Isabel Walcott Hilborn

Profiting from Insecurity

I've been reminded several times lately about a particular sickness in our marketing culture and figured it was time for a post.

Ad Age recently picked up on a study of college-age women that showed that ads showing skinny models gave them "more negative feelings about their sexual attractiveness, weight and physical condition than before". Nevertheless the participants said they were more likely to buy the products advertised with the  thin models than products advertised with more realistic-looking women.

It's clear that making someone feel bad about themselves, and then implying that they will feel better about themselves if they simply purchase this item, is an effective way to sell.  But it's gross, isn't it?

Research has shown that more than half of teenage girls think they should be on a diet, and "more than ten percent of adolescent girls and three percent of boys binge eat or purge at least once a week, according to a study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. (June 2008)" (http://www.anred.com/stats.html).

As more companies market clothing and bodycare products to men, body insecurities aren't limited to women anymore. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System showed that eating disorders among high school boys increased dramatically from 1995 to 2005 (http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/teen-boys-at-growing-risk-for-eating-disorders/hd-610226).

Our media's messages are unbelievably messed up about this topic.  At a relative's house over the weekend, I saw a so-called "women's" magazine cover displaying a close-up shot of a tantalizing dessert for a feature story on summer recipes.  The largest print on the cover, though, was the classic headline, "lose weight without dieting."  With mixed messages like that in our faces, we wonder why women binge and purge?

At the end of the weekend, I was thumbing through a hand-me down copy of Vogue and discovered that the only actual "article" in the magazine was a story about one woman's dissatisfaction with the skin in front of her armpits, and her search for a plastic surgeon who would either operate or prescribe firming lotions to fix her "problem".

I guess I just wish we could figure out a better way to earn and spend our money.  The talented Claire Mysko, former SmartGirl star editor in chief, director of the American Anorexia/Bulimia Association, and founder of Inside Beauty, certainly has.  She just published "You're Amazing! A No-Pressure Guide to Being Your Best Self", a book to help girls navigate adolescence.  Check out her book reading at Books of Wonder, 18 w. 18th St. in NYC, 6 pm on 8/6.

Google: Evil OK, in China

Cross-posted at the Supernova Conversation Hub:

Google is bringing the issue of protecting human rights at the cost of the company's market share to a shareholder vote - as reported by Joseph Hunkins at WebGuild.  The two proposals up for a vote are that Google would strictly control censorship and data sharing to protect human rights, and that Google would establish a Human Rights Committee to monitor these issues.  Google recommends no to both proposals, and they'll be able to point to the fact that their shareholders voted these proposals down as an excuse for not doing them.

The approach is an attempt to justify Google's capitulation to anti-democratic policy from countries like China - behavior that they've been called to task for engaging in because of their "do no evil" mantra.  The sad thing, to me, is that giving a question like this to shareholders: "Should we do the right thing even though it means making less money?" is giving it to the wrong party to decide.  Shareholders don't say no to profits. 

It's the users who should be asked, and the users who can decide to abandon the Google ship if they see objectionable, hypocritical behavior.  Insofar as a choice to deny human rights may alienate Google users, the stock prices could fall on a "no" vote -- but most of the time issues like human rights in far-away countries can't compete with great technology and brand.  An effective boycott is unlikely, a yes vote is unlikely.  Perhaps "do no evil" and "make money in China" are fundamentally incompatible.  Perhaps a mantra change to "do no evil except in countries led by repressive dictators" is in order?

Two Different Viewpoints

I really liked Chris Carfi's post yesterday.  David Cushman is in the market for a car and has used his blog to invite someone to sell him one.  Chris picked up on this and used it to write a little lesson about how businesses should think about marketing.

Chris' point: while companies are focusing on their viewpoint, customers are focused on theirs, and the two aren't really meshing.

My take on this is that in the past, customers probably had to flex a little bit and see things from the vendor's point of view, and vendors got spoiled and started, foolishly, to insist on this.  I relayed a story about a case like this, also involving a car sale, a few months ago.

These days, the balance has shifted to put the power into the hands of the customer.  This is what Cluetrain is all about.  So companies are focused on Selling; they Market because they have discovered it helps with sales; and they Support because they have to, it helps with sales, and it's an extra revenue stream.  End of story, right?

Wrong.  As Chris points out, these three functions are the flip side of what the customer is doing:
- Search (Marketing is supposed to reach the customer during this stage)
- Shop (Sales supposed to kick in here)
- Help (Support supposed to address this need)

Chris' view is that the vendors are in a "transactional mindset", and if they had a "relationship" with the customer they'd have David's business already.  The reason this is true is because if more companies saw the need to maintain a connection with their customers even when their customers weren't in the process of buying something, they'd have a good way to ask their customers for referrals. 

In particular, referrals could be incentivized - and although many businesses do this, many more that could do not.  If I could make $1K by reading David's blog and telling my auto dealer about him, I'd be on the phone to my dealer right now.  Or even if I weren't compensated - if I just had a friendship, or if I'd gotten a referral from that auto dealer for my business and owed him one.  There are lots of ways to build a relationship.

High-end, high-touch businesses do this as a matter of course, but thanks to the Internet (and no so incidentally tools like Chris Carfi's cerado, now everybody can do it.

Damning with False Praise

Maybe everyone is rebelling against the fact that it is, to quote a friend, "so slow it makes you say 'Damn!'".  Maybe they're furious about the built-in copyright protections.  Perhaps the marketplace just wasn't ready to update all their hardware to 2GB of memory.  Or maybe corporations are just tired of being held hostage by a monopolistic vendor.  Whatever the reason, people don't like Microsoft's new Vista operating system and their conversation is being overheard:

"For a limited time Lenovo is providing Windows XP Recovery CD media as a way to downgrade from Windows Vista. Lenovo customers that have Windows Vista Business or Windows Vista Ultimate "qualified systems" may purchase a Windows XP Recovery CD until July 31, 2008".

Yikes!  It doesn't get any worse than that!  Lenovo is also releasing brand-new ThinkPad laptops preloaded with Windows XP.  Hmm, Microsoft, where do you get your early adopters when you've alienated all your early adopters?

What's worse than this?  Lenovo advertising for Windows on their ecommerce site: "Lenovo Recommends Windows Vista Business".  If you don't recommend it, folks, then don't recommend it, OK?

(Via Slashdot via Russ Nelson).

It's a Community, Stupid!

Read my lips: Terrific post by Stuart Henshall.  Conference organizers need to learn how to leverage conference bloggers, and presenters can contribute.  PR firms should be the enablers.  Stuart tells us why and how.

My favorite quote out of many great thoughts here:

"You are managing a community, not a conference".  Conference organizers need to get this.

(via the FastForward Blog)

Google Gets Microsoft's Goat

Super interesting news from Google.  Remember a few days back when everyone was wondering why Google stepped back from the Facebook acquisition and let Microsoft buy it? Viewing it as a huge win for Microsoft?  And then Sergei Brin commented that Microsoft "may have overbid"?

Well, now that Facebook has successfully brought in those dollars, Google has announced that they have the killer app to compete with Facebook: OpenSocial.

Was it sweet of Google to wait to announce this until Microsoft was committed to Facebook?  If I were Ethan Zuckerman, I would probably think so.  Was it evil of Google to wait to announce this until Microsoft was committed to Facebook?  If I were Bill Gates, I would probably think so.  But in my opinion beating Microsoft at their own ultra-competitive game is not just good business but sweet justice.  Go Google Go!

Microsoft Goes Open Source!

Well, not exactly.  But everyone who remembers how heartily Microsoft criticized Open Source ("resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future","has inherent security risks", "fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector" etc.) can now revel in the recent announcement by Russ Nelson at the Open Source Initiative that Microsoft has really gotten on the Open Source bandwagon by getting their own Open Source licenses approved! 

Yet another convert to the cause -- and an important one.  (In a way, it's actually old news).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the Slashdot ranch that is), the restless natives complain that Microsoft, as the biggest hater of Open Source in the history of the concept, should not be allowed to participate in, "embrace and extinguish", co-opt, or otherwise join the Open Source movement. "ItsaTrap", proclaims one of the more mentionable tags labeling the post.

Look on the bright side folks.  It's not every day you hear Bill Gates say "I was wrong."

An Important Insight

"But today, goods and services are commodities. It's how you provide them that sets you apart."

- from Dov Seidman, in a Sept. 17th Ad Age article by Lenore Skenazy.

Who Is Your Common Enemy?

Have you ever noticed how having a common enemy brings people closer together?  I was daydreaming today (I learned the other day on the Daily Show that Einstein called this "Thought Experiments")and it occurred to me that if the US really messes things up in Iraq, maybe the Sunnis and the Shi'ites will join forces to kick us out of their country.  Were it to happen, we should define this as "victory" even though to some it may look like defeat.

Then I started thinking about how, if global warming got really bad, that the whole world would have to work together just to save our sorry selves from planetary death, and there would be no more war.  Then I thought how sweet it was of Al Gore to get the country focused on a uniting global mission, as opposed to a divisive one.

Then I got back to my desk and thought about how the "common enemy" tactic is used to create political alliances within companies, and it occurred to me how harmful it can be.  At many companies, the common enemy of the employees is management.  That's pretty sad.    But it may not be as harmful to the company as two other popular common enemies.

What's sadder is that often, the common enemy is change, which means the end of innovation.  People with new ideas come in and get shot down because of their differences, until they learn to speak the party line and get subsumed by the groupthink.  How many times have you heard someone say, "We've been doing it like this for 20 years, we wouldn't think of changing it now!".  Curious, that more employees don't say, "Let's look critically at this process through this new employee's eyes.  Does it still work for us given how our competitive environment/customer base/workforce/marketplace reputation has changed?"

Even worse than that is when the common enemy is the customer.  I kid you not, this happens at some corporations.  You hear otherwise-smart employees say things like "Those stupid users, they have no idea how to use our software" or "Our customers are crazy if they expect us to offer refunds for defective merchandise, don't they know we have better things to worry about?" or "we're going to shut down the complaint line, we just can't handle all the complaints".

I typed "common enemy closer together" into Google and got this interesting commentary  from a personal coach:

"Whenever a new element is introduced to the complex relational system (say a new manager in the workplace) the system (rest of the company) will realign itself so as to accommodate the element with a minimum of disturbance (business as usual). The effects of this phenomenon may be beneficial or malignant. A benefit may be that it disarms a maverick manager. Conversely however, it may frustrate and subvert new management ideas and processes."

The coach, drawing on family relationship theory credited to Murray Bowen, recommends openly airing and discussing anxieties created by the new element as a way to counteract stasis in the workplace.  There's an even simpler maxim that addresses the second problem: "The customer is always right".

What if the common enemy were the product, and the common goal of managers, employees and customers were to improve it?  Just a thought experiment...