There's bound to be controversy when you start talking about core features of anything, especially something like advertising and marketing - but say we invite a little discussion (and controversy) and state the obvious that essentially we’re trying to address a communication problem.

The problem is simple - you the so and so of the whatever company needs to communicate that your product has value enough for someone to take notice and relinquish some hard-earned cash. A few ideas get thrown around and added to a document titled [fill in the blanks] strategy or [fill in the blanks] campaign etc. Essentially, we’re still attempting to solve a communication problem.

So, what’s this communication thing?

Because we’re reducing things left right and center, why not do it even further by saying communication is all about gaining a mutual understanding? If we don’t understand each other, communication gets really tricky.

And how does understanding come about?

Strip it down once more and lets say that at the very least when you can connect to some type of shared experience/s, understanding will follow. At that point the billion dollar question is how does a brand connect with people’s shared experiences?

Your product at some point must have come about to “fill a gap in the market”. This is essentially saying, there is a human need that is not being met or there’s a human problem that’s not being solved and that’s why the product is there. So whatever it is you sell somehow solves people’s problems and meets a human need. This is not necessarily a material need - there’s markets for emotional needs, economic needs, intellectual needs etc. So the shared experience involves the conditions that brought about the need for your product to exist in the first place.

Some companies go beyond marketing and branding and ask the question: why? Why does the company exist? What is it’s contribution? etc.

These questions are not esoteric but are at the core of knowing how brands can make a real connection and find social authenticity. When your brand does that, it becomes a cultural resource. The economic drive is secondary to it’s primary purpose: how it contributes or how it creates connections and builds meaning in society. Economics then becomes a value reality-check in terms of how well it’s achieving its primary goals - if it’s socially relevant, if it still adds value, value is given back to it (in terms of money). And this keeps the product alive in the realm of economic exchange.

To put it simply: when your product is not about money, people throw money at it.

Why?

Because when making money is a primary drive to activity, quality suffers - your product is no longer good. On this level we start making lots of shiny but empty things and marketing becomes more a form of deceit. The purpose for these things is not to add value, not to solve any real problems but to get the most out of the least. Eventually the veneer cracks and businesses fall.

It’s much easy to start with quality, marketing is then about communicating this quality and your company’s value is rewarded by economic value.

What is he thinking?

A silhouette of a woman, cars popping up, the few confident looking people in focus behind the majority faded others - this is about how our incessant and needy thoughts function. They're the ongoing background thoughts that seek to find resolution, a feeling of completion or peace by getting the things we desire - the recognition (or love) of another (woman image) or material things (car images).

The few in the forefront are the mythical end point - they're the Superclass, those who have all the material desires and recognition at their disposal. The problem is it's based on a big myth - there's always another car, a bigger yaught, a more prestigious mansion and always someone who still doesn't give us the recognition we believe we deserve.

There can be no end point to this because this story only survives if we never find completion. But we're sold anyway by the temporary high we get every time we buy into this with our belief and our hard earned cash - the misplaced idea we're getting closer is like an addictive hunger, never satisfied and always begging for more.

So what's Lawrence's Year of the Tiger secret?

Lawrence points to how in 2010 this story is most powerfully sold by immersive / interactive experiences found in new media (usually a combination of images, footage, music / voice). These tools are often used to perpetuate the story as they offer an quick outlet to our "unfulfilled" reality and we are compelled to drop our guard or suspend our disbelief to immerse ourselves in this "better" prescribed reality. While this happens we become less conscious of our own reality and more susceptible to unconscious influences of this new reality often with direct agendas in mind.

The good news is Lawrence sees another force surfacing in 2010 - the conscious consumer. The conscious consumer seeks real information on products and services and being more conscious and self-aware, this consumer is not as vulnerable. The world map indicates the world wide web (internet) - This is where the conscious consumer seeks authentic information published by people without direct agenda or affiliation on anything he or she is compelled to buy or become involved in. As the internet is filled with information from every angle, the conscious consumer learns how to discern and spot a fake (information with affiliation) very quickly.

The 1+1=2, is an equation that shows why this story is so unreliable. It basically states that you are not complete right now (1) until you fulfill certain requirements or obtain certain things. The you of this mythical future (the other 1) is the completed you, the one at peace, the one not lacking. This means the incomplete you and the complete you are two separate entities. This simple equation shows the absurdity of that statement - there are not two of you, only the one - so in truth you are complete right at this very moment. You don't need to do or get anything to complete you.

Lawrence says "I suppose I should wish you a happy new year" because not all people are ready to he really happy (or fully conscious) and only those who understand Lawrence's thoughts will have a Happy New Year and be able to receive the Year of the Tiger love and luck.

If you know someone who is ready to be happy and lucky throughout the Year of  the Tiger - let them know about this. The Law of Reciprocity will undoubtedly spread the the happiness and luck back to you in this auspicious year.

Posted via email from Transforming pixels to gold

What's the exercise here? To write a short email with one purpose in mind: to introduce people to have conversations about subjects that just keep cropping up in this blog, rather slipping consistently through the cracks... (I gave myself 10 minutes)

Conversations about what?

What happens when how we normally do things and long-held beliefs no longer stands in an open market? What happens when traditional advertising no longer works? What's the alternative? When traditional business models can't be justified and are no longer effective in the market - what happens? Where is this all going?

The context

A general pessimism is even more apparent now than ever before with things like corporate-speak, political "promises" and traditional advertising veneers that say nothing really about what a business is really like. Not only economically but socially we are subject to trends in the "open market". The market is also subject to our attitudes and opinions because they influence how we chose to spend.  

So the market is always adapting - the speed of this adaption is also subject to our beliefs and  traditions. AND, although a lot of things appear to go on as they always have - things are changing dramatically beneath our feet. Again - what is happening and where is this all going?

Here goes (the revised version)...

Email subject: No subject

I don't want to challenge you to look at things differently. Why confront what we're grown to believe by exchanging ideas? Who cares if how our present situation affects lagging concepts from our past? These things just get in the way:

• social media
• the availability of information on the internet
• a general pessimism of commercial-speak and traditional marketing
• we can fill in the blanks....

It's all conclusive, no arguments, no variety of opinions and there's no clearing of the air needed. 

This is not for you?

Because ideas should fester, disappear and aggravate us like sharp stones trapped in our shoes... 

Do we need a catalyst  for change to occur? Why exchange of ideas with no particular agenda? 

Posted via email from Transforming pixels to gold

Posted via email from Transforming pixels to gold

I like Bourdieu. First he's got a very French sounding name that gives him instant philosophy street cred (first name is also Pierre) but that's not a good reason to like someone. A better reason is that he's said long ago that the purpose of a lot of what we do or say is to distinguish ourselves from others. We develop strange languages to isolate ourselves from other groups, while hardening the glue within our own group. We create 'secret' codes as a way to know if we're 'in' or 'out'. 

True, he talked about the privileged class trying to keep out the plebs who just don't get things like "high" art  (why wouldn't they get that when you put a urinal in a gallery, it becomes art?) but why not apply this to other tribes like kid's SMS language - what does "stsooys tbh cya wknd wb" mean and if you don't know you were probably born before Netscape was the choice browser.

So people are always going to create new spaces and new languages to distinguish themselves from everybody else and before this space reaches critical mass there's a bunch there already figuring out clever ways to get in and sell a lot of something. This is like adding more oil to the water and bound to disperse the congenial gathering fast - look at what happened to MySpace: more people on it, more marketing budget spent on it = less 'cool' / less the choice online communication platform.