Image: Courtesy of 25.media.tumblr

Every marketing and advertising initiative is based on a theory of human behavior and motivation. This theory is called radical behaviorism, developed by John Watson and B.F. Skinner. Skinner published his main work in the 50’s, at a time when advertising and marketing developed their theories. Human and animal behavior could be influenced by outside forces at will: the right ‘conditioning’ delivered by the right ’stimuli’. Based on this theory, marketers developed campaigns/initiatives that answered one question: How can we deliver the perfect stimuli to get a desired response?

While behavioral psychology continues to flourish, behaviorism is no longer a popular orientation or theory. But, the majority of marketers still seem to read Skinner and Watson at night, hoping to find the right stimuli, the holy grail of behaviorism. And, so they spend gazillions on brand associations, brand image refinements and other lost causes just to find that hidden treasure. Never to find it. If all our advertising and marketing is not about delivering stimuli, what is it about?

People-based values

In general, people buy products and services when they add value to their lives. The same is true for marketing: if it gives me any value, I will use that marketing. If it doesn’t, I will ignore it. Google text ads help me find things quicker, making my life easier. Result: A win for all stakeholders. Banner ads don’t enhance my Internet experience, they often devalue it. Result: Average CTRs of less than 0.1%

The behaviorist marketing theory only looks at the benefits and costs of the marketers. I would argue, we need to find ways to measure the costs and benefits for the people we market to. We need to align both stakeholder metrics and find new ways to measure real marketing effectiveness.

How about this? Next time you develop and plan a marketing campaign, just ask yourself: What is the value I’m delivering to people? At what cost do I deliver this value? What is the benefit-cost ration to people I want to communicate to? It will change your marketing dramatically.

You’re at a cocktail party, engaged in a conversation. Suddenly, you get interrupted by someone. He’s making an effort to take your attention away from your conversation. Since you’re polite person, you pay attention for a period of time, mildly annoyed and always the thought in mind: How can I get back to that initial conversation and make the intruder go away?

20 minutes later, you wander around, looking for new people to engage with. Interesting pieces of a conversation get your attention, an interesting social object people gather around, something worthwhile to give attention to. Slowly, you get drawn into the conversation, to be fully engaged within a few minutes.

There is a huge difference between taking away attention and giving attention. When we take away attention, it really doesn’t belong to us. We didn’t earn the attention, we just grabbed it. But when you give attention to something, it becomes part of our being. The attention was earned, thereby freely given, and this creates a feeling of belonging and ownership.

Bad marketing takes away attention. It uses every trick in the book to get my attention: Headlines, hidden ‘Close’ buttons, pop-ups increased volume when the show switches to advertising. Bad marketing knows it has to revert to these tricks to get any attention. It’s the kind of angry attention an annoying intruder deserves. Bad marketers have no other choice. That’s the only way to get in front of people. Bad marketing is based in fear. And everyone knows it. Bad marketers get really defensive when they are challenged.

Good marketing earns attention. It draws you in, it makes people give away their precious time to engage with the marketing product. It’s a story well told. It’s an insight revealed. Good marketing is based in confidence. Confidence that we don’t need cheap tricks to get your attention. Confidence that we will deliver a marketing product that adds value.

Bad or good marketing: Both get the attention they deserve.

All this talk about building connections between brands and people makes me wonder: Are people more removed from markets and brands than they were ever before? And because people feel this distance, have all of us become very needy, selfish and, yes, narcissistic?

Middle Seat? Why should I sit in a middle seat, why not the guy next to me?

Contracts? There’s always a way out of a contract.

Sold out? There’s always a way to get me a ticket.

This idea of an ‘Everyone but me’ economy is not limited to brand experiences, we can see it everywhere: Politics (Why should I pay more taxes when “they’ don’t pay enough?), Education (Why should my kid go to this school when I can find some tricks to get into a better much school district?)

What happens when everybody considers themselves to be an exception?

Sure, airlines can develop 5,451 different status levels, ensuring boarding will take at least 15 hours. We can develop more rankings, rewards and badges to celebrate our specialness. But, does this scale? Obviously not. Most importantly, as long as you don’t have the super-hyper-really-duper-special status, you don’t feel special. Moving from middle seat to a window seat is nice. But, why didn’t they move me to First Class? Why this other guy? The risk for brands to fall into the ‘Everyone but me’ reward trap is that nothing besides the super-premium product feels special.

Brand expectations are immensely high. We want an answer on Twitter in a few minutes, a discount or an upgrade for any inconvenience. Sure, brands have done a lot to foster this climate: Outsourcing customer-facing divisions, making it impossible to get a human response, creating mile-high expectations through marketing and delivering sub-par experiences. And, let’s not forget the constant bombardment of special deals, special treatment, ‘just for you’ offerings.

Instead, brands should focus on delivering superior product/service experiences to more people. The same superior experience to more people. In a perfect world, to everyone.

Of course, everyone but me.

Do me a favor: Watch this video. Trust me, it’s worth each of its 778 seconds.

You will hear fascinating stories about sodas (Sweet Blossom floral-sodas from Romania, made from real crushed rose petals, anyone?) You will learn that the CRV laws were made for the big soda companies, not for small shops. And, you will discover the golden past and the golden future of business: Providing value to customers. Value through great products, a passion for your products and industry that translates into memorable stories.

I’ve watched a lot of football yesterday. And even more commercials. I have problems remembering one.

But John Nese and his Galco’s Soda Pop Stop will be with me for a long time to come. Makes me think, all this talk about ‘media snacking’ might be just a lame excuse for poor content.

Or as John Nese says: “The important thing is to set yourself apart and provide your customers with something that nobody else has.”

P.S.: I live a few miles from the store, never visited it before. Guess what I’m doing this evening?