The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low Trust World

The first thing about Seth Godin’s All Marketers Are Liars that you need to know is that marketers aren’t really liars. He explains that marketers are storytellers and it’s really the consumer that lies to themselves. We pick a story, latch on to it, and our loyalty is theirs. He even argues recycling is a myth; a lie we like to believe. We don’t recycle because it saves money – it’s actually more expensive. We recycle because it makes us feel better.

How about driving an SUV? Come on, we all know they are unsafe gas guzzlers but hell, they make us feel good. They’re certainly cooler than the more fuel efficient minivan. You’d think that with such an expensive decision we’d want to be logical, but we’re not. The problem is that minivans tell a story and as Godin argues, part of that story is that moms are taxi drivers shuttling their kids around to soccer games and dance classes. No mom wants that kind of image attached to her. They want to be cool in their SUV.

Think of the restaurants you like. Why do you like them? Restaurants aren’t about the food but rather, the atmosphere – the feeling we receive when we look around, admire the decor and interact with the friendly and charming staff.

Seth tells the reader of one of his friends, a successful real estate agent. What makes him successful is the way in which he sells a story. He explains how the agent takes a couple for a drive around the neighborhood and takes the opportunity to educate them about the detailed lives of their would-be neighbors.  By describing the people that live nearby the couple thinks far beyond the physical house and is sold on a complete story – the story of an active, friendly, and diverse community. The key is not that the agent lies to the couple, because although marketing involves telling a story, that doesn’t mean the story is false. In fact, Godin stresses that it is imperative that the story being told is authentic.

At one point he illustrates authenticity in his own book. He asks, what if this book was actually written by his assistant based on a 3 page outline? Would you be as interested in it? After all, it’s the same words. What does the author matter? The answer: everything. The author’s credibility, the name  and story of Seth Godin, is really what sold this book.

Telling a story isn’t an easy task. Godin lets us know that a good story should be subtle – if the slogan for Fox News wasn’t ‘Fair and Balanced’ but instead ‘News for Conservatives’ they probably wouldn’t receive the ratings they do. It should appeal to the senses and not logic (Martin Lindstrom argues this well using his idea of sensory branding in Buyology). This is why the stories told by news agencies are sensationalized and not factual – think of news as being marketed just like any other product. The story should cater to a niche audience and represent an existing worldview that has not yet been tapped into. Marketers don’t create worldviews, they pick one, frame it in such a way that appeals to those that share this worldview and most importantly, they must genuinely embrace it.

Think about these worldviews:

“I believe a home-cooked meal is better for my family.”

“I believe sushi tastes better if the chef is Japanese.”

“Organic food is better.”

A successful story is the Toyato Prius. The Prius endorses a worldview allowing consumers to believe that they are smart (whether they actually are or not) just like the smart features the car offers (the car offers intelligent parking assist, a smart key and other nifty tricks). The story was the foundation but the product was the reality. Essentially, the engineers made the story come true by actually making a smart car. What can we take from this? Transforming the story into an authentic product is the winning combination.

Another story that stuck with me was of a company selling glamorous wine glasses. The company brags that drinking wine in their type of glass actually enhances the taste and experience of wine drinking. Crazy? Apparently not. Placebo or not, people buy it.

Godin argues that people like things that are new and that first impressions are critical as consumers tend to make snap judgments when confronted with an overwhelming amount of choices (Malcolm Gladwell talks about this process in his book Blink).

It is important to understand that marketers aren’t the only storytellers but that consumers too join the fun – they take a major role in telling the story to their friends and help spread the word (again, this is something Gladwell talks about in his book The Tipping Point in reference to agents of change). This is what we can refer to as word of mouth marketing.

Back to big lies: “Who said granola bars are healthy?” asks Godin. Think about it: granola bars are often covered in honey, chocolate and other sugary treats. They’re far from being healthy but the story they sell is enough for us to believe otherwise (Quaker Dark chocolate and Raspberry Almond… mmm).

As my final note, I’ve come to the realization that I have actually lied to myself when reading this book. Why am I even blogging about it? Frankly, it’s not because the book was that informative or even that entertaining to read. The truth is I thought the book was, for the most part, glorified common sense and at times very redundant. All said and done, I bought the book because I had heard the buzz about Seth Godin. I mean, thank goodness it actually was written by him and not his assistant… kidding. Or am I? In all honesty, I had bought into the story that I was being told about him and I wanted to like the book before even reading the first sentence. I had been told he was a wise marketing guru and I wanted to hear more. I guess in some way though, confirming this very idea has taught me something and for that reason I am pleased to have read this book.

Filed under: Literature
1 Comment »

Back To Top

Selling well over 3 million copies since it was published in 2005, Stephen Levitt and Stephen Dubner have written one of today’s most interesting non fiction books, Freakonomics. As the title suggests, the book delivers a commentary on some rather eclectic economic issues, all while indulging in admittedly random and obscure topics: anything from abortion, to Sumo wrestlers, to the KKK. It’s core thesis lies in one idea: actions are dependent on incentives. With that in mind, I’m sure you can understand the relevance this would have in a world where people are told what to do using the all-encompassing media that is streamed into our daily lives. If anything, this is a book that can help us understand why things are the way they are and why people do the things they do. I am a fan of any kind of media that can help the public understand the subtleties of economics, culture, social practices and so on, so this sat well with me.

I’d like to mention a few examples they explore to give you a taste of how this book works, and more generally, how it can help you think differently. Most importantly, as they reiterate several times, what you’ll learn is how to ask the right questions (they explain that this is the fundamental step in realizing truth).

The first is something that Malcolm Gladwell talks about in The Tipping Point, and that is the decrease in crime rate in New York during the early nineties. While Gladwell argues it was because of the city’s initiative in cleaning up the Subway’s grafitti, the Stephens’ argue that it is because of something much less obvious. They reason that the crime drop was a cause of the legalization of abortion in the seventies. How does that work? It is said that children who grow up in single mother families are typically more inclined to commit crime (those that may have been aborted but were not because of law), and so, without unwanted children being born due to abortion being legal, there were simply less criminals twenty years later. Does that make sense? Do you believe that? It’s definitely a theory worth entertaining.

The second example I’ll mention is how Levitt and Dubner compare teachers with Sumo wrestlers. Essentially, the two groups, when put under pressure, can be dishonest and act in the interest of themselves. The US implemented something called high-stakes testing (namely in Chicago but across the country as well) in which school children were tested on basic lessons that the government deemed necessary. If the children scored less than par, that teacher was penalized and in some cases, fired. That’s a lot of pressure for a teacher, and so it only makes sense that the data analyzed shows true to the hypothesis: teachers cheated by either filling in the children’s test sheets themselves after the test was taken or by telling the children the answers. What’s worse is that teachers were given financial bonuses if the class scored really well, making for an even bigger incentive for teachers to ensure their class scored favorably.

Likewise, Sumo wrestlers have sometimes cheated when put in competition, particularly, in their last round of an eight round series. In some cases, the last round determines whether a Sumo wrestler is to be in an elite group of wrestlers or the not-so-elite group. The not-so-elite group is in charge of caring for the elites, and that includes feeding and bathing them. Without going into too much detail of how the tournament works, what you need to know is that, to avoid being tossed in the lower group, wrestlers would exchange fights; one wrestler would let the other wrestler whose fate is being determined by that last round win in exchange for a win at a later date when it meant the difference to him. I know that is a bit confusing, but understand that wrestlers take a dive to ensure a certain status.

So there you have it: personal incentives have significant impact on the ‘not-so-natural’ course of life. The authors also mention how this works in relation to funeral directors, car salesmen, comparative life insurance websites, and real-estate agents. I’ll let your imagination do the work on those ones (unless you decide to read the book, which I highly recommend doing).

I’d like to give you some points that Dubner and Levitt cover to give you the juice efficiently as possible. After all, with a book as random and varied as this one, it’s a good idea to get a lot out there. Ponder these:

• The KKK was in large part disbanded because of media: their secretive handshakes, codenames, and locations of cross burnings were disseminated across the air waves via radio bringing their destruction into the open and their menacing ways to an end.

• Just as nylons replaced expensive silk stockings, watered down crack replaced the glorious cocaine bringing class to the mass. Crack was in such high demand that it’s system developed a similar structure to that of McDonalds (think hierarchy and the corporate ladder).

• In 1966 the Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania ban abortion to enhance the Communist regime and develop a nation built on the working class. He was eventually put to rest by youth protestors – the very children he allowed, or as some would see it, forced to be born. That’s some irony.

I think you have a good idea of how random this book is and how clever the authors are in contending conventional wisdom. It’s worth the twenty something dollars (or less if you can find it on sale) to get a sense of how ‘rogue economists’ think. For those that have short attention spans, it reads well because of it’s spontaneous diversity. My only criticism is that it spends too much time on the idea that crime was dropped in the nineties but if that dilemma tickles your fancy, then you’re in for a real treat. It’s worth mentioning that I’ve read several books that were published sometime between 2000 and present day that all have different takes on this ‘tipping point’ of New York city crime, so it may be good to learn the arguments for sake of cocktail chat, if that’s your thing of course. If you’re not into reading print these days, then you’re in luck, because the theories extend online at their blog.

Filed under: Literature
4 Comments »

Back To Top

Media is responsible for the dissemination of information. It is responsible for spreading ideas. This is achieved through marketing and this is why I thought it would be a good idea to talk a little about Malcolm Gladwell’s, The Tipping Point.

It seems to me that I am a little late finding out about Malcolm Gladwell although, at this point, I have now read all three of his books and am currently on his fourth. Normally I’d feel left out, but in this case, my timing is rather amusing and actually, scarily ironic. Let me explain: in order for people to be familiar with his books, that is, for them to gain mass popularity, be put on the shelves of the Chapters and Indigo “Hot Selling” table at the front of the store and have critics all over the world give it the time and praise it deserves, it needed to surpass what Gladwell calls, The Tipping Point, the subject of his first book, and quite appropriately, the title of it too.

The Tipping Point refers to the moment when something goes from nothing to something. Something big. And in terms of marketing, for instance, we’re talking mainstream. Essentially, Gladwell discusses how trends start; how products, ideas, movements, or anything else capable of going viral, become popular and widespread. He makes several arguments to prove his theory using outside research as well as some of his own research as evidence, which is all very convincing. His theory is composed of a handful of requirements, which, when combined, form the criteria for a successful trend.

Gladwell claims that trends are made possible by a select group of special people, as he describes his first principle as the “the law of the few.” These “agents of change” come in three types. The first are the Connectors, those “with a special gift for bringing the world together” (basically, those who know everyone; those who are often friendly, sociable, good at making eye contact, and who always shake hands when meeting someone for the first time). The second are Mavens who are information specialists who share specialized information with the rest of us, while the third are Salesmen, those who persuade the public of certain ideas and that can negotiate and convince those around them.

Gladwell mentions how people like these helped Hushpuppies and Airwalks transform off the streets into mainstream culture. He notes that Airwalks, in particular, made the mistake of saturation: by putting their shoes in larger stores and making them more widely available to the public, people began to see them as “uncool” and after years of success, the company’s once niche product became a lost cause. No longer were people interested in shoes that anyone could get at any WalMart or Zellers. As I understand it, the age of customization came into effect and having generic skate shoes just wouldn’t cut it on the streets.

His second principle is “the stickiness factor,” how memorable something is. As one example, Gladwell examines how the researchers behind the hit television show, Sesame Street, were able to study children’s eye movement patterns in association with characters and events, proving some scenes more memorable than others and in a show aimed at educating children, this is a crucial factor to it’s success.

He counters this study with a newer television show, Blues Clues, and explains, among other reasons, that because it was much simpler, with less characters, more obvious, and that it ran one episode every week, several times a week on repeat, it was able to become much “stickier.” What can we take from this? Repetition counts for something.

Gladwell’s third and last principle is “the power of context,” in which he explains how human behavior is dependent on the environment. One example, which may be hard to believe (and has received some criticism), is how, in the early nineties, by cleaning up the New York subway system and ridding of it’s subway graffiti, New York was able to drastically drop it’s crime rate.  What makes the link between subway graffiti and overall crime so significant? Well, this is because, as Gladwell argues, less graffiti on the subway meant that people were less inclined to commit crimes all together. In other words, the graffiti on the subway was a signifier – a sign that let potential criminals know that they were able to get away with whatever crime they wanted (this should ring a bell for anyone who has studied Ferdinand de Saussure and any kind of linguistics). By cleaning the graffiti off the subway cars, that sign was taken away, and thus people did not think New York was as bad as it was, and therefore, potential criminals felt as though they were more likely to be caught. Moral of the story: one small change can lead to something big.

Filed under: Literature
6 Comments »

Back To Top

I often judge books by their covers, which is why I picked up Martin Lindstrom’s Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy. It’s kind of funny because the book claims to teach us why we buy the things we buy. Naturally, I was interested to see why I had picked up the book, what attracted me to it, and ultimately, what made me purchase it. Even after reading it, I’m not entirely sure why I did, because that’s just it, we don’t always know why we buy what we buy.

Lindstrom introduces the reader to something called neuromarketing: analyzing brain patterns to determine how successful a brand is. He uses neuromarketing to conduct a study with some doctors using fMRI and SST scans to measure what goes on in our heads when we see commercials, logos, radio spots and similar advertising. Throughout the book he constantly reminds us that this is the largest study of it’s kind ever. After all, it took three years and attracted seven investors to pay for it all. He must really think it’s important, and I agree, it is.

His first order of business is answering his question: Why do we buy the things we buy? A big part of it, he argues, is because of something called mirror neurons – things in our brain that stimulate in the same way as when we perform action as when we observe that action. As Lindstrom puts it, “In short, it’s as though seeing and doing are one and the same.” Think about how when someone yawns, you yawn too. It’s a lot like that, but with products, celebrity endorsements, commercials and more. It’s essentially an explanation of trends. People mimic others, whether they know it or not. Don’t believe me? You shouldn’t, and that’s something else Lindstrom talks about: it’s often the case that people don’t say what they mean, even to themselves. In other words, even if you truly believe something is the cause of one reason, there is probably some other hidden reason that your brain can tell us, that even you didn’t know about. Where does that make of market research – all of those surveys, online polls, and questionnaires that companies rely on for the truth? Well, as Lindstrom argues, these practices are becoming outdated and are not all that useful anymore. In that sense, advertising is a real gamble.

He goes on to contend traditional practices such as the concentrated use of logos, product placement, subliminal messages, and the idea that sex sells. He argues that a logo, generally seen as the most important component of a brand, is trumped by what he calls (and has even trademarked), “sensory branding” – using smells, tastes, and feels to sell a product, rather than a visual icon. One example is that new car smell we all know and love. It turns out that it comes from an aerosol can (like many other commercial aromas). How about that cold wash of breeze you receive when you enter WalMart or any other super centre? You guessed it. There’s a reason for that too – so that you feel cool, refreshed and comfortable enough to buy things you probably don’t need.

In regards to selling sex, Lindstrom concludes that sex only sells sex and not the product being associated with it. That is a very compelling argument but according to his study using his brain scans, it’s true. Related to this is his study on smoking. In Canada, packages of cigarettes have images of cancerous body parts, which are meant to deter people from smoking. Again, according to the brain scans, these images actually do the opposite. They stimulate the part of our brain that encourages a craving. Consider those millions of dollars spent on anti-smoking campaigns all over the world, and all of it could potentially be boosting the tobacco industry’s market share.

Have you ever considered the amount of advertising done by the tobacco industry? Lindstrom talks of how Marlboro pays clubs and venues to furnish and design the space in their favour. They make the walls red, the couches cylinder shaped, and so on, and before you know it, you’re sitting in a club thinking “wow, I could use a smoke… a Marlboro.” Scary? Perhaps, but we have to admire their ingenuity.

He also talks of the parallels between religion and branding, such as marketing the idea of mystery. Do you know what a Sony Trinitron is? No, and neither does Sony. It’s a mystery but it sounds technical and we like that.

Similarly, he talks about how advertising incorporates rituals and superstitions. For instance, the practice of putting a lime in a Corona or waiting those precious seconds for a full pint of Guinness to set. These things happened naturally. Some bartender once put a lime in a Corona and it caught on, and thus, the company capitalized on the idea. People used to hate waiting for a Guinness to be poured. It was too slow. As clever as they are, Guinness used their fault and flipped it upside down. They marketed the slow pour as something that made Guinness special with slogans like “Good things come to those who wait.”

Anything else and I’d spoil the fun of reading the book for yourself.

Filed under: Literature
8 Comments »

Back To Top