I have a hypothesis that I tend to look at clocks when there is a pattern present. It always reads things like 11:11, 12:34, or 5:55. Happens all the time. I’ve told my wife this several times. And every time I do… she tells me I am crazy. Instead, she thinks I look at the clock all the time but only remember—or point out—the times that a pattern is present. This follows the same logic as people thinking they always chose the slowest line in the grocery store.
Neither of these things reflect reality. These are examples of perception bias.
If you think honestly—really honestly—about how many times you are in line (at the grocery, fast-food restaurant, gate at the ballpark and so on) and how often it actually takes longer than anyone around you, the percentage simply isn’t that great. (This hasn’t stopped people from thinking they’re overwhelmed by Murphy’s Law and writing pointers on how to avoid it.)
So I have another hypothesis now that I’ve seen the light: People don’t hate marketing. (It’s become en vogue to say people do, but it’s not true.) People think they hate marketing because they are more apt to remember—and complain about—the times they are interrupted by marketing and advertisements that they don’t want want to hear.
The interesting thing about that new hypothesis is that experiments to prove it have already been done. A lot of them. Because people continue to be influenced by marketing and advertising, spending money on the things that they need and want. Whether they saw it on TV, heard about it on the radio, were told about a product by a friend, or learned about a brand on Facebook, they were influenced and happily took action.
The marketing that people hate is usually disruptive for one of the following reasons: A. Marketing in the wrong place – it’s the right message interrupting the wrong audience; or B. Not knowing your audience – it’s the wrong message interrupting the right audience. In either case, the disruptive nature of the ad is conspicuous and triggers the perception bias/negative association with marketing.
(There’s also: C. It’s the right message in front of the right audience… but there’s some other folks seeing it who don’t care for it, too. Don’t worry so much about this one. This can never be completely eliminated, and collateral hate usually doesn’t become detrimental…even though some companies tend to think it might and they over-react quickly.)
The companies that best influence are also the ones who know their customers best. They’ve figured out that marketing and advertising in the places that target customers frequent, in a tone that is most appealing to those same customers, works. They’ve achieved success by monitoring, researching and testing cleverly crafted messages. Then they can get the right content in front of the right people at the right time. A pretty novel approach, huh?
Pingback: Tweets that mention People don’t really hate marketing. | brand aperture -- Topsy.com
Some great points here especially the wrong message at the wrong time. After spending my entire career in marketing I’ve heard it from all sides. Of course when you try to get the “whiners” input they are usually too busy to help you craft the right message for your audience.
There is and will always be a bit of a hit and miss aspect to marketing. No matter how brilliant we think a campaign message is there is the possibility that it can miss the target. At that point is where we hear the loudest and most complaints.
I think what the most interesting aspect to marketing recently is the fact that it’s becoming more of a conversation with audiences. Traditional one-way advertising is only in place for brand awareness. But today’s new two-way channels are allowing marketing pros to test and refine before blasting to the masses and that’s a good thing.
Thanks for the comment, Brian!
No question, there will always be a hit-and-miss aspect to marketing. And even that can teach us different things about our efforts. (I.E. Did we miss the mark on what we thought was a new channel, or did we miss the mark on what we thought was the right message.) Monitoring for those instances, and understanding that (whether we’re in the A, B, or C category as listed in the post), are a first step in getting us squarely back in the un-hated marketing camp.
The conversational aspect…that’s right in line with the next post I’m working on. (Hopefully a sign of great minds thinking alike.)
Thanks again!
Great post John. As a consumer, I like to learn where I can get a message from what I want, not have random messages blasted at me. What disrupts me though, is learning where my data is being absorbed online to use in marketing without my knowledge. I’d love a relevant ad or piece of information, but let me opt-in instead of finding out you’re going behind my back.
Thanks for the comment, Jay.
You make a great point. The power we have now for opt-in (or permission based, inbound marketing, etc.) should make it much easier for advertisers/marketers to avoid being the hated ones.
It’s fairly easy, though, to get caught in that trap when thinking of the best way to make people aware of the opt-in option. (People have to find a company before they can opt-in for specific messages.) I think that’s where “going behind people’s backs” becomes what companies see as a viable option.
And that’s where I see research (open listening, monitoring, testing, etc.) playing a huge role. Understanding your target audience by asking — rather than clandestinely eaves-dropping or stealing) — can make it possible to reach your target, prompt them to opt-in, and move forward un-hated.
Again, thanks for your comment. Great food for thought.