does he consider that online marketers are giving people what they want. I’m not going to whine for the online marketers of the world – there are some skeezy guys out there – but after 100 pages I still have not heard what it is that online marketers do that is so terrible. However, I will cover the crux of Turow’s argument in (many) subsequent posts. In this post, I would like to debunk a number of myths floating around the interwebs and whispered in hushed corners around the globe.

First, let me say that personal data is stolen online every day and identity fraud will only grow in coming years. Consumers should take every precaution to protect themselves and act carefully while purchasing or even interacting online. Those like Turow, however, will run about, gnashing their teeth, while shouting that the sky is falling. One example is his crafty use of language about cookies.

A cookie is part of your web experience you ideally do not even know is there. For instance, let’s say you wanted to buy Turow’s book on Amazon.com. If you have used the site before and haven’t erased your cookies, you will notice that the site greets you by name. This is thanks to a cookie. Cookies are also responsible for the recommendations Amazon gives for other books based on your previous buying history. When you go to log-in, a cookies is the reason the site remembers your username. Cookies even allow you to use the ubiquitous shopping cart while you are browsing. Cookies aid the user experience, save the consumer time and energy, and give valuable (non-personally identifiable) information to a website owner so s/he can tailor the website to ensure you have an even better experience the next time you visit.

Cookies are not viruses, spyware, or even programs. They are simply little pieces of data passed back and forth between your web browser and the website you are visiting. I do not want to downplay all concerns – any interaction between your computer and a website has the potential for problem. But the myths propagated by Turow and others create undue anxiety. I’d like to respond to the following statements from his book (all of which can be found between pages 74-76 of his book, if you would rather just skim it at the book store):

  1. “If spam endangered marketing because it angered consumers over information delivered to their computers without consent, cookies put online marketing in jeopardy because of the information they allegedly could retrieve from consumer’ computers.”
  2. First of all, how many people know what cookies are and how they work? Not many. And even if they know, this statement is complete speculation and allegation. Spam didn’t kill email and cookies aren’t going to kill web browsing. Besides, people will either not mind cookies because they contribute to the user experience or they will disable them. Simple enough.

  3. “…This article pointed out that cookies ‘aren’t able to grab an email address’ or to probe an individual’s computer. That may not have been understood by everyone who reacted with alarm to cookies’ existence.”
  4. The two statements I draw from this are that A) The people who were concerned about cookies were ignorant and B) Turow should feel obliged then to correct these misunderstandings (he doesn’t).

  5. “An online firm could not tell anything about a site visitor…unless that person wanted the firm to know. That bothered marketers…’Ever since the Web gained prominence as a commercial medium, marketers and publishers have demanded some way to understand how user move through their sites.”
  6. The emphasis above is mine. Turow weaves in this conspiratorial language throughout his book – the evil marketer demanding(!) that they have some undefined personal information – the horror! What is really important in the above quote is the word “their.” While some people like to believe the internet just springs forth like manna from heaven, it actually takes a lot of work and money to produce. And those producers want to provide the best experience possible. Legally gained and innocuous information helps on both accounts. It really gets under my skin then when I read this unsubstantiated, fear-mongering garbage.

  7. “Nevertheless, such incidents and the very presence of cookies worried people that the new medium might threaten users with theft of personal information.”
  8. I concur on one level – let’s get as much protection from identification theft as possible. But putting marketers in the same boat as hackers, spammers, and other online miscreants is patently false at best (if not libelous to some degree). Cookies ease the process for users, especially while shopping, especially for less experienced users.

  9. “Consumers’ reluctance to go online for fear of losing control over personal information seemed like an additional problem that could kill what many still considered a huge potential commercial resource.”
  10. Ah yes, and thereafter did Amazon and eBay shutter their blinds and close up shop. Oh wait, that didn’t happen? Online shopping grew exponentially? It seems pretty obvious this statement is bunk.

So the facts simply don’t bear out Turow insistence that cookies are part of some plot by marketers to steal information. He even begins the next section with, “At the end of 1997, a Forrester Research study estimated that online retail revenue would total a record $2.4 billion in that year, ‘driven in large part by new security technology, easier-to-use commerce sites and advertising that is helping to reduce consumers’ fear about shopping online.’ ” Websites being easier to use did not just occur out of thin air. There were a lot of smart people working very hard on the user experience. Cookies helped them understand user behavior so that web developers could clear the path to whatever it was the user wanted to do.

My goal with this post is to communicate that cookies are useful to online marketers because they help us help the user. There is no conspiracy. And if you aren’t comfortable with them, turn them off. It’s no skin off my nose. Whether through cookies, log files, surveys, or focus groups, online marketers will be studying your behavior to improve websites. Hopefully the cookie Chicken Littles will forgive us.

Panic

November 12, 2007 at 5:39 am | Posted in Boomers, Communication, Decision making, General, Generation X, Generations, Marketing, Net gens, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility, Tweens | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

Drew McLellan at MarketingProfs asks, “Can We Outgrow Marketing?” My first comment is here, Drew responds a few comments down, and then I reply here.

Because everything in marketing is changing at an amazing rate, will the older folks among us become unable to keep up? Is there an anxiety present now that never used to exist before? Or is it imagined pressure that drives us?

Pickin’ Ain’t Easy: The Paralysis of Choice vs. The Clarity of Priorities

November 9, 2007 at 6:17 am | Posted in Advertising, Anderson, Chris - The Long Tail, Books, Communication, Decision making, Free Choice, General, Heath, Chip and Dan - Made To Stick, Marketing, Online marketing, Personal Responsibility, Responsibility | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

I was surprised this month to be in such disagreement with the latest article by Dan and Chip Heath. (Normally their articles are spot-on and I’m sure their book is great.) They fall right in line with the current thinking from the svengali of choice – Barry Schwartz and The Paradox of Choice. Their basic premise is that people are confused or angered exponentially when they are given more things to choose from. If you give a person 3 things to choose from, they can happily make a decision; give them 20 things to choose from and they give up.

This couldn’t be more ludicrous considering the online channel. The Heath’s give the example, “companies that say, ‘Make the customer happy,’ but pay service reps based on criteria like speed or quotas. At that nexus, paralysis leads to frustration.” The problem in this and other examples is not choice – it’s a confusion of priorities and fuzzy goals.

They offer Mattel as another example:

“Mattel prides itself on the quality of its products, but the massive recall of Chinese-made toys illustrates the risks faced by companies caught between maintaining safety and cutting costs.”

This is not a rational problem of choice – this is a lack of common sense! Safety for children’s toys is the price of doing business, not a choice. The Heaths and Schwartz seem to view choice as a “one OR another” decision (which may or may not be correct depending on the situation). However, the examples given in the Fast Company article are problems of priority which is “one THEN another THEN another” with trumps thrown in. Mattel wants to make toys. Their priorities are costs, then quality of toys, then manufacture location, etc. with the trump of safety to stop everything if a certain line is crossed.

In his fantastic and oft-written about book The Long Tail, Chris Anderson debunks the myth of choice paralysis, saying that “choice is simply an artifact of the limitations of the physical world where the information necessary to make an informed choice is lost.” Like I have laid out in regards to priorities, Anderson remarks, “the solution is not to limit choice, but to order it so it isn’t oppressive.”

To boil this all down, I believe that search is to commerce as Occam’s razor is to priorities. The former is a tool used to assist with the wise decision-making in the latter. (I just thought this up last night, so feel free to correct me in the comments section.)

I think these two systems are largely defined by the medium and one’s view of humankind. Granted, the Heaths and Schwartz are discussing real life while Anderson and I are focusing on the internet (though clearly similarities in decision making exist across the board).

But the Heaths and Schwartz also tend to talk about people as though they are irrational morons. Now, I’ve worked in politics and personally have a dim view of people on a whole, but when we’re talking about individuals I somehow revert back to giving them the benefit of the doubt. Especially on important decisions, I think most people tend to be fairly rational. Do we really believe some Chinese toy manufacturer thought, “duh, well I need to make a choice between making these toys and poisoning the little kids that play with them”? I think it was a little more complex than that.

Choice, in the Heaths/Schwartz model, is a one-time decision. 1) I don’t think life operates this way and 2) the examples the Heaths give are rarely one-time mistakes. The examples are almost always longer decision making mistakes which are more about priorities than choices. Getting both correct would be wonderful in a perfect world; for now, I’ll stick to winning the battle of priorities rather than focus on the war of choice.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.