albertmcwilliams's posterous

a bit iffy at times, but generally a good idea

Givens Head

In the last few years I've noticed a drastic increase in the number of statements issued as "given." Things that are tossed around as facts, reality, and unquestionable truth. There have always been givens, but the sheer number of things companies, marketers, rely on these days without any notion where the given even originated is astonishing.

The rapid Given Explosion is likely due to a combination of two giant changes happening all at once. First, the economy asploded and left everyone in the lurch. Sales are down. Money is tight. Companies need answers! They need something to pin the decline on (when in reality it could simply be a general decline). That happened at the same time that we got all these new channels of communication, whether it's social networking websites, or email blasts, or twatters, or flickrs, or any number of words with missing vowels. 

So, at the moment companies were presented with vaporizing sales without explanation, a plausible explanation in the form of new media appeared  also as if from nowhere. One mass mistake of confusing correlation with causation and we've been left with a base of "givens" that, well, aren't (rather, they might be, but who knows, and many signs point to "not.").

Today in AdAge there's an article about Ford and Twitter. that is rife with these "givens," and included the one big one that all others are based on. The one that I hear every day, and it's exceptionally poignant because, well, it's about me.

Ms. Connelly added that millennials don't want to be talked at by a brand but instead want to be part of the conversation. "Understanding their priorities helps us market to them, so that we're giving a message that is relevant to them."

"Millennials don't want to be talked at by a brand but instead want to be part of the conversation."

Is that true? We've all heard it so much that we assume it's true. It sounds logical. The statement itself has certainly been marketed efficiently as people are definitely buying it. Has this statement taken advantage of the Dunkin' Donuts Effect? Remember when they just said they had the best coffee, and even though you never tried it, you found yourself talking about how you heard their coffee was awesome having forgotten that you originally heard it from them? 

The problem is Dunkin' Donuts coffee really isn't all that great. Is the idea that Millennials want to be part of the conversation something that Social Media Marketing folks started saying so much that now everyone says it forgetting that they originally heard it from some Social Media douchebag(uette)?

Quite honestly, I've seen much more evidence to the contrary than supporting. First and foremost, I'm a Millenial (though barely). I assure you, Pizza Hut, Ford, Pepsi, and Right Guard, I do not want to talk to you. Oh hey, Apple, company who I love, do you want to chat? You don't? Good, I don't either. I want to buy your awesome product. I want to tell my friends about your product. I do not want to talk to you about it. You know who wants to talk to brands? My grandmother. She's bored. I have friends coming over to drink tequila out of my globe-bar.

Perhaps that's just me?

 Okay, Apple is a good example. As they pass Exxon Mobile for the worlds most valuable company, and having gone from near-oblivion to that point during the time-period in question, it would be hard to argue that they are not the model for success when marketing to Millennials. Apple doesn't have a twitter, or a facebook page. What's more is that Apple is the definition of a closed company. If they had a motto about making customers part of the conversation it would be, "fuck you, we're Apple, we make an awesome product." Apple is criticized by all the folks "in the know" every time they make another closed, "fuck you, we're awesome," product or system... then they charge twice what anyone else does and sell a billion of them and become the world's most valuable company. In the know, indeed.

Back to Ford; later in the article they posit another given that "millennials don't view cars as a status symbol like the boomers did." Is that true? How do we know? Perhaps they just don't view Fords as the status symbol like Boomers did... and that's the real problem.

I don't have all the answers to these questions, but taking so many givens means you're not asking the questions in the first place.

Blackberry Riots: You're Missing the Point

Like many Americans, sitting over here on my fat, spoiled ass, I've been following the riots in Britain. When they first began lighting thing on fire I assumed that there must be some serious complaints with the state of affairs in Merry Ol'. Then, I watched this video on the BBC where two, I believe the term is "tarts," drink Rosé and complain about rich people.

Over the image of shops engulfed in a massive conflagration the reporter asks these young women, "why do this to local people, why do this where you live" to which they respond, "they're the business owners, the rich people. That's why all of this has happened, because of the rich people."

Something wasn't clicking. They're drinking all day, talking about how fun it is, stealing Rosé... Their gripes are with "rich people" and "the government." Not a specific gripe, mind you. They're not saying "the government keeps making my relatives disappear into Gulags" or "rich peoples' children do not have to go fight in the civil war, but mine do," but simply, "rich people," and "the government."

Later this week stories are emerging about what a large role Blackberry instant messaging (BBM) played in the riots, helping them spread quickly and organize looters (organization? looting? Sid Viscous is turning in his grave). What appears to be missing from this analysis is that the rioters had Blackberrys.

As in, these rioters who claim to be sticking it to the rich people by lighting their shops on fire and stealing their Rosé, have $400 smart phones and $100/mo data plans. I wonder what they think rich is, if not having a Blackberry? Does the Dole in Britain pass out iPods with your foodstamps? Are you allowed to request that your beef be organic from the government food line?

Smartphones are the definition of luxury. Welcome to the suburban middle-class riots of 2011, where folks are just fed-up with these fascists making them pay for flat screen TVs and fine wine.

Perhaps I should be thanking the British rioters for making us Americans not the spoiled brats of the world for once... at least for a week or two.

"Wul"

I would like to request removal from lexicon, "wul." 

"Wul," is the manifestation of "well" that appears immediately before someone says something tremendously whiney. "Wul" appears before excuses for why something terribly easy wasn't done, or can't be done, or shouldn't be done.

Generally, between the "wul" and the whine, a bit of air escapes to produce - it's not an actual grunt - but more like the sound puppies make when they're sniffing around for some sweet, sweet dog-milk. Like, life is just soooo hard. 

You've heard it:

"Wul, hehf, there wasn't parking so I'll just take it over tomorrow."

"Wul, hehf, I didn't see anything that said, don't put the gasoline in a bucket."

"Wul, hehf, I didn't have any stamps."

"Wul, hehf, I couldn't email him because my chair was broken."

When I hear a wul-ism, I wonder about past generations. Did they have a "wul?" Is it just our generation that is so pathetically spoiled? Has the "everybody gets a medal" idea produced a generation of folks who know that if they find a reason why they can't, someone else will come along and do it for them? What if Churchill was all, "Wul, hehf, he's already got France."

Also, I wonder how the rest of these Wullers lives go? How do they tie their shoes? How do they feed themselves? Do they just sit at the table with a fork in their hand until someone finds them, having starved to death, with a note that says, 

"Wul, hehf, the hot dogs were frozen."