Buddhist Marketer

Yanni McYawnerson, PhD

Recently, I’ve been jotting my to-do list down in a little notebook I purchased in Paris a few years ago.  Apparently, this was my notebook of choice for jotting down the questions that I’d wanted to explore in a doctoral program.  Good thing the various committees can spot an easily-bored mind from a mile away; sure, I’d like to read a paper that explores any of these questions, and probably I’d like to heckle someone delivering a lecture on these topics, but I sure as heck don’t want to be the one having to slave away and do the research myself.

Isn’t, like, primary work what right-shoring is for?

So, here are the topics that I am officially delegating to the universe of academic types.  I sure as heck ain’t gonna do it :)

• As t –> infinity, humans in society –> ?
• How have Marx‘ theories been borne out over time?
• Is there an ethos / value structure undergirding databases?  If so, what, & how?
• How have representations of self changed with the internet - and how have these influenced definitions of self?
• Marcuse, post internet?
• Why do we do what we do in an online environment — disappearance of third space — suburbanization
• What implications does the why of the internet have for public policy?
• What spaces need to exist online to better serve the public good?
• What social service needs once met via 3rd space are no longer & can be addressed using the internet?
• Prove the loss of info from walking around & its negative impacts
• What are the assumptions that underlie my proposed solutions (notes on education) (what am I assuming) (can I prove it)
• Has the internet been good or bad for society?  (How do we determine - )
• Should we be cavepeople?
• How should society arrange itself from a public $ gov’t standpoint given the internet
• Does the ethical framework that gave rise to democracy assume a non-internet universe?
• How should society be arranged given —

If you see a journal article out there that explores any of these topics, holler.

And if you’re giving a lecture on any of the above and need a heckler, you know who to call.

Marketing Is Still Marketing

Adam Benforado (who, as 0Y1, I will attempt to be gentle with in this post) recently posted “The Changing Face of Marketing?” at The Situationist.  In it, he reflects on a perceived shift in marketers’ lead messages as of late.  From his original post, “Corporate Influencea?” (upon which The Situationist post is based), he writes:

A clothing company, noted for its scantily-clad female models, now showing a burly worker in a backroom: “American Apparel is . . . jobs.”

What is going on? American Apparel—the American Apparel I know—is not jobs: it’s 80s hipness, youth, sex. Sure, it’s a progressive company—and one that has highlighted its stances on labor rights and immigration in the past—but where are the striped Lycra tights and uncannily thin scarves? More generally, corporate America, where have the products gone? The things that make women love me and men envy me; that satisfy my deepest desires; that sate my need for more, more, more?

After reviewing a few personal anecdotes (an examination of whether it’s safe to extrapolate from this sample set — which was likely formed from that lovely “panacea habit of mind” — is outside the scope of this post), Adam concludes:

Could this time be different? Could the new wave of advertisements reference a real shift in corporate behavior—a genuine and lasting response to public concerns? Maybe.

But maybe it’s just the best way to get nervous consumers to open their pocketbooks in a sick economy.

Now, this kind of cynicism about marketing is what motivated me to apply to doctoral programs in marketing to begin with.  There aren’t enough people in academia running their yaps who’ve actually experienced that which they run their yaps about.  A quick examination of Adam’s employment history and … um, yep, zero days as either a marketer or anything that even closely approximates being within spitting distance of actual marketers.

Here’s what I’m hearing from him:

1. Marketers these days are trying to be all “we’re responsible and good and stuff”!
2. But I’m used to them being all “buy some crap that’ll make your bod look bangin’”!
3. So their “responsible and good and stuff” claims are suspect!

And here’s what I have to say to that:

Dear Consumer, You Do It To Yourself, You Do, And That’s What Really Hurts

Here’s what’s up.  The big boo-boo in Benforado’s bloggin’ is this bozo bifurcation:

Could the new wave of advertisements reference a real shift in corporate behavior—a genuine and lasting response to public concerns?

A “genuine and lasting response to public concerns” is not a “shift in corporate behavior”!  Because, umm, what do marketers do?  What is the role of marketers?  Why do we exist?  To figure out what The People want… and then to give it to ‘em!

The role of a marketer is to genuinely obsess ourselves at all times with public concerns, and then respond accordingly!

So, a year ago, The People wanted Hot Sex On A Platter, and that’s what American Apparel served up.  But now, The Moody People consider that untoward.  A recent cartoon in The New Yorker captured this mood swing nicely: “I’m trying not to flaunt my employment, so I’m not carrying a briefcase these days.”  What do The People want today? They want to feel like the companies with whom they transact aren’t a bunch of greedy douchebaggy corporate welfare recipients.

Enter well-muscled factory worker, responsibly crankin’ out sexy thongs with his bad self.

So, here’s the deal:

• Marketers exist to figure out what will motivate humans to feel good about their products and services
• That which motivates humans is a dynamic system
• While “sex” once felt good, now “responsibility” feels good

To take a cue from my older sister, my protest chant would be:

What do marketers care about?  PUBLIC CONCERNS!

When do we care about it?  ALL THE TIME!

The fact remains that American Apparel has always cared about its workers.  Why do you think Dov Charney set up shop in downtown Los Angeles?  Why does he bother with projects like Legalize.LA and Legalize.Gay?  The cynics want to believe that he’s just out to get a quick buck.  I beg to differ; not only is owning your own production cycle close to point of sale — with no distribution intermediaries — a sound business approach, but it also reflects the passion with which Dov conducts the rest of his life.  Love him or hate him, the dude cares deeply about his products and his people.  If he wasn’t motivated by a deep passion and engagement for what it is that he does, he wouldn’t take the kinds of boundary-pushing risks that he takes every single day.

But does the public give a crap about any of this?  Negatorz. A year ago, all they wanted was to get laid.  Today, they want to tone it down and feel like they’re “voting with their wallets” and only transacting with “responsible companies”.

So marketers respond accordingly.  Fine, your public concern today is that of being touchy-feely?  Done.

But don’t blame the marketers when, a year from now, the public concern is how to get laid again.  We give ‘em what they want, we do, and I’m sorry if hearing that hurts.

Thinking:Marketing is brought to you by Anittah Patrick, principal of marketing strategy consulting firm CATEGORY:OTHER.

• Previously:  (Situational) Condescension Is A Moral Obligation
• Subscribe to the Thinking:Marketing email newsletter

Elizabeth Warren

… and all the other clowns that I’m watching on C-Span right now make me want to gouge my eyeballs out.

Oh how I loathe the in-love-with-self academic who hasn’t spent any real time in corporate America yet professes to have all the answers.

Don’t they realize that only one person has all the answers?