Digital Hive

Scrimping: restoring our sense of control in turbulent times

There's been increasing talk about the economy, recession (is it just me or is just over the past 6 weeks that the new war is our war against recession?), and the public mood and confidence. I discovered an interesting NYT article about what it really means when higher-end consumers start talking about scrimping on the nice to haves (e.g., $160 dog grooming appointments) and then doing it:

"for consumers with disposable income, the act of pinching pennies on everything from toilet paper to yoga classes has less to do with actually saving money and more to do with emotional health....Sure, being thrifty can help people save a few thousand dollars a year, but it can also help them regain some sense of control when the world seems topsy-turvy — with stock markets around the world falling last week, brokerage firms announcing billion-dollar losses and those ubiquitous For Sale signs....when these dollar-stretching consumers cut back, they do so in ways that make them feel good and enable them to maintain their status."

So scrimping is all restoring a sense of control in a turbulent world. I buy it.

Why scrimp instead of cut outright? The article quotes Joe Priester, an associate professor of marketing at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California and the president of the Society for Consumer Psychology: “In a way, a lot of these brands have become safe harbors for us,” he said. “People build attachments to brands over time, and those are very much like friendships or buffering devices in our world. You don’t hear people saying, ‘I’m not going to Starbucks.’ It would be like saying ‘I’m going to cut off this friend.’ ” In a working paper under peer review, Mr. Priester and colleagues write that “consumers see brands as part of themselves” and the greater the attachment to the brand, “the more difficult the behavior the consumer is willing to enact in order to maintain the brand relationship.”

Just the first in what I predict will be a long series of similar articles as the economic doldrums close in on us.

You've been warned: the internet is evil!

I came across an interesting WSJ.com interview with author Lee Siegel I wanted to share.

The WSJ summarizes the premise of Siegel's new book (pictured here):

"In his new book Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob, Mr. Siegel [a cultural critic and senior editor at the New Republic] rails against the worst aspects of the Web, which he views as a vehicle for commerce that devalues serious thought in favor of 'page views.' The Web, he suggests, nourishes a youth-focused culture that prefers gossip and buzz to reporting."

Well that got my attention.

The Q&A which follwed in the article (Qs from the Journal's Jeffrey Trachtenberg) reveals more of the author's thinking, much of which seems pretty far out of touch with how we are seeing people use the web:

"WSJ: Is it possible that you've overstated the significance of the Internet mob in dumbing down daily life?

"Mr. Siegel: I don't think so. You can see the leveling of culture in every aspect of culture. You have a situation now where the audience is so exalted and catered to that at the end of a Broadway play you will have the actors applauding for the audience, and the audience will take a bow. That's the power of the Internet, where consumers are seen to have such powers that they must be heeded. What this masks is a crude commercial pitch. Getting people to participate is just a way of getting people to consume (emphasis added)."

This is the same line of reasoning which would tell voters to stay home on Super Tuesday because it's rude to demand they be heard.

I must ask, why is this phenomenon bad? Haven't marketers been in complete control of their interactions with consumers for quite long enough? We think it's about time that consumers had a say in the relationship, indeed started to drive it. We love the internet because it levels the playing field.

Also, I think more than ever before participation is culture - people have many more ways to touch and feel what's happening in the world, and share it. Yes that could result in a purchase of some kind, but quite often it results in a non-commercial action like sharing an opinion or discovering someone you can relate to and learn from. There is a way for participation to be a good thing, and the internet makes it possible.

Siegel continues: "Popular culture has given way to popularity culture. Popular culture draws people to what they like. Popularity culture and Web culture draws people to what everybody else likes. It used to be that Big Brother is watching. Now it's Big Brother is watching, oh, really, when, and how can he watch more? Big Brother, what's his cellphone number?"

I see the author's point here - but is the web a driver of this phenomenon (culpable for creating in) or merely instrumental in its spread (an enabler of what people want)? I would argue that the web is to be commended for enabling people to take their passions and interests (regardless of what they are) to a new level.

Many find the web's bounty overwhelming, and thus "shortcut" to the choices their friends make (in buying a new product or selecting a hotel for a trip, for example). The web creates a problem in offering too much choice. But this is a good problem, and preferable to having less choice.

We love the internet because instead of forcing people to think one way or another, it gives them many more choices and options, with the added advantage of perspective from their friends, peers, even experts. If it's done nothing else, the web has given the consumer much more control (and choice) than ever before (not less!), and therefore the ability to reach better decisions. What they choose to do with their newfound choice is up to them. If they choose to like the same thing, that's their right.

"My book is really about what it means to be online. The Internet is the first social environment created for the asocial individual. There is no signal of a real presence: not a voice not a face. Just words on a screen."

To this I can only say - bollocks. Ask any teenage what MySpace means in their lives (or Facebook) and you won't be able to shut them up - it's their entire universe, it's how they express themselves to their peers, it's how they experiment with aspects of their evolving identities. Or, check out the stories patients share with each other on illness discussion boards. The web is not just a real presence that morphs and evolves to reflect the user's life, it's a whole new dimension for expressing yourself and connecting to others.

If you have a WSJ.com subscription, check out the video accompanying the article. If you don't, download the article: Download author_qa_wsj.com.pdf

"Reality marketers": paparazzi for hire

A recent Time magazine article details a disturbing new extension of paparazzi mania - hiring your own personal faux paparazzi. I suppose this evolution is logical in a world where pop culture's favorite lens magnet Britney Spears has selected a paparazzo as her new paramour.

The website for one of the new enterprises capitalizing on this trend (Celeb 4 a day) offers "your very own paparazzi experience" in Austin, TX, LA and San Francisco - including a mocked up publication with your photo on the cover (see example). Britain's Personal Paparazzi offers similar services but a tad tamer - they appear to specialize in taking photos of guests at parties which are then uploaded (the photos, not the guests) to a photo hosting site for later access.

According to Time, "The trend is driven by the twin obsessions with chronicling one's life and experiencing fame. 'We live in a culture where if it's not documented, it doesn't exist,' says Josh Gamson, a University of San Francisco professor of sociology who studies culture and mass media. 'And if you don't have people asking who you are, you're nobody.' University of Pennsylvania sociologist David Grazian, who wrote On the Make: The Hustle of Urban Nightlife, calls personal paparazzi reality marketers, who make the act of being photographed more meaningful than the actual photos. 'The goal isn't to produce a product,' he says. 'It's to heighten the experience of the event. In that sense, there doesn't even need to be any film in the camera.' "

Interestingly, comments on the ONTD page where I noticed a posting about this (having seen it originally in Time's latest print edition) nicely illustrate society's collective ambivalence about this phenomenon - half are asking where this service can be bought (and if there's a budget version), and half note how sick it is.

I can't help but be struck by this phenomenon's resemblance to the broader trend we've seen in marketing - the most successful brands are no longer stalking their consumers paparazzi-like with a long lens, they're being invited in by people who want to experience the brand, share it with their friends, etc (without paying the brand, but offering an exchange of their time and attention).

On a more tactical level, I wonder how we can harness this manufactured desire for pop culture validation with big creative marketing ideas. Certainly recent campaigns which let you get your photo or text message onto a huge digital display in Times Square are an obvious step in this direction, as are the perennial promotions offering prizes to live like a star for a day (perhaps with an actual star in tow), but I haven't yet seen a brand thoroughly embrace this trend. Is there a way to translate this phenomenon into a more powerful marketing platform?

At minimum we could paparazzi people as a prize?

In An Unusual Move...

While I was having my annual baking frenzy during the week of Christmas I visited the Ghirardelli.com site looking for recipes that called for their unsweetened cocoa powder. Even using their advanced search tool, I could not locate more than a couple of recipes, which was frustrating given that I had a brand new can of cocoa powder. Hershey's has the functionality I was looking for (hey so does Hillshire Farm,) so I was kind of bummed out. Now I have many cookbooks and a binder full of divine recipes that I regularly rely on, but I was trying to give a company a break - and actually use their website. GAH! So annoyed was I that I went to the customer feedback section and told them of my frustration. I vented, I dragged out the cookbooks, I forgot the whole thing.

And then an envelope arrived in the mail today. A hand addressed envelope from Ghirardelli filled with recipes. Wow. I was so completely surprised by the effort that I had to write about it. Good work Ghirardelli - now please fix the functionality on the website.

Start the new year out with some savings!

I'm a little embarrassed but I'll just come out with it - I actually like this campaign called "Feed the Pig". There's a significant "cheese" factor (at least I think there is), but it still makes me laugh (no comments about what that says about me).

The campaign site is not particularly noteworthy, but does offer the campaign's 4 :30s (you'll enjoy them). The site explains about the campaign:

"Benjamin (the pig) is the star spokespig of a new national public service campaign from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and The Advertising Council. The goal of the campaign is to encourage the 40 million Americans age 25 to 34 to take control of their personal finances. The campaign, Feed the Pig ™, is a new component of the 360 Degrees of Financial Literacy effort which aims to educate Americans about how financial issues affect their lives. It features a Web site, www.360financialliteracy.org, offering free tools and resources to help Americans manage their finances through every stage of life.

"Become a friend of Benjamin! Check out his MySpace page!"

I think the creative solution to the (apparent) brief makes it hard to take the message in (is this what they mean when they talk about engaging?). You have a large human pig representing the bloated pork rind you've become as a result of over-spending. Most of us would probably prefer to be revealed naked in Times Square rather than discuss money much less look at ourselves head on in the financial mirror. Maybe we're finally ready for this message? After all, we've seen pretty wild financial headlines this year (Dow at 14,000; skyrocketing foreclosure rates). At least this pig is a nice pig (sus scrofa felix).

What I actually find more interesting than the campaign is its subject matter. I cannot recall a single past mass communication effort (certainly not a recent one) which was (apparently) charged with getting people to stop throwing their cash-advanced dollars into the sputtering US consumer economy. We all know the stats and signs, we read all the headlines about foreclosures.

Will be interesting to see if the market accepts it (though I applaud its creators for giving Americans the financial kick in the pants they need).