This is a pretty interesting mini-lecture by Nicholas Carr on media design and its impact. Along the way, you get to see how ads are starting to be sprung on us in new ways:
Ralph Nader has a new interview with Advertising Age. [It may be pay-walled, so TCT refrains from linking; you can find it.]
In the interview, Mr. Nader muses on “advertising inefficacy.” Commenting on the timeless fact that marketing remains something far less efficient than computer programming and that marketers are never sure which parts of their efforts are the ones that produce behavioral changes, Nader is apparently trying the tack of taking all this as proof that advertising is entirely ineffective, a mere vehicle for “misbehavior” by those who plan and sell it.
Nader’s underlying theory seems to be that, if he can only implant the news that advertising is a pointless waste, then TPTB will move against its ever-increasing importance in our lives. Here is Nader’s explanation of his motive:
“The more attention paid to advertising inefficacy, the more the FTC is going to wake up, and the more they wake up, the more Congress may wake up.”
Not only is this stunningly naive in political terms, but it simply ignores the serious evidence on the way marketing and advertising produce their intended results.
If we really want to address the galloping commercialization and commodification of our world, we can’t indulge cavalier opportunism, no matter how venerable the source. Delusion will get us nowhere. We need to describe reality if we want to exert some reasonable control over it. We are up against deep — and deeply logical — institutions. They will not yield to frippery.
While the sponsoring class kills the planet, here is an example of the self-serious childishness their marketing minions are up to on their behalf.
In the year 2017, in a world that needs to solve its problems of runway wealth maldistribution/population growth, ecological non-sustainability, and politico-military chaos, what are the leading lights of corporate capitalist innovation worrying about and working on? This, per Advertising Age:
“This is a unique moment in the ad industry,” Mr. Joe Marchese said. “If we don’t work together, ad-free models will continue to proliferate.”
“We are trying to figure out how to create new models that transfer attention more efficiently,” said Fox TV marketer David Levy.
“We know there is a need to lower the ad load because we inundated consumers and they are now tuning out and blocking,” said Helen Lin, president-digital investment and partnership, Publicis Media U.S. “When you increase the number of ads, your lift potential is reduced. We know we have to do something before consumers completely block out.”
Lovely, ain’t it?
As usual, reading the big business marketing press is more helpful than most regular journalism. Seems that the main cause of the unusually big errors in the marketing research tools used to conduct and predict the gigantic 18-month marketing operations we perceive as political elections was the fact that a significant number of Drumpf voters are ashamed of themselves:
How did so many pollsters get the presidential election so wrong? The answer may involve shame, some of which belongs to research organizations themselves.
The other part of the shame belonged to Trump voters, many of them unwilling to admit, particularly to live human beings on the other end of the phone, their plans to vote for the president-elect.
That was an effect that Trafalgar Group, a small Atlanta-based Republican-affiliated polling firm, began noticing during the Republican primaries. So it developed a system to counteract the effect. Trafalgar started asking voters not only who they planned to vote for, but also who they thought their neighbors would vote for. The latter percentage consistently came out higher number than the former, said Robert Cahaly, senior strategist.
“On a live poll, the deviation was that Trump was understated probably 6%-7%, and on an automatic poll it was probably understated 3%-4%,” Mr. Cahaly said.
Quite comical and telling that the elite hacks running Brand Klinton seem to have utterly missed this aspect of reality in their pathetic efforts to peddle an even more pathetic product.
The answer to the errors, as always, is to better reduce politics to marketing:
Political polling may be more closely watched and higher profile, but in many ways it needs to catch up with brand market research, said Simon Chadwick, founding and managing partner of Cambiar, a consulting firm for market-research agencies and their investors.
“What’s happening increasingly in marketing is that survey research is being used to complement other forms of data,” he said, be it transactional data, social-media listening, ethnography or neuroscience. “People increasingly are synthesizing those other forms of data,” he said, “but in politics it doesn’t seem to have happened.”