’

« Wednesday with Jens Hilgenstock | Main | Mike Myers on Canada »

Eugene Ionesco on ideologies

"Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together."

What comes first in your business: ideology or information? This is a tough one (or perhaps not). Your company culture and unique industry outlook are part of your collective consciousness. So what happens when information about your customers' desires conflict with your ideology? Or worse, when your customers' desires conflict with their own well-being?

Here are a few examples:

  1. Marketing "experts" advise us to treat customers with respect by asking them for permission to communicate with them, and then by not repeating, repeating, repeating with indistinguishable direct mail, email and phone calls. Instead we should make the product, service or event remarkable and they'll simply beat a path to our doors (or websites). But take a look around . . . at reality. Marketers continue to ignore that sage advice, because the information tells them otherwise. It tells them that if they ignore that little bit of marketing ideology, they can make their "numbers"  and . . . get this . . . customers will even come back for more.
  2. The same "experts" advise marketers to do what's in the best interest of potential customers. For example, restaurants should develop and market healthy meals. The only problem with that ideology is that customers don't want healthy meals. They simply think that they do. That's why marketers promote chicken on salads for lunch (Wendy's Homestyle Chicken Strips Salad, eaten with one pack of ranch dressing, contains a whopping 670 calories and 45 grams of fat. More than any burger on the menu). Or they simple say "b.s." and create the Enormous Omelet Sandwich, which features three bacon strips, a sausage patty, two eggs, two slices of cheese, and 730 calories!
  3. This is my personal favorite (because I'm enmeshed in it). Marketing experts continue to advise getting rid of the hype and, instead, providing more depth. For example, if you're running a business event or meeting, give people content. That's what they want: content and connections, which will help them improve their businesses and their lives. But the information says otherwise. That's why the highest fees go to the biggest celebrities, and not to the most insightful presenters. Don't believe me? Look it up. Halley Berry receives $100 -$500k for corporate appearances. Wal-Mart paid her six figures to appear at its 2004 shareholders meeting. Trying to get paid attendees to your next event? Who do you think will draw more people, the Desperate Housewives or Peter Senge? Be honest.
  4. And last, but not least, this sage piece of advise: tell the truth. Be authentic. It makes the best business sense. So riddle me this? Why has Kevin Trudeau's book of lies, Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know, sold nearly 6 million copies at $29.95 each? This from a guy who spent two years in prison for credit card fraud, and who recently settled a false advertising charge with the FTC for $2 million and is permanently banned from using infomercials to sell his products.

So what's my point? Am I advising you to dump ideology in favor of information? Never! Selling out will suck the passion from your veins. I'm simply asking a question. If we want corporate marketers to change their ideologies (and thus their approach to us as customers), doesn't the responsibility ultimately fall on us? As long as we help them achieve their goals (by responding to their offerings), shouldn't they continue on their ROI ways; especially in this age of relentless pressure on the bottom line? How about it? And you experts? Why should marketers listen to you, if they get better results by not listening to you? I look forward to your insights. And please . . . try to be a tiny bit pragmatic.

Posted November 10, 2005
Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d8345a88a069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Eugene Ionesco on ideologies:

» Is Permission Marketing A Flimsy Theory? from AdPulp
Tom Asacker makes some cogent points about wide gulph between what marketing experts recommend and what brand managers continue to do. Consultants and popular marketing bloggers alike (they're often one in the same) increasingly advise brand managers t... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 14, 2005 4:21:21 PM

» IDology vs ideology from Perspective
So what happens when information about your customers' desires conflict with your ideology? Or worse, when your customers' desires conflict with their own well-being?So sayeth Tom Asacker in a post I found through Evelyn's post today, and I was intrigued [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 12:34:19 AM

Comments

Tom:

First of all, brilliant assessment. I was having a similar conversation just yesterday around this whole phenomenon. Ideology versus truth is - and probably always will be - something that we have to deal with, both as consumers and as marketers or experts.

When you look at the human race on human development level, you notice that we all fall into one of several different worldviews, each containing different ideologies and different values. Spiral Dynamics is one of many theories that distinguishes and charaterizes these worldviews pretty extensively.

All of the wonderful (and very real) examples you mention, it seems to me, are merely the collision of worldviews.

One worldview is based upon facts, figures, measurement, etc. Many have classified this as the scientific worldview, and I think the reality is companies need to do what works for them within the context of their own values. And they'll only know what works through measurement and facts.

As an example, I think that's why you see big business taking it's time adopting blogging as a business tool. They need proof that it's viable and contributes to the bottom line.

The other worldview you point to is the worldview that's more social, choosing instead to focus on how people *should* be treated regardless of what the facts say. A great example is the many people who rail against advertising on blogs. They say it ruins the reader's experience, when the reality is some of the most popular blogs on the planet are filled with advertising.

I believe the pragmatic person looks at this reality and does the best they can to respect and integrate the two worldviews. We can listen to someone's ideology, and then check it against our own experience.

The problems happen, it seems, when we embrace an ideology without any sort of critical assessment relative to our goals, needs and values.

Said another way, a lot of us could stand a least a tad more skepticism and respectful debate between ideologies.

Of course, that's all coming from my particular worldview. Thanks for the conversation and sorry to ramble.

Best - Michael

Posted by: michael d. pollock | November 10, 2005 at 01:14 PM

Hello, Tom

I will try to answer to every point.

Example 1. It´s true that most companies still make use of very aggressive advertising techniques. That apparently means ideology and practice are not in sintony. I agree they keep doing it because marketers take advantage of it are find no interest in changing their practices. But i think the argument has a reversal point. Do they really work these techniques? You say they do attract people. In my personal experience it does not happen like that. I get bored when I am invaded by ads of products I never showed interest for.

Example 2. That can be a problem of public health. In my country hopefully we have a very important cullinary culture and mediterranean cooking is considered as a worthy value. We usually comment about America´s rate of fat people, something you cannot see here. If you don´t have that social atmosphere, there can be many solutions for that. One is the regulatory one. Legally limiting rates of healthy and unhealthy products. The other
would be for the brand to assume as a value of the brand to produce healthy products. If there´s a brand so wild that does not care for health and there are people stupid enough to buy it, and there´s a public power not interested in public health, you can do nothing else, I´m afraid.

Example 3. I think you are right on this. Whatever people say, public events are full of celebrities. In the field of personal brands, being famous is still a priority. What you can expect from those in charge of the events is their recognition that they are not interested in contents. Just admit you prefer watching Halley Berry´s perfect bottom than listening to Tom Asacker´s thoughtful speeches.

Example 4. I think you are absolutely right on this, too. I think the psychology of masses is not rational at all and people find satisfactions other than improving their situation or becoming the masters of their lives. I have just written about authenticity in one of my last posts:

http://felixgerena.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/the_transformat.html

Well, that´s what i can tell you.

Felix

Posted by: Felix Gerena | November 13, 2005 at 10:59 AM

Great points! Thank you Michael and Felix. These are certainly interesting times, aren't they?

Posted by: Tom Asacker | November 14, 2005 at 10:28 AM

Seems there are two (or more) parallel universes developing. One made of words, the other of actions.

From what I've gleaned from three years of blogging, most of the folks promoting this "new responsibility" believe in what they say and appear to practice it.

Unfortunately, they make up about 1,000 people in a population of 290 million. While they're loud, it appears they're talking mostly amongst themselves.

I tend to believe that they want to "will" their vision on the rest of the populace and hope to achieve it through viral means. After all, it isn't a bad vision (except perhaps for the pro-Starbucks POV).

The other 289,999,000 have so far declined to participate. To them, viral = Asian bird flu.

Thus we will continue to hear about the exploits of Jude Law and his nanny on the national news. And hey, what about that boycott of Aruba. Let's get those bastards.

Pass the chips.

Posted by: Rich Westerfield | November 15, 2005 at 05:59 PM

Well said, Tom.

As the implicated guilty expert, I'm not unaware of the pragmatic. In other words, what you're saying is true. Right now.

But it's the right now that's relevant. Organic food was a stupid idea twenty years ago. Selling cigarettes seemed a smart investment then too. And when I wrote Permission Marketing, the idea was largely unheard of, but it seems to be doing wonders for some.

In other words, I totally agree with you... but I wonder if organizations that want to grow might find a better future by following what appears to be a less pragmatic path... forgive me, I've got to go move my Prius...

Posted by: seth godin | November 15, 2005 at 09:40 PM

Thanks for the input Seth. And by no means am I finger pointing. If you felt that, remember that my other three fingers would be pointing right back at me.

I'm as guilty as any expert in advising organizations to focus on their customers' feelings as a strategic imperative. Not many following that sage advise either.

Posted by: Tom Asacker | November 16, 2005 at 10:19 AM

What if we threw ideology AND information out? I think people want the messy unpredicable drama and comedy of theater, of literature.

"Politics seeks to reduce everything to its simplest, most sensationalist components. Literature pulls against that. It's chaos, ambivalence, uncertainty. It's emotion, psychology, motivation, shadings of meanings," says Diana Ubu-Jaber, author of The Language of Baklava.

You can sub ideology for politics.

Senge is dull, dull, dull. Once recommended to read The Fifth Discipline - couldn't get past the first two chapters. Senge against Desperate Housewives -- too easy. It gets a least to be a bit of a contest pitted say against Oprah or Steve Jobs.

Some of the most popular books of late are Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, Tuesdays with Morrie, and The Purpose Driven Life - all have depth to them.

"What I want most of all is resonance, something that will linger for a little while in Constant Reader's mind (and heart) after he or she has closed the book and put it on the shelf." - Stephen King

Saturday I walk into a session on volunteer vacations (a topic I am interested in). I was curious about the trend. Speaker starts on soapbox. Yada, yada, boomers feel guilty/responsible for their consumption and are now giving back. Spewing statistics begin...90% of the world's terrestrial biodiversity can be found on only 2% of the earth's surface. Yada yada.

I walked out. I used to be (emphasis on used to) an environmental activist. I can tell you why most 'green' marketing doesn't work. It's guilt-ridden. I love meeting and working with people around the world - but "responsiblity" ain't why I do it. I have never done anything because it was "good" for me. I have only done things because they were true for me.

Maybe we've mistaken the concept. Getting rid of the hype from marketing doesn't mean to bleach the soul from the company or product.

For instance I talk about authenticity, but do I DO it? (Recalling your post on Drucker.) I mean do it myself. My life is full of twists and turns and well really the stuff of theater. I back away from talking about that. Precisely because it's emotion, ambivalence, uncertainty, psychology, motivations, shadings of meanings....hmm.

Posted by: Evelyn Rodriguez | November 16, 2005 at 06:49 PM

Now THAT felt like an authentic Evelyn. Why? Because one could sense your hesitation to reveal your ambivalence re: yourself! Thank you for that.

Posted by: Tom Asacker | November 17, 2005 at 06:16 PM

Post a comment