Having never thought our way through mainstream/Social Darwinist dogma and pseudo-radical cant, we lefties have generally conceded the topic of culture — groups’ learned perceptual and behavioral habits — to the right. As a result, we tend to remain silent about paint-peeling things like this:
So, here comes Killary, as reported by The Washington Post:
Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a McDonald’s Big Mac or a Chipotle burrito bowl? A can of Bud or a bottle of Blue Moon? JCPenney or J. Crew? As she readies her second presidential campaign, Clinton has recruited consumer marketing specialists onto her team of trusted political advisers. Their job is to help imagine Hillary 5.0 — the rebranding of a first lady turned senator turned failed presidential candidate turned secretary of state turned likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee. Clinton and her image-makers are sketching ways to refresh the well-established brand for tomorrow’s marketplace. In their mission to present voters with a winning picture of the likely candidate, no detail is too big or too small — from her economic opportunity agenda to the design of the “H” in her future campaign logo.
“It’s exactly the same as selling an iPhone or a soft drink or a cereal,” said Peter Sealey, a longtime corporate marketing strategist.
As always, spending will reach new heights, and choices and democratic responsiveness will be even closer to zero.
It’s going to be a long winter, friends.
The future is now arriving, friends:
Twitter ad targeting just got more broad … and specific. Today the company announced that it’s giving advertisers the ability to take aim at more than 1,000 audiences defined by big data partners Acxiom and Datalogix.
Called “partner audiences,” the new ad feature means advertisers can now serve Promoted Tweets to Twitter users who have signaled purchase intent in specific categories off Twitter. Acxiom and Datalogix are dominant players in the big data industry, tracking and analyzing consumer behavior across brick and mortar and online businesses. [Source]
In honest usage, “signaled,” of course, means an intended communication. What it means in marketing-speak, however, has nothing to do with any respect for the intentions of the target populations, whose “signals” in this case are merely their ordinary procurements of life’s necessities, a.k.a. naive purchases of goods and services.
The fact that overclass agents arrogate unto their masters the right to treat such acts as “signals” from their victims speaks volumes about how illegitimate the planet-wrecking reign of corporate investors really is, even as it remains so deniable and seemingly benign.
If you want to understand how the world really works, corporate marketers are a far better source than mainstream economists. The latter, of course, have long insisted that capitalism is the ultimate expression and accommodation of human reason. At the level of theorizing individual behavior, that still-regnant claim rests on the homo economicus axiom, which insists (invariably without serious examination of relevant evidence) that ordinary people are, first and foremost, walking calculators.
Here, meanwhile, is what those who are in charge of actually selling actual capitalist products have to say on this topic:
Experiences shape how consumers feel about brands, including factors such as service, quality of products and amenities.
Advertising has always needed to appeal to consumers’ emotions as the most rudimentary form of engagement, and that has not changed.
Emotions actually play a more significant role in purchase behavior than price and convenience…
There’s a point at which a customer’s positive or negative experience is so strong that it can transcend the rational aspects of a brand (e.g., quality, price, service). That’s why creating and guiding the customer experience is so important. Experience creates emotion, emotion fuels engagement and both together impact brand and business outcomes. [Source: adage.com, March 4, 2015]
Not exactly textbook material, is it?
As “content marketing” devours the talent and space that once was journalism, its architects include the likes of Sarah Mandato (what a name for an overclass mind-molder!), “director of content solutions at Nativo, a native advertising company.” As shown at Advertising Age, here is how our dear pixie-bot thinks and talks, as she labors to get her victims to “consume” her tricks on her clients’ sites, as “brand content served within publisher editorial streams, matched to the look and feel of each publication”:
How can brands ensure they’re optimizing content?
Optimization opportunities are similar to having a focus group providing real-time feedback about what does and doesn’t appeal to readers. With today’s robust ad tech ecosystem, marketers have expanded tools to apply A/B tests and optimizations on campaigns. It’s no different with content — marketers can test their branded content’s various components, such as headlines and images. By not taking advantage of this, brands are turning down the chance to listen to consumers and gain actionable insights around messaging that best resonates with users.
Yes, “listen to.” That’s “listen to” in the mode of BB and Winston Smith, of course.
Lovely stuff, isn’t it?