Controlled Capitalism is Changing
The problem with one-way communication and some of the old way of doing marketing is that for years, in an effort to solidify and meet our revenue forecasts, we have trained human beings to be the type of consumer that doesn’t think for themselves. They’ve been rolling with the consumer herd so that large corporations with nebulous names can spoon feed them what they need to like, and pay for, next week, next month, next year.
In this awesome age of information that we are swimming in, people are now learning from a young age to think for themselves when it comes to consumables and how they have the power to choose the next trend and influence others, even people they don’t know (customer reviews for example). This power has also made them hungrier and less patient when it comes to the ROI attached to something they read, eat, drink, smell, etc….people expect a return now when you engage them and frankly, I don’t blame them.
Think about how much time and money is wasted marketing something in a way that creates no return or meaning for the customer. Think about the thousands of banner ads that were designed by pricey agencies that were ignored and never clicked, the print ads were never read or that never drove one direct sale or word of mouth reference. It’s mind blowing to think about all the money spent on that with nothing to show for it.
Legos Are Deep, Man
A nice write up entitled, “Finding Purpose in Labor (and Labor Economics)” was posted by Daniel R. Hawes where he posts some thoughts and opinions regarding a study that was done and documented called “Man’s search for meaning: The case of Legos”
Here’s a quote from Daniel’s write up about the experiment talking about it’s premise:
“Meaning, or purpose, in the task was manipulated by what the MIT and University of Chicago experimenters did with Lego toys after a participant had put them together. For one group of participants – the group with the meaningful task – the constructed Lego toys were piled up on a table for the participant to see, and new Lego pieces were provided to build further toys. For the meaning-deprived group, each constructed toy was immediately disassembled (for the participant to see), and the parts given back to be reused for subsequent building efforts.
Maybe not surprisingly to you, but possibly surprising for economic theorists, the average amount of toys each person was willing to build significantly differed between the two groups.”
……and here is a quote from the researchers doing the study:
“Despite the fact that the physical task requirements and the wage schedule were identical in the two conditions, the subjects in the Meaningful condition built significantly more [Lego toys] than those in the Sisyphus condition. In the Meaningful condition, subjects built an average of 10.6 [Lego toys] and received an average of $14.40, while those in the Sisyphus condition built an average of 7.2 [Lego toys] and earned an average of $11.52.”
After reading I was reminded of one of the most simple rules to good marketing, and more importantly in this day and age, surefire tactics for upping the statistical odds of you getting a return for your social media campaign initiatives: Meaning & Purpose.
As a Social Media Marketer, It’s Already In Your Bag of Tricks
Something as simple as Legos remind us of one of the low-hanging fruits of social media. The study above reminds us of something very simple and fundamental.To me, the above data states something that should be obvious to any social marketer.
When you run a campaign, is there a meaning or purpose for the user when they arrive at your campaign landing page, click on your shortened URL, follow you on Twitter, etc.? Do they feel that when you engage them does your promotional delivery wreak more of the ‘take’ than the more important scent of ‘give’?
If you build your social media efforts on a foundation of meaning for your audience, the revenue and brand awareness will come naturally. Even something as simple as Legos prove it.
Onward.
Brian’s recent blog post: “
Now that title may at first glance appear somewhat pretentious but even being someone who manages social media for a large company like myself, I have a hard time proclaiming guru or expert status.

Emotions. Patterns. Business. Morality?
I started thinking about this when I was typing my previous blog post about Google having the Holy Grail. As a marketer, I’m always trying to figure out human behavioral patterns and how I can maximize my company’s profit from the understanding of this.
I had an interesting thread going on Facebook the other day. I was eating sushi at a restaurant and was watching the people around me, talking to each other, responding to conversations with various facial expressions, hand gestures, and vocal tones that varied in intensity. All of these ways of expressing themselves were based on emotion that was being outputted as a physiological response to conversational input they had just received from whoever was sitting across the table and having lunch with them.
I had posted a Facebook status stating that “Emotions are still math.” It was interesting to see people’s responses to this. The vibe I got is that it almost was considered offensive that I had said that. My only point was to acknowledge the fusion between the two concepts, not to minimize the importance of one over the other. Maybe my choice of words made it come off that way, “flattening” the value of emotion. [...stealing your descriptor Andy
]. This definitely was not my intention.
If you know me, I’m far more emotional and dramatic than your average person, half the time it’s to my detriment.
Patterns
While I’m not necessarily referring to my friends on Facebook that participated in that conversation in my next statement here, for certain people I think it strokes a chord with them, like my statement was disregarding humanity on some blunt robotic level, not validating peoples emotions, converting the organic human aesthetic, all the things that mean so much to people, into 1′s and 0′s, basically saying that our entire population is just an abbacus made out of living tissue. My point with it was just that you can plug in formulas to patterns of human behavior. Patterns, whether abstract or linear, are still patterns, no matter how random we think the activity contained within those patterns actually is. I’m not the first person to say this and certainly not the last. Everyone learns this in Psych 1A their first year of college.
Is Business/Marketing Inherently Evil?
What I’m about to say here excludes non-profit organizations.
Successful marketers know that you need to recognize and understand behavioral data to make sound marketing decisions. This requires that on some level you convert what you see in human beings into a formulaic pattern so that you can run some numbers and calculate a risk. The goal of all that is to make more money. Period.
In reference to my “Emotions are still math” statement that kicked off the colorful convo on Facebook: If you are a marketing genius at a company that wants to grow, employ other human beings, beat your competition, understanding how to convert human emotion into dollars, does that make you evil? Smart? Shrewd? Heartless? All of the above?….or just someone trying to pay their bills?
I’m don’t know the answer…that’s why I’m asking.
[image courtesy of duke.edu]