Social Networks and Brand Communities as an Extended Memotype

Most of us know the general mechanics of digital social networks and there is plenty of conversation about digital community types and ways to manage digital communities

Each version of what they are, how they should be constructed, how they should be managed is nevertheless based on some prior assumptions. Prior assumptions are invisible, frequently undeclared and more often than not 'taken for granted'

These assumptions guide the advice that people give and the actions they take. Marketing people might 'see' digital communities different from, sales people, lawyers might understand them differently to charity workers. I'd like to suggest that these differences start from memetic differences. The idea of an extended 'memotype' is inspired by Richard Dawkins who came up with the idea that that artifacts and effects of animals in the real world are the result of the genes in the animal. The example he gives is Beaver Dam. The beaver's genes want to live on, they exist in the phenotype we call 'Beaver' and the extended phenotype is the Beaver's dam which is something it make to support having a family. See:





Memes (Dawkins' idea) being culturally transmitted ideas, that enable notions to leap from brain brain, might consequently have extended 'memotypes'. These are 'forms' of digital communities that are created based on the dominance of the memes at work in the minds of the people who produce them.

We can therefore characterise digital communities by their memotype. We could create a customers base, a prospect list, a value segment, a lifestyle segment, a co-creation group, an experientially connected group.

Each of these conceptions (memotypes) is developed out of the difference in memes that make them up. The implication is that there might no singular right way to construct a digital community. Each form depends on the needs of the community and the environment. Some will prefer Ning, others Facebook. Each is a memotype with paticular characteristics that serve particular puropses. Their continued existence will depend on relevence and evolutionary adaptability.

Has Social Media Ever Changed Business Strategy?

I'm presently in a Social Media - So What? zone We're told that everybody's doing it and that if you're not doing it you seriously ought to consider doing it.

If you need to know the best way to do it then Scott Monty shows how the 'social-media book' industry has swung into overdrive to bombard us with the wisdom of gurus.

Not only that there are gurus telling us which gurus are the most guru-like. I guess this could be called Gurullia Marketing.

Authors and social media I get, Journalism and social media I get, knowledge collaboration I get, but where is the evidence of the direct influence of social media on the way organisations produce products and serve their customers?

Go on. Google it, google anything to do with the impact of Social Media on business strategy and you'll find nothing. You'll find lots about how its the 'new marketing paradigm'(puke), lot's about how to craft the right social media strategy itself, lots about how fantastic it is to listen in conversation and narratives and even...now hold onto your multi-media phones folks...'speak to other human beings!'.

But So What What happens with the accolades and the complaints? what happens with the deep semantic analysis of positive and negative sentiment. Where does it all go? What impact does it have? what changes are made as result?

No one can tell you. Check out academic journals too, there's nothing there!. Not a jot.

Millions of people are blogging and interacting and telling each other 'what' they do with their social media budgets. The really smart people simply spend their time advising others 'what' they should do with their social media budgets. The tools might have changed but has the nature of getting the business job done changed in any substantive sense at all?

Reporting hits, twits, and bits of info is simply that...a description of what 'is'. Where is the sense-making, where are the implications? Are there any implications? What, if anything, are people doing with all of this conversational data?

No one it seems can explain 'how' social media is changing what businesses do in any strategic sense. Have they got smarter? Have they got faster? Have they got smaller? Have they got bigger? Have they become more effective in any way shape or form?

Perhaps Social Media is simply that great big coffee machine in 'the cloud'. A place to idly pass the time chatting with others in an unproductive way at some other guy's expense.

Read More:
Amber Naslund of Altitude Branding take a look at who controls who.

Arsenal Fan Suicide - The Ultimate Expression of Brand Loyalty?

image credit Wigo











The unfortunate suicide of a Kenyan Arsenal Soccer Club Fanfollowing their defeat to Manchester United brings home the power of club loyalty and the strength of identity association with somebody's favourite team.

As the wonderful character and ex-Liverpool team manager Bill Shankly (dec) said.

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that.”

Garry Adamson, Warwick Jones, and Alan Tapp wrote a fascinating article in Database Marketing & Customer Strategy (2006 Vol 13,2) Titled From CRM to FRM: Applying CRM in the Football Industry.

In the article they remark that football fans have a 'perverse loyalty and fanaticism'. Extreme behaviour in relation to any brand not just a sports team is not unheard of. There is the example of the Gucci fanatic who had the company name tattooed on his neck, regretting the move when his fashion tastes changed and he fell out of love with the fashion house.

Adamson, Jones and Tapp, provide some interesting charactersiations of 'fan types'

The temporary fan
The local fan
The devoted fan (remains loyal despite time and geographic boundaries)
The fanatical fan (where one other source of identity apart from the team exists)
Dysfunctional fan (there main source of self-identification comes from team support)

This latter category includes hooligans and it would also seem to include Suleiman Omondi. The fanaticism of fans cannot go understated as the quote from R Taylor in a 1998 radio interview on the BBCs Nicky Campbell show reveals:

"No one has their ashes scattered down the aisle of TESCO" No amount of BOGOFs, Club Points and Two for ones could ever create that sort of loyalty!

The intimacy of personal association with a teams performance often resents the commercialisation of the club. Fans bask in the reflected glory of success, and agonise in the on-going struggles (these fans are called Under Doggers)One thing is for sure, fans are not merely customers they express a loyalty to the brand that goes far beyond that seen by the super rich players that prance and preen on the pitch.

Next time the manager asks a player them to 'die for the shirt and his team mates' how many would be really willing to consider that option I wonder. Football Clubs would be gullible to underestimate the social influence of their brands.

So We're With Lloyds TSB For The Journey

image credit - The Great British Public









Now we have a 65% share in the Lloyds TSB My bank manager works for me!

I wonder what The Journey will be like now? Will the patronising letters end? perhaps I'll be treated as a customer rather than somebody who can be duped into purchasing insurance policies I don't need.

I am doubtful that the culture and philosophy of this institution will change. A Lloydstsb spokesman on the BBC today, speaking of the merger with HBOS was mute about any consideration for customers. He simply emphasised that it would be a good deal over the medium term for shareholders. Ahah...he means us! I get it now.


Read more:
Rugfish

Social Media and Marketing Mystics

image credit utoldeo.edu

So, what is the truth about social media marketing thought and practice? Does engagement with social media require a new 'paradigm'? does it deliver on its promise?

Cam Beck of Chaos Scenario has posted a thought provoking piece asking if Social Media experts have actually delivered anything for their clients. Are social media marketing people at risk of becoming classed as mystics and soothsayers rather than being regarded as credible business practitioners?

Let me start by explaining my position. I got into the on-line social media world two years ago. My interest was driven by two key factors. I was curious about digital social media as a social phenomenon and I wanted to understand how it applied to the daily practice of marketing (whatever we mean by that).One was a broadly academic interest and the other a management interest. Fusing the two together means that I try and look at digital social media affairs from a 'critical marketing' perspective, not as an outsider (marketing is a wicked and evil profession that promotes consumerism and materialism), but as an insider who has 'done the job' and now researches and educates in the field with an avid interest in new and best practice.

Many of you will be familiar with 'dual process' modes of information processing. In order to think critically about marketing it means that I spend a lot of time in the 'systematic' mode trying to unpack the underlying assumptions people make when they are making their claims for the efficacy of a particular marketing management approach. Warning! doing this a lot can make you really pedantic and you can end up as 'Billy No Mates'. That said, critical marketing is not just about using a marketing method or technique and then assessing what worked, what didn't, and proposing an improved way of doing it. It's being wised up to the the taken for granted assumptions that lie behind what marketing people believe is 'the correct marketing way'

Non-Marketing Managers and management writers often criticise marketing for not being accountable, good at spending money and not too good at demonstrating R.O.I. This is because they are driven by the 'managerialist paradigm'. 'Good' management by this view is objective, rational, planned, logical and evidence based. This view also criticises marketing because it is prone to 'faddism', the sort of conversation that claims 'Twitter is the new Facebook' or 'Collaboration is the new Competition' etc etc. Marketeers who indulge in this line of thinking tend to be information 'splitters', seeking out the differences rather than the sameness and claiming the discovery of something fresh and new that everyone else has missed. They also prey on less critical or informed business minds only too keen get 'that competitive edge'.

Typical of marketing management writers who urge caution when dealing with marketing mystics are Robert Shaw and David Merrick, who recommend maintaining a sceptical gaze when looking at people who claim to possess special insight into the workings of the customer mind and who treat Branding as messing with Barbarella's ogasmatron! Similarly managerialist writers such as Emperor Kotler take great pains to ensure that marketing has scientific credibility, and tend to airbrush out of the picture emotions and perceptions as a crucial aspect of the marketing job. (See how face to face selling and marketing communications are relegated to aspects of the marketing mix in this type of writing)

One of the ironies of being a marketing professional is, like us or loathe us the vast majority of people see us being particularly skilled in social influence. The public face of marketing IS face to face selling and marketing communications! By definition this means we have to be involved in all aspects of rhetoric, the pathos (emotion, perception, experience) the ethos (authenticity and responsibility) not just the logos (method and measurement).

For me digital social media is a crucial dimension of modern marketing that should resist having the soul beaten out of it by the logisticians. Throughout history whatever the organisation, commercial or public service, whoever the trader one man band or big corporate people with something to sell (idea, product, service)have been in the business of connecting with human beings and conducting conversations. Does this mean that it is unaccountable? No! of course not.

Social media marketeers don't necessarily have to deliver a direct 'cause and effect' sales result. They can be measured in terms of influence and engagement. Creating conversational arenas, the tone of the dialogue, the shaping of thought are fundamental aspects of marketing effectiveness too. A social media strategy is about creating a space in which the organisation and its representatives become respected for their thought and opinion leadership. Once social trust has been created then people will trust your products and services. This is not new! How often have you heard people say 'this is a people business you know'

So, in response to the question 'what have you done for me lately social media expert' you will do well if you are an honest broker. You are critical of faddism and mysticism, you ensure there is ethical robustness between conversational claims and product and service feature and benefits and you skillfully construct appealing and dynamic social spaces in the minds of the people you seek to influence.

What do you think?

Read More:
Green Comunications Blogs About 'The Emperors New Clothes

And straight from the hip is...
Wolf-Howl a great post about social media 'b.s.' and false gods and idols. ^5.

Bankers, Big Business and Ferengi Ethics

Recognise the face? Its Quark the Ferengi bartender from Star Trek. Quark has a reputation for being unscrupulous in his commercial dealings. How much does Quark represent the dealings of modern banking and business?

N.Craig Smith Professor of Marketing at Georgetown University wrote a paper in 1995 entitled Marketing Strategies For The Ethics Era

It was published in the Sloan Management Review volume 36 issue 4.

In his abstract Professor Smith says:

"Marketing strategies are increasingly subject to public scrutiny and are being held to higher standards. Caveat emptor is no longer acceptance as a basis for justifying marketing practices..Today, consumers' interests are increasingly favored over producers' consumers can make informed choices, and less capable consumers are offered special protection. The author provides a practical framework - including the consumer sovereignty test - for marketers to apply to their decision making."

Smith suggested that Businesses just like the products they produce could be labelled in a way that showed their attitude and performance in respect of:

Consumer Capability - (is the consumer vulnerable?)
Information - (are expectations and promises realised?)
Choice - (do customers have an opportunity to switch?)

His checklist is elaborated in the paper to include aspects of:
Product Policy - product safety, deceptive packaging, planned obsolesence etc
Marketing Communications - questionable sales techniques, misrepresentation, conflicts of interests, ie pushing products not best suited to the customer, puffery, advertising as hidden perusader.
Pricing deceptive, unfair
Distribution selective, deliberate shortages

How these issues echo today with the 2009 financial crisis. and it is interesting to note the UK Prime Minister's concern with controlling the excesses of The Banking Bonus Culture

Drug Company or Drug Dealer?

The UK Government are drawing attention to the way in which Drug Company representatives are taking advantage of Doctors by offering 'gifts' as incentives or 'thankyou's' for placing an order. In her recent article Call for end to drug firms' gifts Jane Dreaper reveals how drug companies are enticing Doctors to try their drugs by offering a gift

Where exactly is the difference between this behaviour and the behaviour of street drug pushers?

At the moment the industry code of practice allows:

"drug companies to give small promotional gifts that are relevant to doctors' work, such as pens or surgical gloves."

Just how gullible is the industry?? Have they not read anything of Robert Cialdini's work in influence and persuasion? it is precisely because the gifts are small that they have so much persuasive power!!

The Drug companies are sophisticated commercial enterprises who are clearly familiar with marketing and selling methods. What these small gifts do is tap into a phenomenon known as Reciprocation. This works because no matter how small the gift we feel morally compelled to 'repay the favour' as a way of achieving psychological balance. Not only that once a person has agreed to a small request, they are much more likely to be predisposed to 'up-selling'.Its the same approach that supermarkets use when offering 'taster' samples, or charities do when they send a pen with a donation request. Give somebody an unsolicted gift and they are strongly compelled to return the favour. Do it to enough people and even a small percentage of 'takers' dramatically affects the bottom line.

The real bonus is that the Drug Company sales people are dealing with Doctors. Highly trained professionals such as medical people, accountants, solicitors etc have a well developed sense of their ability to be in control of their decision making. They believe it is impossible for them to be taken advantage of. Chris Argyris covers this in a fascinating Harvard Business Review article called Teaching Smart People How To Learn In the article Argyris explains that professionals firmly believe they are more astute and aware than the average Joe or Josephine and are simply resistant to being duped. They believe they are cognitively 'in control' of the situation and are too smart to be affected by mere sales ploys.

What they underestimate is the emotional, sub conscious effect of techniques such as giving a small gift. Just like the street drug user, they think that they are the one's in control, believing that trying 'just a small amount' keeps them in control. Don't be daft! as soon as you try the sample, accept the freebie you're hooked!

Dr Carol Cooper told the BBC that doctors were professionals and unlikely to be unduly influenced by the drug companies.Accept a small gift and as medical practioners will understand, you take the first step on the 'addiction career path'...Oh dear Carol...they've got you!!!

Building A Squidoo Lens Portfolio

I've been spending more time recently developing my Squidoo lens portfolio. If you don't know, Squidoo is a site that lets you build information blogs on topics of your choosing. The Squidoo site then monetizes your lens by placing relevant adverts around your content, and each lens is supported by a suit of analytics to help you track your effectiveness.

Think of it as electronic scrap booking. Each lens is made up of modules which are provided for you to add a host of different types of content ranging from your own text, amazon book recommendations, wikipedia content, blog feeds and a whole host of others.

I joined Squidoo some 18 months ago and built two lenses, which sort of lay fallow until the other month. I averaged about 20 visitors a month. I now have over 30 lenses and I'm averaging 170 visitors a week and growing.

There is also a vibrant Squidoo community and ways to cross link to Facebook, Stumble, Digg and so on.

I've really seen significant changes in the visitors to my portfolio after thinking for some time that I'd been a bit gullible in joining. My current top lenses are:

How To Become An Air Guitar Expert

The Border Reivers an ancestry resource about the unique clans that lived on the English and Scottish borders

How To Open A Bottle of Champagne With A Sword

For a quick preview of my lenses you can see them here too My Squidoo Lens

How Do We Get Into Debt?

People in debt are sleep walkers

No doubt many of us are familiar with this famous quote from Charles Dickens:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery." credit The Quotations Page

So how come something as blindingly obvious to so many people as how we get into debt still results in so many of us struggling to repay credit cards and the like? Have we all been really gullible? Are we really all that stupid? Are we all financially and arithmetically inept?

I guess in some ways we have to take some of the responsibility for getting into debt. I don't mean this is a direct sense though. I mean it in the sense that significant numbers of us have not put any effort into becoming more aware of the commercial techniques that are used to encourage us to part with our money which then leads us to getting into debt.

Much of our indebtedness is due to the manipulation of situation we find ourselves in when we shop. The places we go to buy things are engineered to lower or psychological defences. Our logical faculties are bypassed by appeals to emotional cues. Our conscious decision making is bypassed and our unconscious is spoken to.

Enter any retail environment, and, not withstanding the general societal norms that support 'acquiring things' (materialism and consumerism) we enter a world designed to take our money off us.

Walk through the door and you enter what is known as the 'decompression zone' that open 5 meters between the door and the goods. This zone is designed to ensure that you to change your mind state from an 'in control rational shopper' into a 'less rational consumer'. You are then more open minded to the sensory assault that confronts you, the music that not only implies you are in a different place (club, bar, home) but also something that 'distracts' your rational thought. You pay attention to the music and not to your rational faculties. In this undefended state you become far more open to the myriad of messages that are put to you on promotional material and carefully crafted sales assistant behaviour and messages.

The environment is then designed to 'take you away from stress and towards relaxation' and ultimately happiness. The happier you are the more endorphins your brain releases which are so addictive that you seek more pleasurable experiences, so you go and buy stuff you don't need because you want to look and feel good. Your sense of identity demands it.

So where do you go to get the money you need? The banks of course!. Well...guess what Banks are Retailers They use exactly the same methods as 'ordinary' retailers and so we have a debt fuelling system. The really deceptive aspect of this is that they convey the image that they are impartial advisers The latest UK Nat West Money Sense TV advert actually says that the people you meet are NOT salespeople! Really? dressed in corporate uniforms, meeting you on their premises which are full of sales messages? This is overt situation manipulation. These people cannot be impartial.

Read any basic text on Social Influence and it will explain that 're-framing' or giving a new name to something that makes a new association that disguises the real intent is as old as the hills. Sales people become consultants, become advisers, become 'your friend', who you trust and base your purchase decisions on!

Another 'wheeze' is the advice they give to re-finance loans. So many of us misunderstand debt and its repayment that we are tempted to extend loans. Don't do it! The initial element of re-payment is the interest which the banks make sure they get off you first. By asking you to extend the loan the 'clock' is re-set and you start paying interest again and so if you find you can pay the debt back earlier you are still in hock.

We are not taught 'retail and advertising psychology or financial management' at schools. We should be. The techniques are not 'difficult' they are simply 'off curriculum'

In our modern interconnected fast paced worlds we should be teaching our kids the rudiments of the commercial practices to which they are continually exposed. This is real education. So tell me...how will knowing "Ou est la Boulangerie" or "1066 was the Norman Invasion of Britain" help you in the modern world.

Try telling your credit card company "I know I'm in debt but I can conjugate a verb like the best of them!" I was in debt, I am in debt, I will be in debt, I have debted? I am debting? I will debt? How about a new verb 'debting', referring to the state of being entirely ignorant of the sophisticated commercial techniques applied to gullible consumers?

Remember banks are NOT services they are purveyors of financial products
you will know that talking in your sleep walking will lead to debt.

Righteous Kill Advertising - A Self Righteous Thrill?

image credit - flikr user coconono
















The placing of an advertising poster promoting the film Righteous Kill in Stockwell Tube Station where Jean Charles de Menezes was killed has been roundly condemned by the British Advertising Authority

In their judgement they say that "We understood the siting of the poster at the station was unintentional"

An alternative explanation might be more skeptical.

Even a cursory glance at much of the output of the Advertising Business Bubble reveals it as frequently self absorbed with its own creativity. This obsession with shock (remember those Benetton adverts?) is superficially justified as acting upon the findings of social psychology which suggest that 'Salience' is necessary to attract attention in a world full of informational noise.

An almost exclusive obsession with Salience pre-disposes the less rounded members of the advertising fraternity to believe that their role is about attracting attention and little else. The ends therefore justify the means and ethical 'norms' become skewed in an atypical self -referencing business environment. These businesses are child like in their 'foot stamping' attention seeking behaviour.

The very fact that I am writing this blog post betrays what I feel (affective response guys!) is the reality of what the real motivation behind the advert placement was compared to the logical explanation given (cognitive response) that it was simply an unfortunate mistake. Do me a favour!

By acting and then seeking forgiveness, the people who placed the advert in Stockwell Tube station where Jean Charles de Menezes was killed reveal their true intentions. They knew that the approbation would attract more attention than the advert. Meta Salience is achieved through a self righteous thrill

Lapland Xmas Attractions Having A Laugh At Customer's Expense

The one thing that scammers and con-merchants have is an instinct for 'situation'.


They know that if the circumstances are set up in the right way the normal psychological defences of people can be breached. This seems to have happened twice recently in the UK with two Lapland Christmas 'theme parks'. The first was in Dorset UK where a woman was scammed for £3000. The place was eventually shut down The second is in Staffordshire UK

Both examples seem to take advantage of the 'perfect storm' of Christmas, Credit Crunch and Consistency.

The organisers of these 'theme parks' know that going to Lapland Proper is clearly out of the reach of most pockets at this time. They understand the notion of 'pester power', and they understand the psychological urge that parents have to consistently provide a great Christmas experience for the kids just like last year even though money might be tight.

So, when somebody promises that they can make your kids dreams come true with a Lapland experience they tap into the 'brand associations' that have been created over the years. Just do it it yourself...Imagine...a trip to Lapland to see Father Christmas and his reindeer.
...What happened? I bet you created an image of expectation in your minds eye and that for £25/$15 that would be a price worth paying to see the smile on the faces of the kids. The next thing you do is 'promise' the kids that they're going to 'Lapland to see Santa'

That's when they've got you!! In order to remain 'consistent' you have to 'go to Lapland' and all critical judgement flies out the window. You end up out of pocket embarrased and angry because the 'promise' didn't match the cheapskate reality.

I suggest having the last laugh and do something else.

New Capitalism in Action - Now Then Sheffield

Questioning the prevailing business mindset of the unfettered market economy and challenging the lack of concern for social and environmental consequences of the mindless pursuit of materialistic 'need pacifiers' has really jumped to the forefront of people's attention.

This doesn't mean, of course, that everybody is now replacing Steven Hawkings Brief History of Time on their bookshelves with an equally less read copy of Marx's Das Kapital. What it might signal however is the realisation of many people as to just what extent they have abdicated their self control to the social influence initiatives of major corporations.

Milton Freidmann argued that the sole responsibility of an organisation was to maximise the return for shareholders, and this mantra has guided the excesses and short-termism of the banking fraternity with obvious consequences. The question is should Mr Friedmann's way be blindly accepted as the best way of doing business?


Now Then Sheffield is an example of a business model that challenges these assumptions and shows how we needn't gullibly accept prevailing wisdoms. Giving the disenfranchised and those with limited resources an opportunity to develop their talents and still make sufficient funding to keep the project alive is a key aim of a basket of projects that have been initiated by Social Enterprise. organisation Opus productions.

The magazine Now Then Sheffield is one of several projects that were introduced to me at a recent meeting that sought to bring academics and business people together to explore experiences and perspectives on different ways of 'doing business'

James Lock is one of the thought leaders behind the project and a brilliant example of someone who combines a socially motivated principle with a practical revenue generating edge. The key point though is that the projects are not 'self-serving' they have to be 'win -win'.

In that sense James and Now Then Sheffield is practical evidence of the Zeit Geist that pervades the blogosphere - collaborative effort, unconditional sharing of resources, empowering the individual, cultivating aspirations, acting in a sustainable and community spirited way. The magazine is distributed free and works on an advertising revenue model and these revenues fund project management. The bigger the distribution, the more advertising, the more revenue, the more people who need it are helped to get develop their talents.

The simple message is 'you don't need to step on the heads of others to achieve success'

Jame's project deserves your support, please visit his website with your feedback. He's looking into developing a social network presence and you might have some tips for him. If you think that the project deserves more attention please Stumble and Digg, it is much appreciated and in that way you can help make a difference to people who need it. We can all use our social influence to change the world.

Credit Crunch - What Business Are The Banks Really In?

As many of you will be aware, one of the most penetrating questions anyone can ask an organisation is "What business are you in?" One of the seminal thinkers to promote this question was Ted Levitt in the much vaunted HBR article Marketing Myopia.

The essence of Levitt's thinking lies at the heart of true strategic marketing philosophy because it causes business people to consider what their business 'does' rather than what it 'is'.

As far as Banks and Consumers are concerned I would like to raise attention to what I will call Consumer Myopia and the way this has been exploited by the financial 'services' (sic) industry.

I believe that it should be illegal for financial institutions to portray what they do as a 'service'. This is entirely misleading, and plays fast and loose with the notions of service and relationship marketing developed by the Nordic School and key writers like Christian Gronroos.

The use of the term 'service' is skilfully used to manipulate perceptions. It is an attempt by The Banks to create a positive Euphamism for the fact that they SELL financial products that are designed to make profit for the bank. Let me be clear, I am not against organisations making profits. I am against those that fudge the issue and pretend that they are organisations of care and welfare by hijacking the term 'service'. Does anybody seriously accept that Banks should be thought of in the same way as the Medical, Fire, Police, Military, Educational and other public services!

Banks ultimately are in the business of trust. We trust them (and they try very hard to convince us that they are trustworthy)with our hard earned cash. They know that as soon as we 'trust' we abdicate our power and control and significantly we relax our critical reasoning. Its time we got this back!

Look and listen carefully to the next bank adverts you see. Not the 'operational' ones that tell you about savings rates, but the one's that imply they are there to save you from the hassles and dangers of life. They constantly use a technique of social influence known as 'Fear and Relief' They bring to our attention all of the bad things that might happen in our lives and then position themselves as the provider of relief from fear. This is not service it is manipulation and exploitation.

The Banks and other Financial Institutions should only be allowed to state that they 'sell money products', and explicitly state that they are in the business of making money from these products. This information should not be in the small print but on the 'front page' in plain English in the same way that we have cigarette packet warnings.

For The Banks to imply that they can fund our material and consumer desires is merely exploiting the 'mind work' that the advertisers have done to us to 'soften us up'. The Banks should not be allowed to promote their 'money products' as means to acquire things that have not been saved for. That they can do this is fine, and an uninfluenced choice is the right of everybody. I'm taking issue with the fact that they conflate what they do as a business with the appeal of other products and therefore cannot ever have the best interests of their customers at heart! The sale of their products is never 'unbiased'.

Let's get the debate moving on this! If you think that Banks should be restricted in how they portray themselves as a 'service' perhaps you might Stumble or Digg this article, because they have alot to answer for.

When Hospitality Retailing Goes Wrong

So the Clowns at a major UK hotel chain have really shown how gullible they are when it comes to brand reputation and the impact of word of mouth.

The complete lack of understanding of even the basics of social influence has shown that certain people in the organisation seem to be completely out of touch with the mood of the nation.

That said, I suppose they might realise that Corporal Tomos Stringer is actually defending their freedom to be inept! The fact the organisation concerned won't even comment is an indication of responsibility that must permeate the whole organisation. Something they might do well to learn about by a spell on the front line.

Saving Face At The Beijing Olympics

image credit www.davidsanger.com












We might laugh up our sleeves at the gullibility of the Chinese Olympic managers for thinking that mime artist Lin Miaoke and CGI fireworks would ever lastingly provide a convincing face of innocent charm and dramatic excellence to an inquisitive and media savvy world audience.

However in doing this people in the West are considerably underestimating the power and cultural influence of impression management in the Chinese psyche.

The whole concept of Social Face is deeply embedded in the Chinese concepts of Mianzi and Lian such that all other things...including the feelings of little girls are subservient.

Perhaps the only thing that the Chinese are gullible over is the way in which they underestimated the lack of western understanding and acceptance of the so called 'polite lies'

I have first hand experience of getting this wrong the other way around. I was tutoring a class of masters Chinese students and the issue of in class presentations came up. I asked how many students 'feared' doing presentations and duly the whole class put up their hands. I then asked one student if they would like to come to the front of the class and explain what it was they feared and what they thought they were weak at, (thinking this would begin to overcome their worries and show the rest of the class that 'we all worry about the same things' BLUNDER!! The student graciously came to the front and then broke down in tears at having to publicly admit her fears and weak points. In the UK she would have got a round of applause!

I say be careful of criticising cultural norms that you don't understand.

Lin Miaoke Not Quite Karaoke

So the truth is out! Lin Miaoke won Gold for Olympic
Lip Synch-ing

The runner up Yang Peiyi, lost out with lower marks for facial presentation, a rather harsh judgement that was justified on the basis of overall Team China success being more important than individual feelings.

Management writers Pine and Gilmore in their book Authenticity give us a useful way to map out whether we are being duped by organisations, by using a combination of fake and real permutations in a 2 by 2 fake'real matrix. Real-Real being truly authentic, as the person, product, or organisation is truly what it purports to be.

Lin Miaoke is Fake-Real - not what she purported to be, yet presented as the real opening ceremony singer.

Yang Peiyi was substituted because she was said to have flaws...!

The only flaw Lin Miaoke had of course was that she really couldn't sing!!!

Maybe They Aren't So Cuil After All!

Consumerism : A New Low

Anybody who has done Marketing 101 will know that one of the basic tricks of advertising is to call something 'NEW'

By tapping into our basic curiosity and the false assumption that new is equivalent to better we are sub-consciously being told that our world is progressing and improving.

So you can imagine the irony of the claim by the British Retail Consortium that we have hit a NEW low in consumer confidence.

Does this mean that we now have a better 'LOW' than the one we had before? Does this mean we can expect newer lows in the future as we progress to the best low ever?

New is slapped on products to get us try things. The double irony therefore is that the BRC are actually instructing us to try having even less consumer confidence than we had before with the consequent effect that the situation the BRC is whining about can only get worse!! DOH!

Now, the BRC would suggest that there is doom and gloom on the high street wouldn't they. That's the job of Trade Associations They portray a particularly skewed view of reality that endorses their only ever so slightly 'hidden agenda' AND...

What if the drop in high street sales indicates that consumers are wising up to the tricks and techniques deployed to get us to buy things we WANT rather than NEED? What if a mind -shift is taking place (originally triggered by tighter credit) that breaks our habit of shopping addiction? Consumer Cold Turkey is the real fear of retailers, a fear that they project onto us as fear that the supply cheap goods will end if we stop buying.

Instead of a New Low what if we are actually witnessing a New High in the awareness and general level of consciousness of the consumer that means we are less gullible about the consequences to the planet and ultimately our survival as a species of unfettered wasteful consumption?

University Degrees : The Clue Is In The Title

What do you think the aim and purpose of a Higher Education is? For me the clue is in the title of the awards that can be achieved.

A degree implies evidence of a 'degree' of thinking, knowledge, and application that has been formally assessed by legally & professionally recognised assessors and institutions.

A key issue to consider however is whether degrees should be designed towards what the university believes is important or whether they should they be designed towards what society and more specifically the techno-commercial system needs.

The academic process has historically been designed from what marketers would recognise as a 'production' orientation. That is to say the university has determined what it believes to be 'a good product'. This line of thinking is evident in the concerns expressed by academics over diploma courses intended to replace current UK high school qualifications A primary concern is that they will not 'prepare students for university'

Now, depending on your philosophy you might get a bit hot under the collar about that claim. For those who have been through the system you will know what is meant by this because in order to gain a degree you have to become adept at the 'university' way of thinking and writing. Much of the educational philosophy that underpins this approach remains tacit and for a majority of students they don't really 'know' much about the process they have been through in that regard, they only really know that they have studied 'subjects' in depth.

Ironically much of this approach is actually 'student', dare I say 'consumer' centric in the sense that degrees are designed with the development of the individual in mind. This doesn't necessarily mean giving the consumer what they think they want though! To polarise the argument between 'product' orientation' or 'market' orientation (meeting the needs of the techno-commercial system) is really a gross over simplification.

The upside to the benign 'production orientation' of universities is that they are able to guide their consumer from their unconscious incompetence through to unconscious competence (and hopefully critically reflective practice which is essential to avoiding gullibility. It is a fact that students do NOT necessarily know what is good for them. In this way universities avoid the mistake of 'consumer worship' which is 'market orientation' done badly.

The downside to 'production orientation' is that universities think they know best on everything and this limits their thinking to designing and producing products (degrees) that exclusively suit their framing of the 'need'. That's why the Buckinghamshire academics anticipate a problem, they are worried that students aren't being groomed for their interpretation of what they believe is needed. They have a myopic version of the 'need' because the time at university is only one staging post in the journey of life and the majority of people will go on to be employed in non academic professions. The biggest criticism of 'degree design' must be the way in which they are tacitly developed to craft people with an 'academic mind'. i.e. they are implicitly (sub-consciously?) 'training' people to be professors, and guess what not all of us want to be 'academics'!!

For universities to operate from a more rounded version of 'market orientation' they need to build on the strong points of the 'consumer orientation' they have historically been excellent at. This means thinking about 'value and lifestyle' segments in the market for their services. Other stakeholders have different needs and yes the techno-commercial system is one of those, in the same way that a 'non-academic' student is too. That's why ideas such as Foundation degrees are a good idea.

This is certainly not a call for 'dumbing down' as higher education should always ultimately be about individual development in terms of thinking and knowledge. That goal doesn't necessarily mean that you have to become an 'academic' A degree nevertheless should involve a degree of personal challenge higher than the individuals current level of experience and beyond merely what 'I think I need or is needed'. It should certainly demand rigorous and justified thinking and applicationand involve the constant testing of prior assumptions whether in the natural or social sciences.


University Choice resource:
Choosing A British University

Is the $100 Laptop A Fairy Story?

Once upon a time there was a Technologist called Smart Nick. He lived in the Land of Bright Ideas where everybody was happy. Everyone in in the Land of Bright Ideas thought Smart Nick was the cleverest of clever people who had ever been clever and when he designed a Magic Box of Tricks that would make all the poor people in the rest of the world very very happy they all clapped and cheered and threw a big party with lots of jelly and cakes.

Smart Nick was so pleased with his idea. He knew it was just what the people wanted because he'd asked everyone in the Land of Bright Ideas a very special question. It was known as The Philosophers Question and the question was this..."if he could make their wish come true what would it be?" After listening really really carefully to what everyone said he worked very very hard everyday and every night for a whole week so that his Magic Box of Tricks was just what the people in the Land of Bright Ideas wanted.

The day came when he had to go on a long and dangerous adventure. He would have to go over the hill and far away beyond the Gates of Bill that led from The Land of Bright Ideas to meet the people of a mysterious land called Afreeka. The people of Afreeka were very nice but they didn't have much money and this made Smart Nick very sad. So off he went with a big smile, his Magic Box of Tricks and knapsack with an Apple to eat on the way to make all of the people in Afreeka happy.

When he got there he was invited to tea with the King of Afreeka. He lived in a huge palace with lots of nice things but he was very very angry. "Why doesn't your Magic Box of Tricks make my people happy?" he thundered. "I was told that your were the cleverest of clever people and you are not!" Smart Nick explained that he had asked everyone in the Land of Bright Ideas what they wanted using the Philosophers Question and he couldn't understand why the people of Afreeka were still unhappy.

This made the King of Afreeka even more angry. He stood up and banged the table so hard that all the plates and cups jumped nearly a whole metre in the air. "Fetch me my Wizard" he boomed. With a loud bang the Wizard appeared through a big cloud of sparkling purple smoke. Smart Nick's knees began to knock, he'd heard of the Marketing Wizards of Afreeka and their potent magic. "You see..." said the King "I have been working on my own Philosophers Question...Wizard...what can you see?"

The Wizard pulled out a crystal ball from the huge pockets of his coat and stared at it muttering mystical incantations. Smart Nick could only just hear them..."what do you want?", "what's important for you?", "what do you value?"... "what is the benefit of", how do you choose?...", "what problems would you like to solve?"...in the end the Wizard shrieked and shouted out 'You've Put Lipstick on a Pig' The people of Afreeka will only be happy if the Magic Box of Tricks can do the things they want to make them happy"

The King stood up at once. "Smart Nick go away and come back with something our people want." he commanded. So Nick went away trudging back to the Land of Bright Ideas and he was very very sad. When he got home he sat by the fire and had lemonade and crumpets and then went back to work. He worked all alone for a hundred days, when suddenly he had a bright idea.

If his box of tricks could let the people of Afreeka have a Window on the World surely the King of Afreeka wouldn't be angry and his subjects would be more skilled & knowledgeable than the other tribes of the world, this would make them popular, which in turn would make them rich, which in turn would make them attractive, which in turn would let them get married and have children, which in turn would them very very very happy!

Soon he went back and showed the King of Afreeka his Magic Box of Tricks with its Window on the World and the King jumped for joy and danced around his palace doing a jig with his soldiers until his crown fell off. "You really are Smart Nick!" he said "You listened to my Marketing Wizard and look what you've done, you can marry my daughter the Princess." This made Smart Nick very very happy too and so Smart Nick, The Princess, The King and the people of Afreeka lived happily ever after.