Selling Fear

Bad things to sell on

Read something interesting today; a year preview for 2016 that was hopeful, but with science. Or, at least, math. Let me explain, and don't worry, there's marketing and advertising later.

The author cited studies that quantified the standard of living in both the richest and poorest areas of the globe, and noted how in the latter, while the standards were (obviously) much lower, they also resembled, well... the standard of living in, say, America in the early 1960s. So the next time you think about sub-Saharan Africa, where the public image is nothing but bloodshed, famine and charitable solicitations, keep in mind that while things are bad there, they certainly are a lot better than what they used to be.

My apologies if this dulls your charitable ardor. Also, America in the early '60s was a lot harder than remembered, especially if you were in the poor parts of it, and a minority. Anyway, you get my point.

A similar story can be told about bloodshed through combat. Per capita, this just used to be much more likely to kill you; now, about 5% of the earlier rate. World poverty, literacy rates, rights for women, what it's like to be a member of the LGBTQ community, the prevalence of functioning democracies -- all on the upswing, all much less awful than they used to be, all good when looked at not through the ebbs and flows of individual news cycles, but decades. Continued progress must be fought for, but even the most cynical among us have to admit that some progress has been made.

So why does everyone seem so convinced that the times are always getting worse? And not just for those that feel threatened about the improvements made for others?

Well, because humans love us some drama, and good times are very bereft of those. We also have unprecedented communications and connectivity, which means that bad news travels and finds every audience. It's also made the world more or less unfiltered, with the best and worst of humanity all just a click away. But the actual numbers? On the upswing.

And that's where we get back to the work. I've worked on any number of ads in my life -- honestly, probably in the four figure range of individual clients -- thanks to several posts that handled big numbers. Sometimes, those clients had unique selling propositions, great offers, a compelling story to tell. Less often but still relatively common, they had none of these things, and sold more on price, or marketing trickery. And when you had none of that, the last and worst thing to sell on? Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That if you used a competitor, you would be making a mistake, would never enjoy your purchase because it reminded you of that mistake, and that you would eventually be unhappy, or inefficient, or laid low by the whiff.

It's a terrible thing to sell on, frankly. It always felt wrong in my core, never worked for very long, and didn't make me happy, even when the client was pleased. It was the gig, and work sometimes involves things that you have to do anyway, but I was always glad when the project passed, and I could get back to something that fed, rather than drained, my soul.

I have to think that this isn't an unusual reaction, that the pros who do this kind of work all the time are doing damage to their health, both mental and otherwise. And that better choices exist, both professionally and personally.

I'm blessed to have made some really nice choices in my life this holiday season. My greatest wish is that you have the opportunity to do the same. If not now, soon.

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Would You Take Martin Shkreli's Business?

Perp Walk

So the most obvious story in marketing this week was the federal takedown of ex-pharma CEO Martin Shkreli. And while it's a little galling that he wasn't taken down for corporate malfeasance in his day job, but fraud against rich people in his side work, most folks are just happy that he might go away for 20 years, and resigned his post at Turing Pharmaceuticals. Proof of karma, right?

Well, maybe, but I'm not entirely convinced. Shkreli wasn't brought low by his poor public behavior or his ethically compromised behavior. Rather, he was taken down by garden variety criminal behavior (allegedly). His company wasn't punished in the marketplace until the actual handcuffs moment happened. (Oh, and props to the little weasel for being unshaven and in a hoodie when the perp walk happened. Way to look the part.)

But the real point of order here is that we had someone who seemingly did not have any public compunction about being vilified, or fear that he'd be brought low from the attention. Rather, Shkreli seemed to delight in trolling his detractors on social media, and to pour gasoline on the fire with conspicuous consumption decisions like buying a $2 million album, then making sure the world knew about it, and that he also had no immediate plans to listen to it.

Honestly, the entire episode seemed more like a calculated move, like a wrestling heel... but there was no crowd of people paying top dollar to see the villain get his. Instead, there was a kind of fame that seemed to appeal to the CEO, and while you can just brush this aside as the decisions of a lone psychopath, it's harder to claim single exception status in a world with other, well, reality television influenced careers.

Maybe this is just what happens when the top strata of society is made into its own social phenomenon, or what occurs in the all or nothing world that is created with swipe left / swipe right dichotomies. Perhaps it was t'was ever thus, and F. Scott Fitzgerald's pronouncement that the rich are different than you and I from "The Great Gatsby" is just made more obvious in a fragmented channel mix.

Or, perhaps, we're just beyond the ability to publicly shame any more, and the next Shkreli will be along any day now, either in his old consumer category or in another, because outrage is easy to generate and a reaction is what's needed now in marketing and advertising, even if most of the reaction is negative.

As a consultant, it's business that I want no part of, because I don't think it does well for your long-term business. Or your health, conscience, or soul.

But if the choice is stay in business without virtue, or feed your family with compromise?

No one ever said your professional choices would always be easy, or obvious...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Questions Without Answers

It's Very Welcoming

So there's a lovely moment that hit my social feed today from Survey Monkey UK, as a small reminder to us that the British are Very Different Indeed. Or, at least, their adtech people are. Let's get into the details on this.

It turns out that only 12% of survey responders admit to having ads sway their purchase decision. Which leads Mansoor Malik, managing director UK of SurveyMonkey, to say: “Christmas is a great time of year, and we wouldn’t be a grinch that says brands shouldn’t contribute to the festive mood. However, we must be honest and recognise that if campaigns aren’t driving sales, they’re not meeting their core objective. Clearly, most brands today undergo expensive audience testing before running ads, but our findings suggest there are a few simple questions that still need to be answered by any brand before they commit to a campaign.”

While we're asking questions, I have a few to add.

1) Can we get the 12% that said yes to ads puppies? I feel that they would appreciate puppies, and take care of them.

2) Are survey respondents in the UK hooked up to lie detectors and electroshock inducers?

3) Is it illegal in the UK to lead the witness, so questions that obviously do it somehow, well, don't?

Surveys that ask questions like this are less than worthless, because, well, no one admits that they are so weak minded that all it took was an ad to get them to change their mind. Of course they said quality or price; those are tangible reasons that speak to intellect, and very few of us will admit otherwise, even to an anonymous survey.

What would have been a better question to ask? What parts of an advertising mix were remembered. Whether or not certain ad formats were better, or worse, at making a person think a product or service was worth spending more to acquire. If there was such a thing as hearing from an advertiser too often, so much that it kept you from making a purchase.

You know, questions that actually give us something close to an actionable move, other than just another pointless data point of how No One Likes Ads.

Because ads aren't meant to be liked. They are meant to sell stuff. And when you stop advertising? Generally, you stop selling as much. Kind of how this stuff works, really...

* * * * *

Feel free to comment, as well as like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the RFP boxes. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.