We have all been hearing about the fragmentation of media and the death of mass. (1,2).
But according to a recent Economist article it isn’t that simple. (3)
It seems that the real blockbusters are busting out more than ever.
Some examples from the article:
1. Twilight New Moon earned more in a single day than any other movie ever.
2. Average sales of the top selling album in the UK increased by 9% between 2004 and 2008 despite total sales being 18% down. And Susan Boyle is selling well this Christmas.
3. US Network TV has lost over 20% of viewers in the last 8 years but the ratings of the top 5 shows are virtually unchanged. For example, in 2000-1 Survivor was the top show drawing 17.8m households. In 2008-9 it was American Idol with 16.5m.
Both the really big hits and the niche offerings have done well. It’s the massish stuff that is suffering – the middle rating TV; the lower chart position music.
My conclusion. While tribes, or packs as I call them, are becoming smaller and more diverse there is still a need for the mass communal experience, the sense of belonging to something bigger, the desire to share something with people at large.
1. . http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/tribal-manageme.html
2.
http://www.wunderman.com/Content/assets/11139_how_to_think_digital.pdf
3. The Economist Nov 28th 2009, Briefing Media: A World of Hits. http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14959982
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
#2 Man as a pack animal – Why?
Previously I have said that man is primarily a pack animal and is critical to understanding our decisions including our purchase decisions. But why are we?
Man has never been that physically powerful. To survive on the plains and forests of Africa we needed to group together. As such we could protect ourselves from predators and limit the damage to our numbers to a few weaker members in the same way a herd of gazelle does. Additionally grouping together increases our chances of trapping wildebeests and feeding ourselves.
So the prime need for survival is to belong to a pack. A solitary person has much less chance of survival.
That need survives in our genes to this day, even if there are few lions to protect ourselves from and few buffalo to trap. They explain why we enjoy supporting sports teams; why it matters that we keep up with the Jones; why it matters that people know how much our BMW cost. Why people “collect” friends on Facebook; why we are addicted to our Blackberries; and why Canadian Idol can still get mass audiences in an age of personal media.
So far this is similar to Mark Earls’ idea of man as a herd animal (1). But he ignores one key element which is particularly true of pack animals and groups of apes – your status in the pack.
Another selection process was also at work in man’s history. Within the tribe the individuals with the most status got the best and most mates and so had the best chance to pass on their genes. So the need for status is also hard wired into our DNA. But we can’t all be the alpha, so the rest of us need some kind of status which gives us some hope of both survival and passing on our genes.
So different roles within the tribe exist. We can be the leader. Or we can be the one people turn to for comfort. Or the one who makes them laugh. Or the one we all laugh at. Each of these will affect what products we buy, what clothes we wear.
We choose products that reflect or slightly enhance our position in the pack.
And our latitude to choose products from outside the norm of the pack is constrained.
One concept from social psychology I really like is ‘idiosyncrasy credits”. (2) Essentially what this means is that when you join a group you are expected to conform to that group’s norms fairly tightly. However if you conform well and help the group succeed you are given idiosyncracy credits by the group. These allow you to deviate from the group’s norms – you can act and dress differently for example. You’re ability to do this and still be accepted by the group is an external display of your status within the group. Demonstrating your individuality within the constraints of the pack is a way of demonstrating your status within the pack.
So overall as pack animals we are driven by two needs - the need to belong and the need to demonstrate status. And while other survival needs exist e.g. caring for children as they carry our genes, it is these two that explain the majority of our behaviour.
1. “Herd” Mark Earls. John Wiley 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqCHe355p4
2. Idiosyncracy Credits comes from “Leaders, groups and influence” E.P. Hollander New York : Oxford University Press, 1964. For a description online see http://books.google.ca/books?id=kqY8SQigMnwC&pg=PT122&dq=idiosyncrasy+credits#v=onepage&q=idiosyncrasy%20credits&f=false
Man has never been that physically powerful. To survive on the plains and forests of Africa we needed to group together. As such we could protect ourselves from predators and limit the damage to our numbers to a few weaker members in the same way a herd of gazelle does. Additionally grouping together increases our chances of trapping wildebeests and feeding ourselves.
So the prime need for survival is to belong to a pack. A solitary person has much less chance of survival.
That need survives in our genes to this day, even if there are few lions to protect ourselves from and few buffalo to trap. They explain why we enjoy supporting sports teams; why it matters that we keep up with the Jones; why it matters that people know how much our BMW cost. Why people “collect” friends on Facebook; why we are addicted to our Blackberries; and why Canadian Idol can still get mass audiences in an age of personal media.
So far this is similar to Mark Earls’ idea of man as a herd animal (1). But he ignores one key element which is particularly true of pack animals and groups of apes – your status in the pack.
Another selection process was also at work in man’s history. Within the tribe the individuals with the most status got the best and most mates and so had the best chance to pass on their genes. So the need for status is also hard wired into our DNA. But we can’t all be the alpha, so the rest of us need some kind of status which gives us some hope of both survival and passing on our genes.
So different roles within the tribe exist. We can be the leader. Or we can be the one people turn to for comfort. Or the one who makes them laugh. Or the one we all laugh at. Each of these will affect what products we buy, what clothes we wear.
We choose products that reflect or slightly enhance our position in the pack.
And our latitude to choose products from outside the norm of the pack is constrained.
One concept from social psychology I really like is ‘idiosyncrasy credits”. (2) Essentially what this means is that when you join a group you are expected to conform to that group’s norms fairly tightly. However if you conform well and help the group succeed you are given idiosyncracy credits by the group. These allow you to deviate from the group’s norms – you can act and dress differently for example. You’re ability to do this and still be accepted by the group is an external display of your status within the group. Demonstrating your individuality within the constraints of the pack is a way of demonstrating your status within the pack.
So overall as pack animals we are driven by two needs - the need to belong and the need to demonstrate status. And while other survival needs exist e.g. caring for children as they carry our genes, it is these two that explain the majority of our behaviour.
1. “Herd” Mark Earls. John Wiley 2007. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqCHe355p4
2. Idiosyncracy Credits comes from “Leaders, groups and influence” E.P. Hollander New York : Oxford University Press, 1964. For a description online see http://books.google.ca/books?id=kqY8SQigMnwC&pg=PT122&dq=idiosyncrasy+credits#v=onepage&q=idiosyncrasy%20credits&f=false
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Man as a Pack Animal - The Myth of Individuality
The 60s had it all wrong. Life is not about “doing your own thing” and asserting your individuality.
Human beings are fundamentally pack animals. Like dogs only two things really matter.
1. Am I a member of a pack? Do I belong?
2. What is my status in that pack?
Virtually all our decisions are governed by those needs.
Take fashion. I was conducting a focus group with teenage girls a few years ago. They said that their clothes choice was a reflection of them as individuals. But as I pointed out they were all wearing Doc Martens boots. Their response – “Mine are brown”. We don’t choose our clothes to express our individuality. We choose items that identify us as members of a particular tribe – Goths, skateboarders, cool dads, businesspeople, Joe Sixpack. And then we depart from the uniform to state our position within the group – the alpha, the jester, the challenger, the runt.
Or cars. Most people feel their car says something about them. But the top selling vehicle in Canada is regularly the Honda Civic, and the best selling car in the world is the Toyota Corolla. The truth is many people find comfort in belonging to the mass. The most expressive vehicles the Beetle, PT Cruiser, Mini, TJ Cruiser– only sell in small numbers. For example the PT Cruiser at its peak in 2007 had one fourteenth of the sales of the more expensive Honda Civic.
Or beer. Particularly when you first start drinking the choice of beer is a largely communal one – bringing the wrong two-four, or asking for the wrong beer when rounds are being ordered is a major social gaff. But once you have been accepted in the group some leeway is allowed and can define you within the group – a Guinness drinker, for example.
Other people are also starting to notice that individuality is myth. Seth Godin talks about the importance of marketing to tribes and Mark Earls talks about man as a herd animal (1, 2).
Recognising this myth has major implications on how we do our marketing. Stay tuned.
1. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/tribal-manageme.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqCHe355p4
Human beings are fundamentally pack animals. Like dogs only two things really matter.
1. Am I a member of a pack? Do I belong?
2. What is my status in that pack?
Virtually all our decisions are governed by those needs.
Take fashion. I was conducting a focus group with teenage girls a few years ago. They said that their clothes choice was a reflection of them as individuals. But as I pointed out they were all wearing Doc Martens boots. Their response – “Mine are brown”. We don’t choose our clothes to express our individuality. We choose items that identify us as members of a particular tribe – Goths, skateboarders, cool dads, businesspeople, Joe Sixpack. And then we depart from the uniform to state our position within the group – the alpha, the jester, the challenger, the runt.
Or cars. Most people feel their car says something about them. But the top selling vehicle in Canada is regularly the Honda Civic, and the best selling car in the world is the Toyota Corolla. The truth is many people find comfort in belonging to the mass. The most expressive vehicles the Beetle, PT Cruiser, Mini, TJ Cruiser– only sell in small numbers. For example the PT Cruiser at its peak in 2007 had one fourteenth of the sales of the more expensive Honda Civic.
Or beer. Particularly when you first start drinking the choice of beer is a largely communal one – bringing the wrong two-four, or asking for the wrong beer when rounds are being ordered is a major social gaff. But once you have been accepted in the group some leeway is allowed and can define you within the group – a Guinness drinker, for example.
Other people are also starting to notice that individuality is myth. Seth Godin talks about the importance of marketing to tribes and Mark Earls talks about man as a herd animal (1, 2).
Recognising this myth has major implications on how we do our marketing. Stay tuned.
1. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/01/tribal-manageme.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOqCHe355p4
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Time for interactive advertising to grow up
When we look back I believe that we will see 2009 as the year when the interactive grew up and stopped being the new kid of the advertising world.
- This year the Grand Prix at Cannes went to an online film not a TV ad - Tribal and Philips’ “Carousel” (1)
- A few years ago creative people in agencies only wanted to do TV. Nowadays online is sexy. There are now many examples of great online films and interactive advertising.
- Online advertising nowadays takes a significant share of many clients’ budgets. Worldwide it is approaching 10% of total spends (2).
- There are several agencies including Razorfish and Sapient with approaching $200 million in revenue in the U.S. alone. (3) Crispen Porter has redefined what being an advertising agency means in the new world, and it often doesn’t include traditional media.
However with this new status needs to come a new maturity.
Stop claiming your new campaign will go viral. Realistically only a handful of campaigns worldwide create real buzz. Making empty promises like this is dishonest and will come back to bite us. We’ve learnt from traditional advertising that while it’s nice to have famous advertising, an ad doesn’t need to be famous to work. (4). But the online world has not really how do we use this knowledge. And the answer is not finding more ways to make my online experience painful by sticking ads on top of what I really want to look at.
We should ban the use of the terms “social media” and “marketing 2.0” (I’ve even recently been hearing marketing 3.0). It disguises lazy thinking and usually means “let’s do something cool on the web”. We rarely mean a true dialogue.
Nor should we claim online will replace TV. Radio didn’t replace print, and TV didn’t replace radio. Each has its own strengths and each has its role to play in a total communications plan.
We need to get more sophisticated in assessing effectiveness. A great advantage for online is that it is measurable. We can measure click throughs, eyeballs, and subsequent behaviour. But success is not just responses. What we are often trying to do is build a brand – to influence how people see us and feel about us. Until online takes this more seriously it will continue to be seen as just a response based medium.
All this means the specialist interactive agencies need to look out. The things I’ve talked about are the areas where traditional advertising agencies are strong. And trust me, they are all investing massively to get their share of interactive business. It used to be easy to say that the big agencies didn’t get it (5). Watch out guys, clients want their on and off line activity to work seamlessly to both sell and build the brand. Specialist agencies are starting to look less attractive, especially if they keep the “we’re the cool kids” attitude and don’t adapt to this new maturity.
The next few years will be fascinating as we grapple with how to do online advertising day in day out and not just as something sexy.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0S7bEsTM60
2. http://www.zenithoptimedia.com/gff/pdf/Advertising%20Expenditure%20Forecasts%20%20March%202007.pdf
3. http://adage.com/datacenter/datapopup.php?article_id=108866
4. http://www.accountplanning.net/Central/InTheirOwnWords/LowInvolvementProcessing
5. http://blog.schematic.com.au/?p=93
- This year the Grand Prix at Cannes went to an online film not a TV ad - Tribal and Philips’ “Carousel” (1)
- A few years ago creative people in agencies only wanted to do TV. Nowadays online is sexy. There are now many examples of great online films and interactive advertising.
- Online advertising nowadays takes a significant share of many clients’ budgets. Worldwide it is approaching 10% of total spends (2).
- There are several agencies including Razorfish and Sapient with approaching $200 million in revenue in the U.S. alone. (3) Crispen Porter has redefined what being an advertising agency means in the new world, and it often doesn’t include traditional media.
However with this new status needs to come a new maturity.
Stop claiming your new campaign will go viral. Realistically only a handful of campaigns worldwide create real buzz. Making empty promises like this is dishonest and will come back to bite us. We’ve learnt from traditional advertising that while it’s nice to have famous advertising, an ad doesn’t need to be famous to work. (4). But the online world has not really how do we use this knowledge. And the answer is not finding more ways to make my online experience painful by sticking ads on top of what I really want to look at.
We should ban the use of the terms “social media” and “marketing 2.0” (I’ve even recently been hearing marketing 3.0). It disguises lazy thinking and usually means “let’s do something cool on the web”. We rarely mean a true dialogue.
Nor should we claim online will replace TV. Radio didn’t replace print, and TV didn’t replace radio. Each has its own strengths and each has its role to play in a total communications plan.
We need to get more sophisticated in assessing effectiveness. A great advantage for online is that it is measurable. We can measure click throughs, eyeballs, and subsequent behaviour. But success is not just responses. What we are often trying to do is build a brand – to influence how people see us and feel about us. Until online takes this more seriously it will continue to be seen as just a response based medium.
All this means the specialist interactive agencies need to look out. The things I’ve talked about are the areas where traditional advertising agencies are strong. And trust me, they are all investing massively to get their share of interactive business. It used to be easy to say that the big agencies didn’t get it (5). Watch out guys, clients want their on and off line activity to work seamlessly to both sell and build the brand. Specialist agencies are starting to look less attractive, especially if they keep the “we’re the cool kids” attitude and don’t adapt to this new maturity.
The next few years will be fascinating as we grapple with how to do online advertising day in day out and not just as something sexy.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0S7bEsTM60
2. http://www.zenithoptimedia.com/gff/pdf/Advertising%20Expenditure%20Forecasts%20%20March%202007.pdf
3. http://adage.com/datacenter/datapopup.php?article_id=108866
4. http://www.accountplanning.net/Central/InTheirOwnWords/LowInvolvementProcessing
5. http://blog.schematic.com.au/?p=93
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The death of the individual
One of the biggest social trends of recent years is over. The search for individuality, which has driven much of our marketing, is last year’s trend. Now it’s all about belonging.
The big unmet need is friendships, particularly close friendships. In the U.S. the number of close friends each person has dropped dramatically in recent years, from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004 (Note 1).
Many reasons have been advanced (e.g. Note 2)
- Time crunch
- Mobility as people move for employment
- Homophobia as it becomes unacceptable to show intimacy with other males if you are straight
- The growth of social networking which encourages casual friendships but inhibits intimacy
But the fact is that people care less about defining who they are and more about finding people to share who they are with. And with the current economic crisis it is more important than ever to have someone to share your worries with and someone to drown them with.
To me this accounts for the amazing growth of social networks. Yes there is a narcissistic element to them; who really cares what you are doing or thinking right now. But the real appeal is that it is easy to find friends. Facebook’s friend finder will help you if you’re having trouble and will even suggest some potential friends to you. Classmates or Friends Reunited will find your old friends again for you, though in most cases you will quickly remember why you lost contact.
People are almost desperate to expand their network of friends. The average person has 150 friends on their social network, including an increasing number of trophy friends. And yet only 5 of these are “close friends”. (Note 3)
So stop selling products on individuality and self discovery and start selling them on belonging. I really don’t want to see any more of “Where do you want to go today?”, “You’re worth it”, “Be all you can be”, “Have it your way” and their ilk.
1. http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/June06ASRFeature.pdf
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500566.html
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3306173/Facebook-study-reveals-users-trophy-friends.html
The big unmet need is friendships, particularly close friendships. In the U.S. the number of close friends each person has dropped dramatically in recent years, from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004 (Note 1).
Many reasons have been advanced (e.g. Note 2)
- Time crunch
- Mobility as people move for employment
- Homophobia as it becomes unacceptable to show intimacy with other males if you are straight
- The growth of social networking which encourages casual friendships but inhibits intimacy
But the fact is that people care less about defining who they are and more about finding people to share who they are with. And with the current economic crisis it is more important than ever to have someone to share your worries with and someone to drown them with.
To me this accounts for the amazing growth of social networks. Yes there is a narcissistic element to them; who really cares what you are doing or thinking right now. But the real appeal is that it is easy to find friends. Facebook’s friend finder will help you if you’re having trouble and will even suggest some potential friends to you. Classmates or Friends Reunited will find your old friends again for you, though in most cases you will quickly remember why you lost contact.
People are almost desperate to expand their network of friends. The average person has 150 friends on their social network, including an increasing number of trophy friends. And yet only 5 of these are “close friends”. (Note 3)
So stop selling products on individuality and self discovery and start selling them on belonging. I really don’t want to see any more of “Where do you want to go today?”, “You’re worth it”, “Be all you can be”, “Have it your way” and their ilk.
1. http://www.asanet.org/galleries/default-file/June06ASRFeature.pdf
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500566.html
3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3306173/Facebook-study-reveals-users-trophy-friends.html
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The New Celebrity of Hope
You’ve all seen Susan Boyle’s triumph on Britain’s Got Talent. If not catch it on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY .
I suspect it’s all a marketing ploy by Simon Cowell – who wears beige dress for their TV opportunity of a lifetime by choice? But even so I think it’s great that such an ordinary person can become a celebrity even for a few weeks.
I suspect it’s all a marketing ploy by Simon Cowell – who wears beige dress for their TV opportunity of a lifetime by choice? But even so I think it’s great that such an ordinary person can become a celebrity even for a few weeks.
And I love our attitude. It’s such a change from the usual approach to celebrity, where we are waiting for the trainwreck of Amy Winehouse’s or Britney Spears’ lives. After the initial dismissive reaction of the audience they were transformed, like the rest of us. Now we want her to succeed, to become a star.
Whereas most celebrity watching is about envy, our reaction to Susan Boyle is one of hope – if she can do it anyone can. We don’t envy her success, wanting her to fail, we revel in it pushing to higher heights. I’d sooner choose hope over envy any day, and it gladdens me that the public as a whole have as well.
We’ve seen nothing like it since Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bob Sled team brought so much joy to the Calgary Olympics. Perhaps it’s related to the economy. On Monday, October 19, 1997, known as Black Monday, the Dow Jones crashed by 23%. The Calgary Olympics opened a few months later on February 13, 1998. Now ten years later we are in a similar position and up pops Susan Boyle.
You go girl.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Ads for Losers
My favourite advertising campaign of all time is Hamlet cigars. Hilariously funny, incredibly imaginative, and strongly effective in selling the cigars. It won numerous advertising awards.
If you haven’t seen it go to youtube. It took a couple of ads to really get into its stride so have a little patience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIckHmwZAeI
But what makes this really special for me is that it sells Hamlet as a cigar for losers – poor golfers, men with bad rugs, cuckolded men, men in neck-braces. If something can go wrong in a Hamlet ad it will. Hamlet is, of course, your consolation.
But the point is there are no winners here. This is not an optimistic, upbeat view of life. Life is crap but at least there’s Hamlet.
I find this so refreshing. Almost every advertising brief I see talks about how this or that brand is for people whose glass is half full, for positive, optimistic people, for winners or people who would like to see themselves as winners, how we don’t want any negativism in our advertising.
The fact is there are more losers in life than winners. Life is often crap. Just ask a Maple Leafs fan. That doesn’t mean you should be miserable. After all Maple Leaf fans have 1967 and hope for the future, and Hamlet smokers have a great cigar.
Advertising that acknowledges that things aren’t always perfect strikes a chord with way more people than the unrealistic happy smiling people we see most of the time.
If you haven’t seen it go to youtube. It took a couple of ads to really get into its stride so have a little patience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIckHmwZAeI
But what makes this really special for me is that it sells Hamlet as a cigar for losers – poor golfers, men with bad rugs, cuckolded men, men in neck-braces. If something can go wrong in a Hamlet ad it will. Hamlet is, of course, your consolation.
But the point is there are no winners here. This is not an optimistic, upbeat view of life. Life is crap but at least there’s Hamlet.
I find this so refreshing. Almost every advertising brief I see talks about how this or that brand is for people whose glass is half full, for positive, optimistic people, for winners or people who would like to see themselves as winners, how we don’t want any negativism in our advertising.
The fact is there are more losers in life than winners. Life is often crap. Just ask a Maple Leafs fan. That doesn’t mean you should be miserable. After all Maple Leaf fans have 1967 and hope for the future, and Hamlet smokers have a great cigar.
Advertising that acknowledges that things aren’t always perfect strikes a chord with way more people than the unrealistic happy smiling people we see most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)