October 20, 2014

The Duality Of Consumer Behavior

Today we begin a 3-part series that will attempt to develop a "theory of everything" for advertising. Okay, maybe not a "theory of everything", but...a theory, anyway. Or maybe it will be just another load of bullshit. Who the hell knows? After 7 1/2 years of writing this blog, I think I've finally figured out what the hell I'm trying to say. It's going to get a little heavy on hypotheses and philosophy, so buckle-up and hang on tight.

As we sit here today, we have two competing models of consumer behavior.

The first model suggests that consumer behavior is basically logical. This theory asserts that people behave rationally and do not throw their money away on stupid crap. There is a lot of persuasive evidence for this model. A good example is in retailing. Retailers know that they can stimulate sales by lowering prices, offering discounts, and utilizing other types of promotional activities. This is clear evidence for a rational basis to consumer behavior.

The second model asserts that consumer behavior is essentially irrational. This theory, brilliantly demonstrated by Daniel Kahneman, holds that people are not really aware of their motivations and are ruled by emotions. The evidence for this model is equally persuasive. In this space, I have previously related the story of the Toyota Corolla that was the exact same vehicle as the Chevy Geo Prism, cost $1,500 more, and outsold it 3 to 1.

So we are faced with a problem. We have contradictory models of consumer behavior that both seem to be valid. Either there is another model which we cannot see underlying them both, or we need a more comprehensive explanation that unifies the two.

In quantum physics an elementary particle can be understood as either a particle or a wave. I am going to suggest that in marketing consumer behavior also has a dual character.

Also in quantum physics there are no certainties -- just probabilities and likelihoods. I am going to suggest that in marketing, advertising, and media our strategies have no inevitability about them. Just probabilities and likelihoods.

On the nature of light, Einstein said:
"We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".
Another type of duality is described in the uncertainty principle which posits that you can know a particle's position or its velocity, but you can't simultaneously know both.

I believe this type of duality and uncertainty is true in advertising and marketing as well.
  • Under certain circumstances, a brand can be described as having a powerful effect on a consumer. And in certain circumstances it may have little to no effect.
  • The same person may buy a brand whose advertising she likes, as well as a brand whose advertising annoys her.
  • The same person may buy products that are clearly differentiated, and products that are generic.
  • The same person may buy products that are exceptionally good values, and some that are hideously overpriced.
This is not unusual. This duality is typical of consumer behavior.

In other words, there is an inherent contradictory duality that confounds us and mocks our most cherished beliefs about consumer behavior.

I'm going to invent an obnoxious term here, but it's necessary to communicate what I'm trying to say. The term is "behavior-plasticity."
  • A customer may behave as if she is strongly attached to a brand, but she can also be easily detached from it. It seems contradictory, but my experience tells me it's true.
  • A customer who seems to be perfectly targeted by a media type, may turn out to be completely immune to it.
  • In the same product category, an emotional message or a logical message may be equally effective, or equally ineffective.
The point is that because of the duality of consumer behavior, people who think they can describe it as either this or that are wrong.

"Behavior-plasticity" -- or the duality of consumer behavior -- is the most mysterious and confusing element of marketing. It is the one factor that marketing people continuously misunderstand in their struggle to describe and predict consumer behavior.

Believing in the orthodoxy of one marketing philosophy, one media philosophy, or one creative philosophy is a trap that disguises the mysterious and fascinating real-world behavior of consumers.

Human beings are both particles and waves. Their behavior can be described in ways that are contradictory, but equally true.

I know what you're thinking...
" ...Okay, Mr. Big Shot, so now you have me all fucking confused with all this uncertainty crapola. So what the hell are we supposed to do?"  Well, stay tuned for our next two exciting episodes and all will be revealed.

Big thanks to Maria Winston for the germ of this idea. 

October 15, 2014

Amazing Tale Of Online Ad Fraud

There ain't much fun left in the ol' ad business. Thank goodness we can still get a good laugh out of watching advertising dimwits get royally sodomized by the crooks in the online ad industry.

If you're as entertained as I am by the astounding dumbness of online advertisers, and amused by watching them piss away billions of dollars, you're going to love this story.

MediaPost ran a piece yesterday in which a video appeared that claimed that just one reasonably sized bot-net could be responsible for one billion fraudulent ad impressions every day.

This is just too good to be true.

It must also be said that the video was produced by a company that sells ad fraud protection, so they are not a disinterested party.

But if this is even close to true, it is beyond mind-boggling.

I am reluctant to post the video because it is clearly a commercial for the company in question. But it gives us such a lovely picture of how clueless online advertisers are being screwed that, on balance, I'm going to post it.

Online ad fraud is completely out of control and, incredibly, no one is taking it seriously.

I can see why ad agencies and online producers and ad networks aren't taking it seriously -- they're cleaning up. But how fucking dumb can the idiot clients who are flushing billions of dollars down the digitoilet be? I guess the answer is astoundingly fucking dumb.

Earlier this week, in a piece about digital ad fraud Rance Crain, president and editor-in-chief of Ad Age (who wisely referenced yours truly) had this to say...
"...marketers are in the most denial...despite the overwhelming evidence that there is massive fraud in the digital marketplace....It's gotten so out of control that ad trade associations are stepping in to save marketers from themselves."
Of course, no one wants to kill the golden goose. Everyone's making too much money. As Crain says...
"But why change? Fraud pumps up publishers' traffic, exchanges get paid a percentage for trading it -- the more clicks the better -- and agencies can bring those great results to clients."
This will never change as long as brain-dead advertisers keep feeding the fraud machine.

The really fabulous thing about all this is that advertisers are not just getting passively penetrated, they are insisting that agencies give it to them deeper and harder. They can't get enough of this stuff. "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

As I wrote here over a year ago...
Not only are marketers ignoring the awful truth about the ineffectiveness of online advertising, they are turning a blind eye to the fact that they are being skinned alive by crooks and their willfully corrupt accomplices in the ad world...Fortunately for the thieves, charlatans, and hustlers, nobody seems to give a shit.
It is a truly amazing story.

Thanks to Dave Kissel for the link.

October 13, 2014

The First Rule Of Social Media

Like most companies, you are probably spending time, energy, and money trying to become a social media success.

You have been told that it is an inexpensive route to business prosperity and that if you can get it right, you can build waves of loyal customers and years of smooth sailing through the roiling waters of marketing and advertising.

You've read about the millions of followers this brand or that person has and you think that if you can create some "compelling content" you, too, will be a social media winner.

I'm afraid I have bad news.

It doesn't matter how "compelling" or "engaging" your "content" is, for the most part it's likely that nobody gives a shit about you.

The first rule of social media is this:

People on line are interested in the same things they are interested in off line.

They are interested in celebrities, sports, movies, pop music, television, their hobbies, and their friends. It is highly likely that they are not interested in you.

They are not interested in frozen chicken strips or dishwashing liquid or floor wax or pencils or salt. They are not interested in toasters or light bulbs or umbrellas or mayonnaise or paper clips or toothpaste or soap. In fact, they have very little interest in most of the stuff they buy every week.

Consequently, if you are in the 97% of product categories (made-up number alert) that are not interesting off line, you will have a strong tendency to remain not interesting on line. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

The thing you need to keep in mind is that every company, organization, dry cleaner, cub scout pack, sorority house, interest group, charity, alumni association, and poker game now has a social media presence. There are a billion of 'em.

If you are not in movies, sports, TV, and music, or if you are not a "prom queen" brand (Apple, Nike, Coke or one of the other brands that have spent billions of dollars establishing themselves with traditional advertising) the probability of your social media program being powerfully effective is quite low.

This is why social media continues to struggle as a sales builder.

Yes, it is true that some unsexy companies sometimes break through on social media. And it's also true that some people win the lottery.

But buying a lottery ticket is a very dubious business strategy.