The Oxford English Dictionary – quality never dies but bogus marketing claims will always fall by the wayside.
If we reflect on the essence of quality, it can be stated with reasonable certainty that a product which is good enough does not require overt sales and marketing. The goal of any company, therefore, is to create self-evident desirability; this is the key to success. Overt marketing usually implies a greater deception. Overt salesmanship most certainly does.
In book 1 of Praeterita, the autobiography of John Ruskin, the author writes of his travels in Italy thus, when describing how, through a lack of understanding of the Italian language, he needs to get by on by observation rather than discourse:
” I don’t say our isolation was meritorious, or that people in general should know no language but their own. Yet the meek ignorance has these advantages. We did not travel for adventures, nor for company, but to see with our eyes and to measure with our hearts. If you have sympathy, the aspect of humanity is more true to the depths of it than its words; and even in my own land, the things in which I have been least deceived are those which I have learned as their spectator.”
Ruskin argues therefore that focused observation without decoration reveals a substantive truth. If one takes a study of people’s emotions and movements as more important than the dialogue between them, as renowned silent film commentator, Ithankyouarthur, would support, then we can see the logic of Ruskin’s position. Emotion is conveyed by more complex methods than by the base instrument of language.
If therefore we apply the study of observation to the presentation of a product’s attributes, we can begin to understand that the item which rewards regard is that which exudes capability beyond words. We may call this inherent truth.
We can observe inherent truth in a number of items today. Let us examine a random selection of three such items.
A Morgan car. This car is, technically, unmarketable in a highly competitive world, but it is what it is. Consumers judge it not for spurious claims, “clever” advertising and brand conceits. It is not a derivative design but one cultured by evolving graduation. It is a hand-made product of distinctive line and proportion, conjuring past times but supported by modern technology. It becomes desirable because, in being true to itself, it seeks not to deceive. Indeed, deception is unnecessary to it.
Halsbury’s Laws of England. A remarkable legal encyclopaedia which, though now also available digitally, is seen and recognised as the definitive statement of English law and is designed to assist all lawyers to answer any question which may, as a consequence of their business, be presented to them by a client. This legal work does not claim to be the authority on any topic – for which other works are available – but delivers fundamental reliability and clarity when a lawyer needs direction to respond promptly. It is, as a consequence, cited in courts up and down the land.
The Oxford English Dictionary. There are dictionaries and there is the OED. Defined as “the definitive record of the English language” it is the gatekeeper over accepted language and use and, as a consequence of its reputation, is seen as almost eponymous. The quality and academic rigour which lies behind the brand is a statement in itself of the reliability which the consumer can expect through delivery.
It is observed that none of these items feels it necessary to emit siren songs in the airwaves of our perception. Their chosen method of defining their reach lies in the statement of their substance. This, it is argued, is what lies behind the strongest products and services today and which we, as producers, need to emulate.
A dangerous and futile task in a world obsessed by immediacy and making a quick profit? No. It can be seen that if it is so that we as businesses need to persuade by dubious advocacy rather than demonstrate by evident truth then we can see that our businesses are ephemeral at best or in decline at worst. Inner truth, like perceived beauty, will always be in the eye of the beholder and we each and every one of us judges by what we see to be true rather than what others tell us is fact.
We must make of ourselves strong things if we are to last the course and project our values into the future. And be better men and women as a consequence.
Amazon and the destruction of choice?
Amazon and you’re done? Are Amazon and Publishers both doing themselves out of potential revenue?
Let’s look at Amazon – a classic case where choice creates a model but where choice, by nature of its subsequent overwhelming nature, serves to commoditise value. Once value is commoditised, it can therefore be argued, choice ceases to exist. In a grey cloud, despite environmental analysis and empirical proof that it exists, no-one can see the water. Yet Amazon, a big puff of knowledge in a cloud of unknowing, still asserts a credible position in the consumer’s mind: good products, low prices, fast delivery.
The Amazon phenomenon
Amazon is a noted success story in digital economics. It has created an interface where service and delivery, combined with apparent low price, have engendered considerable consumer attraction and made it loyal. Who today does not shop on Amazon? Publishers themselves have become so terrified of this phenomenon that many have abandoned all sense of brand ownership and have either: constructed their own e-commerce platforms to tie in with Amazon; have re-routed their web sales to Amazon; or they have put their head in the sands. You can lead a horse to water but if Amazon’s tastes better…
The Amazon method
A singular conceit of the Amazon story is that it gives customers what they want at a price apparently guaranteed to be lower than elsewhere. Amazon has come to resemble the evergreen ivy – symbiotically thriving off the marketing initiatives of others to provide sales to consumers. Publishers market their products, the customers buy elsewhere. On Amazon.
Some producers – and publishers in particular – have attempted to conclude that Amazon can be fought by offering a lower online price. This curiously blunt response is inefficient: if publishers lowered their prices, consumers would flock to them – right? Wrong. This is the power of brand. Amazon has fought for the space in the battle ground of perception and has won handsomely, it seems.
Amazon has now created a machine and a brand so powerful that perception lies in the mind of consumers far bolder than individual brands themselves. “Want a Penguin book? Buy it off Amazon.” How can publishers survive when they have, in terms of brand apparently, ceased to exist?
The Amazon pricing myth.
If we study Amazon carefully we can observe that, as sales of a given product increase, so algorithmically the price of that product goes down. The machine appears to be designed to respond to products which sell well – allowing Amazon to manipulate its generous publisher discounts and to deliver margin by volume transaction.
By contrast, products which do not sell well are priced with minimal discount: Amazon deems, logically, that low volume transaction requires higher margin. It can be observed therefore that lower prices are not a function of generosity but of trend. Volume has rarely proven to be a route to margin save when driven by sudden and consistent demand.
The Amazon problem for publishers
How can publishers survive in an environment when already in excess of 50% of the retail price of a book may have been surrendered to Amazon in terms of “trade discount”? How can they survive when a significant proportion of the remaining 50% is spent on marketing and promoting the book in the first instance? How can the already slender pocket price be managed so that publishers retain enough to stay in business and promote new books, e-books and other products?
What makes a book desirable is one of the great publishing conundrums. As Philip Kogan, chairman of business publisher Kogan Page, once wryly observed “if you can write me a book that will sell then I will publish it”. The onus is on publishing staff therefore to be commercial rather than functionary. Yet many fall into the latter category. Many publishers and their staff have ceased to propagate consistent imagination; complacency has overtaken desire; professional pride has taken second place to “a job in publishing”.
It can be observed that if publishers are no longer imaginative in output, and if Amazon as a tool offers little but a vast lake of literature ill-defined beyond digital categorisation, then consumers will become weary. Choice becomes a chore, not the outcome of selective enquiry. In this world, even the brightest pearls remain hidden in the encrusted oyster shell of publisher and retailer ennui.
How Amazon fights against itself and its suppliers do likewise
If we re-cap: Amazon owns a significant portion of the digital retail space. It owns a significant chunk of margin. It benefits from publisher marketing spend. Amazon’s function to a publisher is to clear stock in sufficient volume so as to render the initiative worthwhile. Yet in offering so much choice in one brand space, Amazon also serves to negate its own success by diverting attention from product assessment in favour of salient “best-sellers”.
The publisher too does not help itself. We have also observed that significant rafts of publisher output is uninspired as a consequence of a publisher’s commercial imperative, which is to say the production of enough books in a year to deliver an overall margin at the end of it. The demand for revenue leads inexorably to the disintegration of quality unless the creation of quality is placed at the centre of publishing operation.
It is also an inherent problem with publishers in that they are unable to define the value behind their books and load them into the shop window of Amazon in the hope of passing trade. Reading many descriptions of books on Amazon is akin to visiting an art exhibition in a village hall: mediocre quality aspiring to be seen as great. Marketers and copywriters are woefully ill-equipped to do the fundamental job needed in today’s online retail world: to describe the essence of a book in order to engender its successful purchase.
It can also be observed that any search of Amazon may well yield a raft of entries for the same product. The current edition. Old editions. Other retailers selling the same edition. Entries with the book jacket showing. Entries without an image. Out-of-print editions from second-hand stalls. At the same time, Amazon is prepared to help the publisher but only, it appears, if the publisher is prepared to pay – for example, to appear in a promotional email to Amazon customers. More pocket price given away in the hope of further sales. Through Amazon. At 50% discount or whatever.
Amazon today, therefore, is often now a tool offering a shop window for products which are not attractively wrapped and neither are they inherently visible. In Amazon’s shop window, Tiny Tim would never see the toys he wishes his parents could buy for him. There are too many books, too poorly described.
Amazon, ultimately, is not helping itself. And publishers are not helping themselves – or Amazon – either. Which probably accounts for the fact that, even for Amazon, its book retailing margins are barely more impressive than those of the publishers themselves.
A way forward?
In creating a tool designed fundamentally to service volume sales of attractive items, Amazon in many ways has created a platform where significant potential is lost. By the same token, Publishers still remain unable to define why any reader should choose its products over those of another publishing company. Price and value once again fall away on the altar of doing the easiest things as quickly as possible.
This article argues therefore that a better model for Amazon be created where retailer and producer combine to create a platform of informed choice. Amazon should insist on certain descriptive and marketing standards for what it sells and publishers ought to know what it is they are selling by being more understanding of the value inherent in their product range. Amazon should refuse multiple entries of the same title and should not permit product entries deficient of key elements such as book jacket design, contents listings and other judgement criteria. Publishers ought, too, to create books of real quality.
In such an environment, consumer choice and product visibility become easier, volume-based products will continue to sell well and lower-volume items will be more accessible to retail at acceptable margins. But such a development is unlikely in the short term. Amazon has no financial need to change and publishers in response will continue to tread water. The consequence of which is the continuation of the same problem which has dogged publishers and booksellers for years: the idle pursuit of an acceptable level of income irrespective of the value surrendered through laziness and intellectual incapability.
In the meantime, the consumer remains confused, unable to make informed choices and the publishing and retail industry – Amazon included – will continue significantly to perform below their real potential.
Is blandness of message killing commerce?
Today, marketing has reached such levels of sophistication that it has the potential, by its obsession with technique, to negate the very intent of its ambition – the apparent persuasion of the many into the belief that they are the few. It is argued here that brands which try to engender a personality beyond the experience of their tangibility are the authors of their own disaster. Indeed, the commoditisation by behavioural categorisation will be the death of sophistication and of human ambition.
Let us reflect for a moment on the words of the former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whose funeral is today. She argued: “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something which no one believes and to which no one objects“. She was discussing political consensus; here it is suggested that a consensus of message by computerised demographic satisfaction leads to the same end. A failure of credibility.
From cars to shopping, companies today have – like politics – developed a fear of their own shadows as they consensus seek. Generic designs, inoffensive logos, perfect function and form have risen as protective shields for brands worldwide. The avoidance of failure and the nuanced presentation of PR and crisis communication have become the order of the day. imperfection, it seems, is unacceptable to large corporations. But lest we forget, Tess of the d’Urbervilles was made exquisite in her face by that very slight imperfection which rendered knees to melt in Dorset fields a century or more ago.
Jaguar E-Type – flair and vision sell brands more than references to the past
In trying to appeal to the many, today’s brands lose their appeal to the few who, in their orignal interest, created the very origins of the brand itself. Brands lose, in the search for volume, a unique identity which created them. If we compare a Jaguar E-Type to a modern Jaguar, we can observe how one man’s vision for flair (Sir William Lyons) and patriotism has now become a bland demographically-designed product for global reach. In the E-Type, the “ugly curve” of British design which rendered it in all contrariness exquisitely beautiful, has now been abandoned to vulgar blandness of the “global car” in the F-Type. Yes, the F-Type is technically much better but how is it different to an Aston Martin or even a Japanese sports car?
We can see that a company has lost its vision when, in the nomenclature of its product range, it seeks to imbue the future with the laurel wreaths of the past. By the same token, companies which try to disguise what they are behind the cleverness of irrelevant message – or which try to assert something which cannot be proven – are also doomed to fail. We recall well the idea that Rover cars were to be the “British BMW”. This indeed, it is argued, is a fundamental reason why politics itself is so discredited – the people demand substance and vision but the politicians dole out disguise. As do marketers. Supermarkets too are no different. We only need to enter a Tesco store to be confronted by the odious classification of day-to-day living into lifestyle choices disguised or enhanced often, it seems, by a neologistic creativity of profound cultural depravity. Can we really claim to live in a world – can we enjoy such a world – where “snacking” is apparently a quotidian pursuit of us all? Do we really believe the horrific monstrosity of Tesco’s claim: “helping you spend less every day“? Not forgetting of course the vile deception of “every little helps” which, when matched to the unfathomable pricing differences of similar products on the same shelf, leaves only anger in the belly of those who dare to consider it?
Every Little Helps? Is deception the rule of the day with companies that lose their real vision/
Today, the discerning customer shuns the average. It is said, for example, that some people only shop in Waitrose because they cannot bear to be among the demographic attracted by Tesco. Of course, many of these leading companies are impressively successful but the cracks are appearing in brands built by conceit. Today, for example, it is revealed that Tesco’s attempt to commoditise the USA with its cheesily (and perhaps patronisingly) branded “Fresh and Easy” has ended in failure and the company has reported a sharp fall in sales. Rover closed long ago.
And then of course comes the tyranny of the desperation brands: payday loans and gambling websites. The depiction of these businesses as some how as acceptable as walking the dog or going to church is one of the most heinous marketing crimes of the modern age. In making something with great potential dangers (particularly to the vulnerable) as appearing inherently safe, marketers have sold their souls to the devil.
It is of course legitimate to argue that businesses must shape themselves to their target market and, in so doing, to exploit that market to their own – and their investors’ – satisfaction. We cannot, in the pursuit of honesty, debate the need for commercial valediction. But we can argue for a statement of delivery beyond that of demographic categorisation.
In seeking to classify purchasers as target markets, companies shape consumers as pawns without thought or direction – modelling them through loyalty schemes to behave in a certain fashion. From modern housing estates to motorway service stations, the satisfaction of a general demand over an aesthetic imperative will only ever create a weakness in ambition and an uncertainty in what is truly possible.
Companies, individuals and marketers owe it to their customers to highlight a vision for the future and not merely deliver the satisfaction of a perceived demographic imperative. It is argued indeed that in creating target audiences, companies deprive us all of a future. Conversely, by responding to market demand, they are more likely to shine a torch into what is otherwise a dark cave of human ennui.
So to engage the minds of consumers, companies need to have a vision with which people can identify without being patronised. Desire is created by a demonstrable passion shining golden aloft and not by the clothing of the bland in a carapace of nylon. Demand is driven by shared dreams and not by the satisfaction of the day-to-day. If we as marketers surrender human interaction, cultural aesthetic and the art of the possible – and sacrifice these values on the altar of transaction – then all we shall ever have is diminishing congregation in the church of commerce.
So it is that we recall these words: to thine own self be true. But if in thyself thou art but paste, then a diamond thou shalt never be. Humanity shines through in the best of us – and we distort the pleasure of our intercourse and ambition at our peril.
Failing to use good English is costing us sales
For the consumer, truth is made demonstrable following the personal satisfaction by categoric examination of recognisable component elements. Fail to substantiate a claim and credibility collapses. This is why integrated marketing communications are critical to commercial success. Yet many brands are let down by poor quality communication. Integration falls at the wayside of output necessity.
Engage the enemy more closely! Nelson’s order is as relevant to marketers as it is at sea. Discipline of message is all
In Great Britain, and in other English-speaking countries, we are blessed with a language of fundamental power, flexibility and performance. Eloquence combined with subtlety can be used to extol the virtue of anything from a humble clout nail to a complex aero engine.
Yet many companies have little understanding of message or its fundamental significance in a world where perception is all. Many marketing teams today do not work with the power of the language. There has been a decline in the acceptance of good English and a preference for poor diction, imperfect grammar and “dumbing down”. An obsession with playing to the gallery has replaced a focus on disciplined rigour. Germany, on the other hand, does not tolerate poor quality.
Yet it is surprising that many in Britain take the view that issues such as correct English, detailed definition and fundamental quality can be ignored. Only recently, Waterstone’s felt that the apostrophe was an irrelevance and Mid Devon Council have recently followed suit. These organisations feel it is easier to cower in the shadow of ignorance and to “move with the times” than to enforce “old fashioned” values. Rubbish.
Quality and loyalty, I argue, are defined by attention to detail. We know from bitter experience how British manufacturing has suffered by lazy, surface-led marketing and has ignored the substance of fundamental product delivery. Marketing spin, like political spin, is viewed - rightly – with contempt. The test of any message, therefore, is in the consistent demonstrability of self-evident fact.
Yet managerial indiscipline leads to collapse of message. In their weakness, managers paying scant attention to detail can rot their brands from within. What use is a well-written brochure if a website is unusable? What use a well-designed website if a poorly-written email never leads a consumer there? What use any marketing collateral lest it speak the same language – in a disciplined way – as its fellow components elsewhere in the marketing mix? What use a team of marketers if they know not what they do and have no direction from management? What use a sales person who cuts price to grab the sale and ignores all other marketing message?
Discipline, says Robert Fripp, is never an end in itself, only a means to an end. So it is that discipline in marketing message requires fundamental attention to detail in order to create inherent credibility and, ultimately, sales. So it was recently that the appointment of Kent Youth’s Police and Crime Commissioner,Paris Brown, did enormous reputational damage to the recruitment practices of that police force as a result of crass communications not matched to service delivery. Self over substance, we might say, is a curse of the modern age. An indisicipline of thought process led to significant reputational damage.
Mockney equals mendacity? Rigour in communication is crucial if message is to be believed.
Yet message structure is also let down by message presentation. Modern politicians from the Miliband brothers to George Osborne and Ed Balls have all adopted a multi-regional ”mockney” approach to diction in order to appear as ”normal” rather than appear to be “out of touch”. The result is a lack of credibility. Indeed, careful study of TV performances of these individuals and others reveals that the greater their use of “mockney”, the more likely it is that their message is uncertain at best and mendacious at worst.
If we seek to speak in language which aims to show affinity rather than being structured to define truth then we will fail in our objectives. Such an approach is rightly seen as patronising; a classic example is the current advertising campaign for Ariel washing powder where two girls are speaking with unfeasible accents as they attempt to portray “today’s youth”. One only needs to observe the stereotypical presentation of flat-capped northerners or be-kilted ginger-haired Scotsmen to realise that this form of presentation is flawed and divisive.
Ordered, structured language – supported by packaged evidence which can be objectively assessed – leads to reader/listener conviction. Squawked claims from a soapbox do little other than to excite the basest of instincts. So it is that when we create any marketing communication it must speak in a consistent fashion so as to withstand the scrutiny of probing examination. Wherever a brand is “touched” – from strapline to sales presentation – consistency will create a much greater likelihood of success.
So marketing message – and message management – is a crucial discipline. Who is the target market? What do we offer? Why is it necessary? What will it provide? How can we prove it? If we make a claim here, are we substantiating it there? Wherever the marketing message touches the consumer – on whatever part of the customer journey – we must hold fast. Indiscipline of message will cost us sales.
The book as price model a thing of the past?
Bookselling – why should price points determine value rather than content and utility?
If book publishers know one thing it is this: once a book is published, you have to publish more. This is because, behind the glory and beauty of the latest launch, lies a nail factory churning out product to keep cashflow strong or, more likely, just to stay afloat. There must be an alternative to this.
It is argued that pricing for a book is linked to retail practice rather than consumer value. Most publishers today are still as concerned about the retail “price point” as ever before. Yet who defines end value? The publisher? The retailer? The consumer? Ultimately, value is defined by the consumer. He or she is the only arbiter in the final decision.
If a product is desirable beyond the price suggested, then purchase is inevitable. But only by those who view the value as essential. If value is not perceived, purchase is unlikely – or requires marketing to engender that which is not immediately visible. Consequently, it can be observed, the false application of price points to the purchase of information is a nonsense. The perception of value must be self-evident if either strong profits are to be delivered or targeted volume is to be achieved.
The folly of the price point
Price points either undersell or oversell a product. It cannot be the case that information or literature is “worth” £9.99 or £19.99. Discounting and “three for two” deals for books turn purchase into a money-focused, rather than value-tuned, transaction.
Retailers argue that this tactic works, of course. And it does – with the proviso that the consumer perceives the value of the products in the bundled deal rather than the contents of the package. The only value perceived is the lower price – and the hope that the larger amount expended (spending on two books) will deliver higher intellectual value when the three books are consumed.
Price points are related only to the promotion of stock movement based on retail-orientated behaviours. They bear no relationship to the potential profit of a book. Unless, as is often the case, the publisher wants to sell out of printed stock in order to deliver the margin to the nail factory. In this case, why is the price point relevant in the digital space?
A price point surrenders value. It leaves profit on the table merely to encourage volume sales.
Try before you buy?
Let us consider the alternatives. Some have argued that digitisation of books permits the part-selling of books. Consumers can try before they buy. If we reflect on the value debate, we can see that whether a book is available in whole or in part, financial transaction is only possible if self-evident value is demonstrable. Why pay for part of something which is not understood? Would a motorcyclist buy a front wheel but not the rest of the machine?
A consequence of ”try before you buy” is to create a mini nail factory producing bit-part books whose existence and production take up more staff time. The model is a replication of the flawed larger model of price-point based product.
Maximising the brand?
It can be observed that in selling component parts - consumer testing – relies still on the conceit of brand. Publishers who do not leverage brand are now falling behind those who do. For a brand, in an uncertain world, is an emblem of certainty of experience. Anyone can publish a digital book today but at the point of purchase, the value debate comes to the fore: who would buy a book by an unknown author from a digital platform designed around financial exchange rather than quality and substance?
What use is a price point for an unknown author? It can be seen that brand – service, design, quality, delivery – is crucial to perception. Brand is therefore crucial to a publisher’s freedom in pricing to value.
Lending structures
Library models in the digital space are now seen as offering new potential: consumers rent a product in return for a small fee. If more value is required, the product can be rented for longer. This model is interesting but contains two signficant problems of the publisher’s own, historic, making: a book is perceived as a book and therefore has a known price – both by the publisher AND by the consumer.
It can be seen, therefore, that for information to be leveraged today, the perception of ”the book” needs to move beyond the historic book trade model. Consumers require information and are prepared to pay for it. Publishers need to sell product with inherent value. The psychological challenge therefore is in the perception of what a book actually is. A book is currently perceived as a product with a known price point.
Poor quality publishing
If we return to the publisher as nail factory, we can see that a requirement to publish a set number of “titles” per year is part of the structure to deliver an annual margin. A consequence of this process is a failure in quality. If a brand is built on quality but destroyed by the demands of volume then the brand will not survive. Or it will be damaged.
A reliance on price point has created a business model designed around volumes, margins and sales where the focus is on selling stock in sufficient quantity just to keep going. Where then individual product focus, brand potential and leveraged value?
Ways forward?
It is argued, therefore, that publishers need to focus on niches with defined value opportunity. They need to develop brands which are equated with chargeable price. They need to nurture quality through robust commissioning. They need confidence in pricing to value. They need to establish formal links via nuanced marketing with the end user – the consumer. The publisher needs to exist as profoundly relevant in the crowded minds of the consumer.
It is clear that if publishing companies see their future still with the book trade then they are surrendering brand ownership and perception to others whose only aim is to clear stock, not sell value. The price point is the enemy value perception except in those cases where a publisher brand is only to sell product at a certain price. This, as we can see, is why many publishers are suffering with ever tighter margins. If the trade is to play a part in this process then they too need to understand that as book sellers they are selling more than books.
The book as price model? No. The publisher as price model? Yes. Brand ownership and leverage is crucial to future financial success.
Is the marketing of gambling unacceptable?
Foxy Bingo just one example. Is it right to promote gambling as a happy lifestyle choice?
Gambling is a business which promotes the possibility of success as being more likely than the probability of failure. Now liberalised in the UK and supported by politicians advocating the freedom to “have a flutter”, gambling has advanced onto our television screens, tablets and phones as a lifestyle choice worthy of envy. Is this acceptable?
The pursuit of excellence, corrupted?
Let us start with the man (or the woman; the consequence is the same). From the moment of his birth, it is suggested that a man’s duty to himself and to his peers is to be excellent. As perfection is impossible, even – as we know - among those most godly, we can see that a man’s duty is instead to be as excellent as possible, in the circumstances. This is, of course, difficult.
For marketers, it presents a problem of a conflict of ethics versus profession. It is the duty, by dint of his (or her) profession, for the marketer to strip away man’s excellence as a deer does the bark of a tree. Temptation leads the mind into forests new so marketing aims to lead us into new experiences, new products, new services. Marketing is the discipline of commercial temptation.
As a consequence, the man who through life maintains as much of his excellence as is possible is a stronger man than he who by distraction weakens. Consequently, therefore, it can be argued that the weaker man is the marketer’s target and that marketing in such a way may be described as dishonourable.
This is a harsh judgment. However, we can also observe that honourable marketing is that which improves the excellence of the man by stripping away as little as possible of his own soul. We as marketers achieve honour by the bettering of the lives of our companies’ prospective customers.
Yet in human kind, ugliness of spirit is revealed when the good in man is removed. Arguably, marketing which as its consequence reveals an inner ugliness rather than an outer perfection can be seen to be corrupting.
So we must challenge ourselves as marketers as to whether we prefer an inner morality or a blind following of professional duty. This is a difficult contest to manage.
The archer’s paradox, the marketer’s paradox
We know that when an arrow is loosed, it flicks from side to side in paradox of its apparent forward momentum. Marketing is just like the archer’s paradox – placing forces in the way of momentum; in this case the momentum of man to live life honourably and true to himself.
But primacy of moral compass is not necessarily the motivation of men. For marketers, it is well known that a driving force in life is to be better than one’s peers. As Toxophilus says to Philologus in Roger Ascham’s treatise on archery of 1545: “When a man striveth to be better than another, he will gladly use that thing, though it be never so painful, wherein he would excel.”
We can see therefore that in the satisfaction of that need, marketing can be justified. To offer a better drill, a stronger file, a smoother plane, a marketer can make the carpenter better at his bench. Excellence drives excellence and progress is made.
But in the promotion of gambling, as also in pay day loans or drinking, it is debatable as to the higher state achieved as a consequence of commercial transaction. In gambling, the conceit lies in the likelihood – however unlikely – of achieving wealth beyond the price tendered in the bet. Marketing promotes a consumer reward which is statistically unlikely.
Should any marketer, irrespective of his agnosticism, promote gambling as the desirable outcome of his activities? We are aware today of the not insignificant issue of the problem gambler; when gambling laws are more liberal, a consequence of marketing is an increase of human suffering.
Marketing and the problem gambler
Sex sells. Glamour is often used to sell gambling.
To help assuage their guilt in this matter, gambling companies advise “problem gamblers” to seek advice from recognised charities.
What exactly is a problem gambler? Someone who loses their home through addiction? Someone who is prepared to cheat on – or steal from - their partner or colleagues? Someone who is deluded, such as those who believe the conceit that in “playing” on their laptops in the loneliness of their bedrooms they are dressed in a white tuxedo in some Monaco casino? Is it the case that a problem gambler believes they are wealthier than they are? Or will be, one day?
Often the reality of the problem gambler is a tired bedsit, a rotting terraced house in a collapsed industrial town, the boredom of a housewife with little to do, the alcoholic with untreatable addictive tendencies. Occasionally it will be some wealthy lord, as in history, who fritters away his inheritance on the unreliability of a horse’s legs. But rarely. Gambling appears disproportionately to attract the poor in pursuit of freedom, the troubled in the pursuit of happiness. And footballers.
But if these stereotypes are typical, and the suffering so great, is it appropriate for gambling to promote itself using the notion of the exhilarating experience of winning rather the much more prevalent experience of losing? Is it right to promote small lists of winners, rather than significantly larger lists of people whose losses paid for the winners’ winnings? Is it more truthful to offer signing-on “bonuses” to new players rather than promote the inevitable withdrawals from the “players’” bank accounts which form the real business model? Alas, as in all marketing, smiling girls are more endearing than desperate men, sex sells more than sobriety.
But those who suffer at the hands of addiction are the dark shadows that lurk behind the curtain; so famously described by Dickens as Ignorance and Want. As Toxophilus says, “And if there were any so desperate a person that would begin his hell in earth, I trow he should not find hell more like hell itself, than the life of those men in which daily haunt and use such ungracious games.”
It is an unpleasant truth that in times of recession, spending on gambling – like claims on PPI - increases. At the time of greatest vulnerability, gambling appeals as offering an easy way out. And marketers are tempting us. Yet the truth of the model is that gambling companies cannot remain profitable by rewarding desire to all participants. Profit and winnings are the fruits of loss.
Gambling industry statistics – a problem gambler in every hundred
The result is that, according to Gamble Aware between 0.7% and 0.9% of gamblers are defined as problem gamblers: nearly one person per 100, 7-9 people in 1000, or 7-9,000 in every million. The NHS estimates that there may be 250,000 problem gamblers in the UK.
As we have seen, it is not entirely clear what a problem gambler is. But we can be sure that it is not someone who enjoys a flutter of a few pounts every few months on a horse. And it is clear that every “problem” is a tragedy, with more than one player as partners, family members and relatives all have to live with the consequences.
To offset negative publicity, marketers advise PR to position companies – whether gambling company, arms supplier or a tobacco producer – as responsible. Under the banner of corporate and social responsibility (CSR), companies advocate positions to offset the potential harm of their activities. In the case of the gambling industry it does this by paying £5m of its profits to “help fund gambling-related research, education and treatment” and claiming that the problem gambling figures are lower than in the USA or Australia.
Yet it is a condition that gambling begets gambling. The more a man loses, the more he seeks to redress his loss and, as Toxophilus observed, “Now if a simple man happen once in his life to win of such players, then they will entreat him to keep company whilst he hath lost all again“.
It can be appreciated that it cannot be in the interest of a gambling organisation to encourage the winning gambler to walk away. In order to generate repeat business it must encourage addiction in some form, and this addiction must as a consequence of the business model produce more individual loss than it does for the company. Personal loss drives corporate earnings.
Inherent truth
So the question for marketers is whether it is acceptable to portray gambling as an industry based on the successful performance of the few rather than the unsuccessful performance of the many? Is this truthful marketing?
We have spoken before on A Brand Day Out about the need for inherent, demonstrable truth in marketing in order for consumers to make an informed decision. If marketing cannot be honest in how it promotes gambling then can a marketer justifiably work on gambling assignments?
Offers abound – online gambling sites encourage participation.
If we accept that it is the duty of man to be excellent, can the marketing of a product which leads to the misfortune of the majority who take part in it be deemed an honourable and excellent professional pursuit, even if “problem” gamblers make up a small proportion of the customer base? Not forgetting that “small” is 250,000 people, enough to fill Manchester United’s ground 3 times over with people to spare.
Toxophilus guides us in our estimation of this question: “if a man consider how many ways and how many things he loseth thereby; for first he loseth his goods, he loseth his time, he loseth quickness of wit, and all good lust to other things; he loseth honest company, he loseth his good name and estimation, and at last, if he leave it not, loseth God and heaven and all; and, instead of these things, winneth at length either hanging or hell“.
Ascham wrote that in 1545. If our job as marketers is potentially to cause through gambling the avoidable unhappiness of others – even if it be the unhappiness of just one man or woman - then we ask questions of ourselves. Given how hard it is to earn £1000, would our mothers be proud if, through our art, we encourage others to lose it in an instant?
Note: This post is something I have been wanting to write for some time as marketing of gambling has proliferated in recent years. It is written from the point of view of compassion, not first-hand experience of this corrosive issue; nor do I intend any personal criticism of those who work in the industry.
If you know of any problem gamblers, or are affected by the misery of gambling addiction, the following sites may be useful:
Acceptable marketing? Can marketing today really be truthful or has it lost its way in a sea of vanity?
Truth and manifest integrity today are more important than ever to businesses seeking to remain competitive and relevant in customers’ minds. Without truth – demonstrably defined by self-evident fact – businesses and brands will die. But what is “truth”? What is “the truth”?
In his “Seven Lamps of Architecture” written in 1849, the artist, philanthropist and social commentator John Ruskin attempted to define the aesthetics of architectural honesty by deconstructing the forces which lay behind it. Among these seven lamps, the lamp of truth serves to guide us, as marketers, even today.Let us reflect upon his writing for a moment.
He suggests: “How difficult must the maintenance of that authority (truth) be, which, while it has to restrain the hostility of the worst principles of man, has also to restrain the disorders of the best – which is continually assaulted by the one and betrayed by the other, which regards with the same severity the lightest and boldest violations of its law!”
What, indeed is truth? In commerce, we cannot be sure. This is indicative of the forces which act upon the marketer: at once a desire to sell a product yet also to create an image of it in the customer’s mind which may indeed be deceitful. No object means the same thing to every man or woman. Yet marketing messages and products are often tailored to the generic whole.
This must imply a level of deceit, irrespective of whether the marketer believes in an acceptable truth, because a general message to appeal to all must be inefficient in its application to the individual. The technique applied therefore is that “the truth” is defined by the fact that only some of what he or she says must in some part be acceptable to the recipient. Can we accept this way of thinking?
Do we today, through the acknowledged depravity of the world in which we live, advocate partial truth as acceptable – more acceptable than total truth? Total truth, after all, is more likely to be less relevant, commercially, than generic truth by dint of the fact that a refined truth is more likely to be acceptable to a smaller number of people. And therefore – unless we operate in a purist value-based pricing universe – less profitable.
Is there a compromise which can render our approach acceptable to ourselves if not to our customers? Some may argue that at point of purchase or renewal a customer is not wise to the truth: he/she decides to purchase based on the sum of all the facts available. Consequently, truth is defined in its majesty by the inherent limits of the customer’s indolence.
This may indeed show us how we can refine a truth if not be comfortable with it. In judging a product or service, customers are prey to numerous forces: neighbourhood pricing; issues of volume; perception of quality; perceived substitutes; unique attributes etc. So a marketer – using appropriate segmentation techniques – can be reasonably comfortable with the manner of his/her persuasion.
Yet many marketers fail – and many sales people also. Driven by sales targets to move stock, truth often falls at the wayside of necessity. Partial truths to generate a sale replace inherent truths – what some call brand integrity. The indolence of customer perception is replaced by the idleness of persuasive capability.
The use of marketing under pressure results in post-purchase cognitive dissonance (PPCD). This marketing expression should leave all of us – at least those with a conscience – cold. Because it means a customer believes that he/she has been lied to – they are uncomfortable with their purchase. If customers perceive deception – a narcissistic legerdemain – then marketing has failed.
It could be argued that marketers and sales people guilty of inciting PPCD should be seen as dangerous and treacherous threats to a business. The damage to brand perception, emotion, warmth and credible promise wrought by PPCD is – particularly today in a social media environment – one of the greatest risks businesses can be exposed to.
As Ruskin writes: “Nobody wants ornaments in this world, but everybody wants integrity. All the fair devices that ever were fancied, are not worth a lie. Leave your walls as bear as a planed board, or build them of baked mud and chopped straw, if need be; but do not rough-case them with falsehood”.
Falsehood, the deception of inefficient and indolent marketing, is a canker on the branches of commerce which must be cut out. Demonstrable truth, as we have argued before on A Brand Day Out, is the beacon which will guide prosperity through the darkness of uncertainty.
As Ruskin concludes when he cites the destruction of earlier architectural aesthetics and the decadence brought about by architectural affectation developed out of simpler and more pure design methodology:
“It was not the robber, not the fanatic, not the blasphemer, who sealed the destruction they had wrought; the war, the wrath, the terror, might have worked their worst, and the strong walls would have risen, and the slight pillars would have started again, from under the hand of the destroyer. But they could not rise out of the ruins of their own violated truth.”
Ruskin wrote these words about architecture. We might argue that our own listless vacuity be seen as equally abhorrent in a world where marketing views its success more in terms of what it sees in the mirror than how it affects and relates with the customer.
Honi soit qui mal y pense?
