Archive for the ‘desire’ tag
Dating sites know that their product typically reveals to users that they don’t really know what they want in a partner, even when they can try to specify it with Sahara-level granularity. The sites’ wager is that these frustrating experiences, combined with a sense that there is nonetheless no “convenient” alternative to them, will lead to a willingness to instead trust what the sites’ algorithms tell us about who we should be interested in, based on the behavior it has recorded and the questions we’ve volunteered or refused to answer. This is how, at the level of the most basic yearning for human companionship, consumerism can potentially fuse with a neoliberalist ethos, eliciting a flexible consumer who can desire whatever’s required and accept that yearning as authentic. If that means hundreds of first dates, then so be it.
As unpalatable as that regime sounds, the online-dating sites and, as they hop on the social-discovery bandwagon, the social-media companies will continue to try to sell us on how much “control” online interactivity and filtering affords us, and how superior this is to the bad old days, when you had to rely on context and community to verify potential beaux. Slater seems impressed by this pitch, declaring that “the measure of power that [online connecting] abdicates to the user is unprecedented” and trumpeting the “choice and control provided by these revolutionary means.” But the only way to become empowered by this form of control is to accede to being controlled on a higher level. To capitalize on convenience and autonomy in a consumer marketplace, we must first allow our desires to be commodified and suppress the desires that don’t lend themselves to commodification. We have to permit more intrusive surveillance to enjoy the supposed benefits of customization. We have to buy into a quantity-over-quality ethos for aspects of life where it has never made any sense, like intimacy.
” Rob Horning, Single Servings
Rob Horning, Single Servings
I really liked what Jack White has to say in this short clip about how inspiration and a good work ethic “ride right next to each other” (and how on stage he likes to deliberately make things harder for himself because all those little things build a tension that forces you to create). It’s an important balance.
In Drive, Dan Pink drew on a plethora of scientific research to highlight the mismatch between what goes on in most businesses and what really motivates us as employees. High performance, satisfaction and motivation come from deeply human needs such as the desire to direct our own lives (autonomy), to learn, create and get better at something that matters (mastery), and to do what we do in the service of something bigger than ourselves (purpose).
Reading that it seems hard to believe how rarely these kinds of attributes are materialised in the expectations set by organisations for their employees. But somehow we seem to have forgotten them.
A key part of this, I think, is about creating space. I agree with Adam when he says that people who do great work in businesses often also tend to be doing great, creative things in their spare time, “and that the two sets of activities cross-inform each other”. But it’s easy for us to fall into the ‘busy trap’. Easy to prioritise all kinds of stuff over things that may have no immediate payback but which we somehow get a lot of value or meaning from. I’m as guilty of that as anyone else. Perhaps, as this HBR piece suggests, we are not so much in danger of falling into a ‘busy trap’, as a ‘meaning trap’. Dan Catt’s post about creativity and mild depression is an example of what can happen when things get out of kilter. That is in no way a comment on The Guardian, where Dan worked, but I suspect is something that is not uncommon amongst many different organisations. As Dan Pink noted, it’s also something which can effect not just our work lives, but our whole life.
HT to @Brainpicker for the link to the Jack White clip
Confession session: As WMT’s intern, I don’t have a degree in marketing. I don’t have any college degree in fact. I’m just a student who studies acting and works for Web Marketing Therapy. I never would have thought that my first internship would be working with “Wild Web Women”, my college buddies can’t claim that as a first job! So why should you be getting marketing tips from me? Because what I do know is acting, and if you think about it, acting and marketing have a lot in common. Both seek to convince the audience of something, be it “I’m sad” or “this product is useful.” Both seek to provoke a response in the audience, be it happiness, love, fear, desire, or desire to buy a product.
As an actor, here is what you need to know to be a good marketer – you need to not just set goals, but know how to set smart GOALS.
Knowing Your Goal
In acting it’s extremely important to know exactly what your character’s goal is in every scene. This helps inform all the other little things you do throughout the scene. Likewise you must know your goal in marketing. At first this seems rather obvious, “I want people to buy my product.” But let’s go back to acting for a minute.
As an actor your goal has to be specific and it has to be achievable within that particular scene. For example “make Molly fall in love with me” is a bad goal. It’s far too broad and it can’t really be measured in the other person. However, “have Molly agree to go on a date with me” is a great goal because it’s specific and doable within that scene. Now lets take it back to marketing. “Sell my product” is a bad goal. On the other hand, “Make the viewer be convinced that they need to own this product in order to be ‘cool’” is a great goal.
Why Apple’s Ads Kick Ass
Now lets look at some examples. Nowadays many advertisements are simply an amusing comedy skit with a product of some sort stuck into it. You’ve seen tons of ads like this on TV every night. This does help to get people thinking about that product, but it could do so much more. This is the kind of ad you get with a broad or poorly defined goal.
Now on the other hand, you have a company like Apple. Apple’s ad campaigns don’t just show off their products, they promote an entire lifestyle. Most notable we have the Mac vs PC ad campaign which suggests that those who use PCs are old and boring, while those who use Macs are young and hip. The goal here is something like “Make people feel that they are uncool if they don’t own our products and are very cool if they do.” It should also be noted that every little detail of everything Apple does goes towards this goal because they know exactly what it is (although they’d probably phrase it a bit differently). And boy does it work.
In acting, a good goal can be the difference between a powerful performance that touches your heart and a listless actor who reacts oddly and takes you out of the moment. In the world of marketing, a good goal can be the difference between spinning your wheels and being a huge commercial success. Here are the rules of a good acting goals.
Six Rules of a Good Acting/Marketing Goal
- It must begin and end in this scene. In other words, while you should have one overarching goal of your whole marketing plan, you should also have specific goals for each and every piece of that marketing plan (such as TV ads, email newsletter, blogs, blog posts, websites, etc). For example, if you run an ad campaign, that campaign gets its own goal that is self contained (even while serving your overall goal). The same goes for each ad within that campaign.
- It must be achievable within the scene. Each goal that you create should be achievable by that specific piece of marketing. The goal should be something you can have your audience do or feel right there and then, not some nebulous future event. Despite their tackiness, infomercials are a great example of doing this right. They gear their whole ads towards trying to get you to “CALL RIGHT NOW!!” which is a concrete objective achievable during the scene that is “viewer watching infomercial.”
- The success of the goal is measured in the other person. Your goal is never to do something. It is always to make the other person do something (or feel something). “Sell iPods” is a horrible goal. But, “Make the audience believe that they will be uncool if they don’t own an iPod” is a great goal. This goal is measured in the other person. It is also a goal that can be achieved right then and there while they’re viewing the TV ad, looking at the product, or whatever.
- Be specific. Lots of goals that would otherwise be great are simply too general. “Make the viewer want to buy my product” may seem like a great goal, but it’s way too general. If you’re having trouble figuring out a specific goal, ask yourself why people should want to buy your product. Will it make them feel sexier, should they feel uncool if they don’t buy it? Now you have a good specific goal, such as “Make the viewer think they will be sexier if they buy my product”.
- Keep it simple. In acting you usually have just one goal for any scene. All the different ways that you attempt to achieve that goal are called tactics. Don’t confuse tactics with your goal. For example, if your goal is to make the viewer think that they need a shirt from American Apparel in order to be sexy, then a tactic would be to show sexy people wearing shirts from American Apparel. Also, don’t think that extras that you add to a piece of marketing need to be part of your goal. For example, lets say I run an ad for a hybrid car. My goal for the ad is to make people think that people will like them more if they own a hybrid car. Now lets say I add my website address and a Facebook widget to the ad. That’s totally awesome and is good marketing, but I don’t need to include those extras in my goal.
- Double check your big picture. In acting, when you’re deciding what your goal for each scene is, it’s always important to consider what your character’s goal throughout the whole story is. Likewise, after you’ve come up with a new marketing idea, always take a minute to consider whether or not it serves your overall marketing goal and how it does so. Focused marketing is better marketing.
Knowing your goal is a fundamental part of any roll for an actor. Likewise, it should be a fundamental part of any marketing strategy. You may not win an Oscar, but you might just make a pile of money (or get a date).
Web Marketing Related Posts:
Web Marketing Related Posts:
A.I.D.A. (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) is een van de pijlers in het marketing denken. Generaties marketeers zijn geschoold in dit model. Alhoewel er in de loop der jaren veel verfijningen en aanpassingen zijn voorgesteld, omarmen velen het basisconcept nog steeds als ware het een geloofsartikel. Terecht? Lees meer
Apparently, other people were pondering the same question I was last week when I asserted that advertising can’t just be funny.
Now — a recent study is showing that funny doesn’t really sell well. One in five TV ads are funny, and Super Bowl ads are three times funnier than the rest.
But none of this makes much difference in selling stuff, according to new research by syndicated ad-testing firm Ace Metrix.
Funny ads do get more attention and are better liked. But Ace Metrix found funniness had little correlation with effectiveness in a scoring system that incorporates watchability, likability and persuasion among other factors.
In fact, funny ads were slightly less likely to increase desire or purchase intent than unfunny ones. Those same commercials were less likely to increase desire or intent to purchase than commercials that played it straight. In other words, funny ads are useful for entertaining viewers, but are not the most effective way for advertisers to convince those viewers to buy the product.
This study takes the first-ever large-scale, scientific look at the role of humor in video advertising. According to the study, entitled ‘Is Funny Enough?’, consumers found 20 percent of more than 6,500 TV ads that aired between January 1, 2011 and March 31, 2012, to be funny.
Consumers found ads from Doritos to be funnier than any other brand (6.4 times funnier than average), and Target to have more consistently funny ads than any other brand, with 85 ads above the Funny Index average.
So before you go for funny, ask yourself what your ultimate goal is. If it’s sales — perhaps you should consider a different avenue.
Photo courtesy of BigStockPhoto
You might also like
They’re not the same.
Risk is all around us. When we encounter potential points of failure, we’re face to face with risk. And nothing courts risk more than art, the desire to do something for the first time–to make a difference.
Fear is a natural reaction to risk. While risk is real and external, fear exists only in our imagination. Fear is the workout we give ourselves imagining what will happen if things don’t work out.
And worry? Worry is the hard work of actively (and mentally) working against the fear. Worry is our effort to imagine every possible way to avoid the outcome that is causing us fear, and failing that, to survive the thing that we fear if it comes to fruition.
If you’ve persuaded yourself that risk is sufficient cause for fear, and that fear is sufficient cause for worry, you’re in for some long nights and soon you’ll abandon your art out of exhaustion. On the other hand, you can choose to see the three as completely separate phenomena, and realize that it’s possible to have risk (a good thing) without delibilitating fear or its best friend, obsessive worry.
Separate first, eliminate false causation, then go ahead and do your best work.
I love a dessert…more than a starter….so when I am with someone who doesn’t order one, then grabs a spoon and digs in to mine….saying “You don’t mind if we share…well, i feel obliged to say of course not, whilst thinking…we are NOT sharing…you are TAKING”
I often sense that with how business sees social media. Saying your sharing isn’t the same as two people CHOOSING to share because both parties want to….
Sharing needs two sides with one connected aim
Sharing needs a desire to share an experience
Sharing needs an emotional element
The question a brand, a business, a personal brand needs to ask is this
Am I talking about sharing more than emotionally committing to sharing?
Frankly, I'm surprised it took so long for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority to sell advertising on the front of its iconic yellow MetroCards, especially considering the backs have been open for business for the past 17 years. "For those with a message and a desire to reach millions of people in a novel, attention-getting way, there is no better way to advertise," MTA chairman Joseph Lhota said last week in announcing the plan. Pricing isn't finalized—it costs $25,500 to run ads on the backs of 50,000 cards, and $450,000 for 2.5 million—and it's unclear when the first front-facing campaigns will appear. In simpler times, there might have been more outcry, but the ad-saturation train left the station long ago. The New York Times found a rider who groused, "The commercialization of humanity is destroying everything in the world … it would be nice to have public transportation separate from brainwashing." Still, the overwhelming majority of commenters seem to believe anything that might improve the subway system (ha!) and mitigate future rate hikes (ha ha!) is worth trying. So, expect the move to face token opposition at best.
Melissa Fach previously shared a great infographic on the public perception of personalized search here at SEJ. According to the data cited, 65% of search users are against the push towards personalized information in search results. Despite such a strong desire to limit Google intrusion into users’ privacy, only 38% of all respondents say they know how to do that. [...]
When you’re a creative in adveritising, you clearly have to believe that you alone have something unique to offer an agency or a client. We’re all trying to stand out. It’s an adaptation of something we’ve been preaching to businesses for years.
Can anyone stand out in a marketing world where everyone’s desire is to stand out?
It started with thinking that’s typical of Marketing 101: Everyone in advertising strived to make work that would “break through the clutter” or “cut through the noise” or “stand out in a sea of sameness.” But with so much marketing in the world, the problem is not that we want our work to be different. It’s just that when everyone screams, “look at me” all at the same time, no one gets the attention. And we’re all screaming in our own way.
But the desire to be special isn’t limited to the brands we work for. We’ve turned it on ourselves in the form of “personal branding.” It’s a cottage industry now, fueled by authors, bloggers, and marketers who preach the gospel of differentiation. At it’s core, it’s simply bragging, evolved. And it’s a game we all play.
It’s the subject of my new column on Talent Zoo.