A World of Marketing
A World of Marketing
There should be little doubt that a major economic strength of our nation, our
culture, is marketing. For all intents and purposes we created the art. And we do it
well. Marketing, of course, includes sales, and we do that pretty well too, as one
would expect from a nation of salesmen; if we are not selling a product, we are
selling an idea or ourselves. That proceeds naturally when, one might recall,
Napoleon called the English a nation of shopkeepers. We come by it naturally and
we pursue it aggressively. In fact marketing, the art and the product, is something
we sell to the entire world - in many ways, and with ever increasing sophistication,
technological and otherwise.
We also lead the world in the sophistication of our entertainment, if not volume,
though competition is always pressing. The two, of course, are closely related:
most of the product of marketing looks a great deal like entertainment because
entertainment sells, and selling is what we do. The relationship is natural since we
sell entertainment and use entertainment to sell. The fact that we have largely been
muscled out of most manufacturing has had less impact than might have been
imagined, partly because of our entertainment and marketing expertise, but also
because of our great appetite for services. We buy services and we sell services.
Once it was suggested that we would become a nation of hamburger flippers, but
that overlooked the vast potential of service providing, which not surprisingly, fit right
into the ease in which a new business can be established in the United States. If
one wants something another will find a way to provide it for him - for a reasonable
price - reasonable being one that the buyer will pay.
Again, however, marketing plays an important role. Creating a product or a service
is something we do well; we are an innovative people. It has been noted that about
one percent of people emigrate, and since we are a nation of immigrants, and
emigrants are by nature risk takers, it stands to reason that we get more than our
fair share of risk takers. Creating the product or service, however, is only the first -
and perhaps least important step. The most important? Marketing it. Create the
best product or service in the world and if no one knows about it what good will it
do? People must know about it and that's where the marketing comes in. Add to
that our technological acumen - particularly television and the Internet - and the
stage is set for success, for those who know how to use them.
If our culture encourages and supports opening new business enterprises, made
successful in large measure through marketing skills, marketing skills also have a
great influence on our culture - and the government that represents it. Running for
public office is just another form of marketing, and the same skills used in
marketing products and services are used for marketing political candidates - with
the same aggressive determination, utilizing the same technologies. Brand
recognition is a known and recognized marketing tool that is very powerful. And
those that know little about candidates' positions on issues tend to vote name
recognition. But what of candidates positions on issues? Is that not just another
aspect of skillful marketing? Poll to see what the voters want and expect (a
marketing tool), develop the candidate to espouse that (another marketing tool) and
broadcast it to the voters (the coupe de grace of marketing). We used to call it
propaganda but propaganda developed a bad marketing image, so now we avoid
that term; but that is what it is. Developing a "new image" for candidates is nothing
new, and neither is fashioning his stand on issues to match what the voters want
and expect. Voilà!
All that is little more than the (new) American way, actually the same old American
way but with new tools. And how can we knock it? What can one expect in a system
where candidates must sell themselves to voters who are often semi-ignorant of
issues, but fully conversant with charisma and entertainment value. It is the way it is
because it can be little different given the ingredients that go into it.
But there is more, and here is where some concern must begin to creep in. Our
country has become much larger than it once was, and reaching voters is more
difficult. First the issues and associated repercussions are more complex than they
once were, or stated differently the voters for the most part lack the knowledge (or
interest) to deal with them effectively. Second we are far more entertainment
focused. And finally the tool of choice for propaganda is the same as the tool of
choice for the entertained, who are already well indoctrinated by and susceptible to
sound-bite marketing. But the cost is exorbitant; only what is the alternative? The
cost must be borne to achieve success. So what have political candidates
become? Is shill a good word? Entertaining front man - with a big smile, "good"
hair, intelligence and smooth delivery? With lots of money, of course. Only it is not
their money; they don't buy elections, their contributors do.
Is this the best way to select national leaders? What is the alternative? If voters
are going to select representatives, and this is what representatives must do to
attract votes, and money is required to pay for it all, that's what it's going to be. It is
not likely that it will change. Maybe that's ok for the United States. Maybe we can
handle it because we have grown up with the system and learned how it works -
and we have a system that does work. But how about neophytes without such
experience or institutions that underpin them? There lies perhaps the greatest
danger. Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Palestine? And perhaps Iraq. Their current
leaders, to say nothing of Hitler, gained their leadership positions through the
democratic process.
So what is the alternative? Churchill had it right: there are none that are
acceptable, but it would help if we had a better handle on what it entails. Maybe we
should tread carefully before we push others into a form of government they are not
prepared to implement, because if they cannot implement it it will not last, and when
it doesn't last what they will get will be exactly that from which they were trying to
distance themselves.
There should be little doubt that a major economic strength of our nation, our
culture, is marketing. For all intents and purposes we created the art. And we do it
well. Marketing, of course, includes sales, and we do that pretty well too, as one
would expect from a nation of salesmen; if we are not selling a product, we are
selling an idea or ourselves. That proceeds naturally when, one might recall,
Napoleon called the English a nation of shopkeepers. We come by it naturally and
we pursue it aggressively. In fact marketing, the art and the product, is something
we sell to the entire world - in many ways, and with ever increasing sophistication,
technological and otherwise.
We also lead the world in the sophistication of our entertainment, if not volume,
though competition is always pressing. The two, of course, are closely related:
most of the product of marketing looks a great deal like entertainment because
entertainment sells, and selling is what we do. The relationship is natural since we
sell entertainment and use entertainment to sell. The fact that we have largely been
muscled out of most manufacturing has had less impact than might have been
imagined, partly because of our entertainment and marketing expertise, but also
because of our great appetite for services. We buy services and we sell services.
Once it was suggested that we would become a nation of hamburger flippers, but
that overlooked the vast potential of service providing, which not surprisingly, fit right
into the ease in which a new business can be established in the United States. If
one wants something another will find a way to provide it for him - for a reasonable
price - reasonable being one that the buyer will pay.
Again, however, marketing plays an important role. Creating a product or a service
is something we do well; we are an innovative people. It has been noted that about
one percent of people emigrate, and since we are a nation of immigrants, and
emigrants are by nature risk takers, it stands to reason that we get more than our
fair share of risk takers. Creating the product or service, however, is only the first -
and perhaps least important step. The most important? Marketing it. Create the
best product or service in the world and if no one knows about it what good will it
do? People must know about it and that's where the marketing comes in. Add to
that our technological acumen - particularly television and the Internet - and the
stage is set for success, for those who know how to use them.
If our culture encourages and supports opening new business enterprises, made
successful in large measure through marketing skills, marketing skills also have a
great influence on our culture - and the government that represents it. Running for
public office is just another form of marketing, and the same skills used in
marketing products and services are used for marketing political candidates - with
the same aggressive determination, utilizing the same technologies. Brand
recognition is a known and recognized marketing tool that is very powerful. And
those that know little about candidates' positions on issues tend to vote name
recognition. But what of candidates positions on issues? Is that not just another
aspect of skillful marketing? Poll to see what the voters want and expect (a
marketing tool), develop the candidate to espouse that (another marketing tool) and
broadcast it to the voters (the coupe de grace of marketing). We used to call it
propaganda but propaganda developed a bad marketing image, so now we avoid
that term; but that is what it is. Developing a "new image" for candidates is nothing
new, and neither is fashioning his stand on issues to match what the voters want
and expect. Voilà!
All that is little more than the (new) American way, actually the same old American
way but with new tools. And how can we knock it? What can one expect in a system
where candidates must sell themselves to voters who are often semi-ignorant of
issues, but fully conversant with charisma and entertainment value. It is the way it is
because it can be little different given the ingredients that go into it.
But there is more, and here is where some concern must begin to creep in. Our
country has become much larger than it once was, and reaching voters is more
difficult. First the issues and associated repercussions are more complex than they
once were, or stated differently the voters for the most part lack the knowledge (or
interest) to deal with them effectively. Second we are far more entertainment
focused. And finally the tool of choice for propaganda is the same as the tool of
choice for the entertained, who are already well indoctrinated by and susceptible to
sound-bite marketing. But the cost is exorbitant; only what is the alternative? The
cost must be borne to achieve success. So what have political candidates
become? Is shill a good word? Entertaining front man - with a big smile, "good"
hair, intelligence and smooth delivery? With lots of money, of course. Only it is not
their money; they don't buy elections, their contributors do.
Is this the best way to select national leaders? What is the alternative? If voters
are going to select representatives, and this is what representatives must do to
attract votes, and money is required to pay for it all, that's what it's going to be. It is
not likely that it will change. Maybe that's ok for the United States. Maybe we can
handle it because we have grown up with the system and learned how it works -
and we have a system that does work. But how about neophytes without such
experience or institutions that underpin them? There lies perhaps the greatest
danger. Venezuela? Zimbabwe? Palestine? And perhaps Iraq. Their current
leaders, to say nothing of Hitler, gained their leadership positions through the
democratic process.
So what is the alternative? Churchill had it right: there are none that are
acceptable, but it would help if we had a better handle on what it entails. Maybe we
should tread carefully before we push others into a form of government they are not
prepared to implement, because if they cannot implement it it will not last, and when
it doesn't last what they will get will be exactly that from which they were trying to
distance themselves.