A birthday message for media

Today is my 70th birthday, and while I should be using the occasion to kick back and relax, I’m writing a birthday message to my old media pals.

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 7.20.37 AM

The above image is my Google home page for the day. It’s a birthday greeting from Google served only to me and, I suppose, all the other people who have a Google account and were born on this day. The reason this is significant to media companies is it reveals the anachronistic, archaic nature of online mass marketing, which remains the only model that media companies know. They still sell their online “inventory” as if it had value against the purchase of advertising on individual browser screens. It doesn’t. Google not only recognizes my browser as me, but they can follow me virtually anywhere I go on the network. The giant ad exchanges can serve individualized ads to me directly; they don’t need Wanamaker’s “hope” to reach me in a crowd.

The question then becomes, why does an advertiser need your online mass if it can cull out only those it wishes to reach? The advertiser doesn’t, unless you happen to be a part of the ad exchange or network the advertiser is using. Geography is a simple matter when you have access to every browser anywhere. That is what media companies are up against. Media sites, mobile or otherwise, are just dots on somebody else’s detailed map, and it gets worse every single day. The extent to which media companies fight this is truly astonishing, because nothing they can do or offer can slow it down.

Meanwhile, as each day ticks by, another local advertiser wakes up to the realization that this can be done, and the value of your online mass sinks deeper into the abyss. The money drain from your community is far beyond what you realize, and so you’re doubly screwed.

Happy birthday to me.

The horizontal church

pomoLet’s get one thing absolutely straight about institutions, postmodernity, and the Great Horizontal, a.k.a. the age of participation: hierarchies are inefficient, self-centered, and therefore, unacceptable governors, and this truth is universal. Therefore, anyone proposing hierarchical governance – regardless of the logic applied – is cutting a path back to modernity and even premodernity by virtue of its one-to-many paradigm. This is where those writers of postmodern Christianity or postmodern churches do themselves a disservice in their prophecies. They don’t look beyond the immediate future, and thus are prone to error in advancing postmodern Christianity today.

Of course, culture change isn’t a zero sum game, for vestiges of all will remain in Western civilization, but the rejection of hierarchies as self-serving is a core concept of the postmodern era, which has just begun. It will be viewed as anarchy and chaos for those who long for the equilibrium of external command and control of the masses. Ah, those good old days. Let us never forget the social engineering words of Edward Bernays, the father of professional public relations, in his 1947 essay and 1955 book “The Engineering of Consent:

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it.

Or from his 1923 book Crystalizing Public Opinion:

Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Bernays and cronies like Walter Lippmann may have brought these concepts into sharp focus at the start of the twentieth century, but this knowledge has existed throughout human history. Humankind has always known individuals striving for the top with the unspoken goal of raising one’s standard of living by arranging for lesser “others” to do all the work. As Ricky Scaggs sings in his song My Father’s Son, “The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend.” It’s our innate animal nature. The strong thrive and survive, right?

For most people, the word “postmodern” causes a subconscious roll of the eyes or a conscious face palm. Christians have heard about the postmodern practice of deconstruction, but only insofar as it relates to their faith, and this is not an accurate depiction of postmodernism or our response to it. It’s much, much bigger than that.

Deconstruction is not an analysis, a critique, or a method, and I’m afraid that those who are defining postmodernism within the church today have reduced it to exactly that. Let’s be real here, folks. Postmodernism rejects much of what has held up the modern world, including processes and systems that were used to justify the institutions themselves. Just allow your imagination to wander, for example, to the institution of medicine, which is one of my favorite targets. Horizontally shared information and knowledge is a profound threat to anyone who has a stake in maintaining the medical status quo. It is fundamentally naive to think that protecting its turf isn’t job one for any institution, including medicine. As Clay Shirky points out, it’s the duty of institutions to help maintain the problems for which they are the solutions. I think this is true, and as such, health care in the West will always default to the haves, unless and until everyday people do something about it. And as I’ve discussed many times in the past, this is already taking place without crossing the line of “practicing medicine,” which is the government endorsed task of the institution. Postmodernism won’t do away entirely with institutional medicine, but it will alter its value proposition considerably.

This is why I’m so outspoken regarding those with something to lose (or gain) within Christianity by writing about postmodernism and deconstruction as if they were handy tools for reinventing the faith in the image of itself. This is not what’s in store for Christianity, and I will pull no punches in expressing that view as I further explore the disruption of equilibrium in Western culture.

Along the way, we’re going to try out some pretty neat stuff. I hope you’re ready.

Advertising Disrupted

Jack Trout and Al RiesAt the height of the Mad Men era — the year was 1969 — two New York ad men penned an idea that has driven advertising ever since. Al Ries and Jack Trout discovered and innovated the concept of “positioning,” and followed it up with articles and then a series of books that established methods of manipulating audiences through branding. Madison Avenue quickly responded, and the rest, as they say, is history.

But history evolves. Seasons end as easily as they begin, and the season of positioning is running into the realities of empowered consumers and what Jay Rosen calls the Great Horizontal. It cannot last, and those who pursue it and only it may well be left holding an empty bag.

Ries and Trout’s original book is still considered foundational to contemporary marketing. It was called “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind.” Here’s a brief definition from the book:

Positioning…has revolutionized the way products are advertised. It’s the first body of thought to deal with the problems of communicating in our overcommunicated society. With this approach, a company creates a “position” in the prospect’s mind — one that reflects not only the company’s own strengths and weaknesses but those of its competitors as well.

Ries and Trout knew that this could be controversial, so they “positioned” it not as a form of advertising but as a form of communications, of which the examples chosen were from the advertising field.

And most of the examples are from the most difficult of all forms of communication—advertising. A form of communication that, from the point of view of the recipient, is held in low esteem. Advertising is, for the most part, unwanted and unliked. In some cases, advertising is thoroughly detested.

To many intellectuals, advertising is selling your soul to corporate America—a subject not worthy of serious study.

In spite of its reputation, or perhaps because of it, the field of advertising is a superb testing ground for theories of communication. If it works in advertising, most likely it will work in politics, religion, or any other activity that requires mass communication.

What’s never really discussed is the potential for mischief through deceit. The sneaky nature of it likewise assumes, up to a point, an ignorant mass, and that has a great potential to backfire.

There are two enormous problems with the whole concept today. One, mass marketing is increasingly problematic, for mass audiences are a dying breed. Oh, there are still events like the Superbowl and the Academy Awards that draw big audiences for advertisers, but now, even popular “second screen” activities get in the way by giving viewers something new to do during commercial breaks. Positioning just doesn’t do as well in a fragmented environment or in a network. Everybody functions as a media company in the network, so any “position” can be spread virally, especially if the product or service being positioned doesn’t work as advertised. Two, it’s hard to “position” somebody when they’re hip to being positioned (and don’t like it). Ries and Trout’s “The Battle for Your Mind” doesn’t ask for approval to wage war in such a private place, and this is its most challenging aspect, especially in a world where people can do something about it. The idea of waging war in our minds was advanced in Ries and Trout’s second book, aptly named “Marketing Warfare.” The rude assumption that enough money buys a ticket to play war in the battlefield of the mind is revealed for what it is, a self-centered effort at human manipulation.

What the leader owns is a position in the mind of the prospect. To win the battle of the mind, you must take away the leader’s position before you can substitute your own.

Good luck with that in a world of equal nodes on a vast network.

One of the problems with this business is that it relies on tolerance as the measurement of what “works” and what doesn’t. The assumption of tolerance is a dangerous proposition in a world where people are actually able to not tolerate, and one would hope that this is troubling to Madison Avenue.

Nearly ten years ago, Umair Haque wrote that the best marketing for tomorrow would be the product itself, and that business resources would be better used in product improvement instead of marketing about products. In other words, positioning and all that fancy Madison Avenue footwork won’t “move” people to like something of poor value that simply doesn’t work. In a network, business is helped by people talking to and sharing with each other, because the idea of a “mass” audience is blown apart in a network. The best position, therefore, is one of reliable quality. People may pass around fads for a season, and perhaps enough to make a difference, but people in general today tend to not be easily switched, and especially when the attempt is through old-fashioned mass marketing.

Positioning, however, is Madison Avenue’s lifeblood. Starting with research, the smart marketer can determine what it is that people are seeking from whatever product is being researched. From this data, sophisticated campaigns can be created to help move the product, either by shifting the brand in the minds of consumers or by creating an entirely new brand. Some are better at this than others, and so much of advertising’s pecking order is based on success stories brought about by Ries and Trout strategies and tactics. Success, of course, is determined by how the concept impacted sales, not by how it impacts people. Corporate America marches onward, while the recipients of the marketing magic are unaware that they’ve been shifted, or so the thinking goes. Again, contrary to what the advertising world would have us believe, what the people in today’s network think matters. Tolerance, again, is a poor measuring stick.

If Madison Avenue is to thrive in tomorrow’s universe, it will have to find a replacement for positioning, but mostly, it’ll have to find a replacement for trickery and deception. Until that happens, however, there’s simply too much money at stake to even begin to entertain the idea that contemporary communications is at odds with advertising’s practices. The first thesis in the network’s seminal book The Cluetrain Manifesto is “Markets are conversations,” and there are plenty of people playing with concepts of conversational marketing. Marketing in the network is and will always be one-to-one instead of one-to-many. Consider a party. Which is more likely to produce success, signs on the walls of the party or direct communications with individual party-goers. This is the conundrum for advertising, circa 2013.

Above all, corporate America — the target of everything Ries and Trout — has to stop insulting the very people who support it through purchasing the products and services it makes. This sounds so logical, and yet it’s not even top-of-mind with those who practice the selling of what America makes.

The Web is not an “advertising” medium

Here’s the latest in my ongoing series of essays, Local Media in a Postmodern World. As of this week, the essay series is now ten years old!

The Web is Not An “Advertising” Medium

Over the next couple of weeks, we’ll be bombarded with canned “what to expect in 2013” predictions. I normally engage in this myself, but I’m undergoing another one of Life’s passages, so I think I’ll skip it this year. Instead, I want to offer a thought piece on the state of advertising and the Web, because I’ve come to the conclusion that, in terms of garden variety advertising, the Web simply sucks.

In a way, you could say this is about 2013, because I don’t think it’s going to be a very good year for legacy media shops and the Web. Legacy media sells audience, and the Web doesn’t play well with audiences. There’s been a hint of this in the news winds of late, but I’m actually going so far as to say it doesn’t work.

This is serious business, for Madison Avenue depends on audiences in order to, well, BE Madison Avenue. Welcome to the total disruption of advertising.