April 4th, 2006

I've been up working since 5 and it's a beautiful day and should take a walk. Couple of things first.

In comments, Chris Heuer writes:

Funny how the ‘marketing people’ are still thought of like used car salesmen.

I've never considered marketing people equivalent to used car salesmen. I even admire marketing companies that come out with clever ads and interesting campaigns. There's been many a commercial I've found more interesting than the show, and I've liked some enough that I've actually bought the product because of the intelligence of the advertising spot. So, I don't not like marketers.

Thing is, before weblogging, I was rarely involved with marketers. In the companies I worked, most of my development was on internal applications; for the external apps, there was usually a level between me and the marketing department.

I've been exposed to plenty of market speak. In Boeing, we would go to these company-wide motivational meetings about 2-3 times a year. In the front of the room one or more people would have us do silly games, and the purpose of these exercises is that we would come back more team spirited or more motivated. The truth was that at the time, Boeing had too many middle managers, the threat of re-organization was always over our heads, as was the threat of layoffs. But the meetings were a way of some level of management somewhere reassuring some other level of management that they were working the problem–a problem that didn't usually arise from the people having to attend the sessions.

Then there's the use of marketing words, such as 2006's hot new term: agility. In the tech industry, we want agile applications. Who uses a term like agile for applications? Not techs, that's for sure. It's a stupid term to use for applications–agile at what? Meeting all needs? There is no application in the world that meets all needs. Agile at being able to scale? Then say, scale. Agile in that it can bend down and touch its toes? Better than me if it can.

As I said, I've been exposed to marketing, but not marketers. Not people who work in PR, or marketing, or who write motivational books, or anything of that nature. Until weblogging, that is. Now, I can't seem to swing a dead cat without hitting a marketer.

The question, then, is: why is this bad? After all, we all market ourselves to some extent; we all have causes or software or something we believe in that we write about. In fact, if we really like something, such as a technology, shouldn't we market it? If I write a tech book, shouldn't I market it? If you're looking for a job, shouldn't you market yourself? Yes and yes and yes.

And no and no and no.

A month or so ago I was at the Orchid show here in St. Louis. I was taking pictures of flowers when a gentleman, about my age, came up and gave me a pretty good suggestion of something to try. He told me that he learned the trick from a photo class he takes at a local community college. In fact it was the college he worked at. He also asked if I had a photo lab, and he recommended one I've used in the past. I agreed that it was a good lab, and then he mentioned they were having some form of a special and open house, and I should check it out.

I remember that at some point in the conversation I went from enjoying it, to being really wary. It wasn't anything specific that the man said, but the thought that entered my mind was: was he a buzz marketer? Was he one of those signed up from that company that sends people out to engage people in conversation, and drop in specific products or companies?

Now, St. Louis is not a marketing magnet, and I doubt this person had ever heard of buzz marketing or even weblogs for that matter. However, because of the nature of so many of my weblogging encounters this last year, I found that my growing wariness online was bleeding into my interactions offline.

It was a pity. It was also a shock.

I don't mind marketing at all, but I want to see it coming. I want to know that when people respond to me, it's really what they believe. I don't want to spend time reading and writing and at the end the day, wonder how much of the interaction was real. I don't want to be a part of the buzz. I'm too old to be part of the buzz. I was too old to be part of the buzz at least half a century ago. That's a long time to be out of the buzz.

Conversely, I want people to know when I respond to them, positively or negatively, they know I mean it–that I'm not playing a game. I won't say anything in an email that I'm not willing to say in my weblog; I won't say anything in a comment I won't say in my weblog. I've seen it happen too often–someone is sweetness and light in their weblogs, and then a complete asshole in email or comments. What they publish publicly rates right up there with creating agile software–its all words that don't mean a damn thing.

Since, I'm wishing, I wish you all would stop blowing bubbles all the time; and speaking your lime green, yellow, and pink thoughts–but then I might as well wish for more angular corners; what you do on your own dime is your business. But when you step on my time, it's mine.

So maybe what I want is: don't sell me stuff all the time. Don't sell me the next best future; don't sell me the next greatest start-up that combines letters into a meaningless word. If you want to market, great, go for it. But if you want to have a 'conversation', then leave the market speak at home. Markets are conversations–please stop. I'm begging you.

I don't even care if you're completely truthful or 100% honest–a really beautiful lie works for me. All I care about is that you're real. Don't pull me into your marketing. I don't want to be there.

Comments
1
Lawrence Krubner - 3:06 pm 4/4/2006

In the early 1990s, DARPA began to focus on agility. There was a sense that American industry was in decline relative to Japanesse industry. There was a sense there had been a revolution in industrial quality, and the need for quality, and that the Japanese had lead the way. Some of the economic thinkers at DARPA theorized that the next great revolution, after quality, would be agility.

I heard many definitions of agility during these years, but the main one I heard was "the ability of a group of companies to form a working supply chain for the creation of a new product."

During these years, there was a lot of talk of AVEs - Agile Virtual Enterprises. Hollywood was the model. In Hollywood, hundreds of independent contractors and companies can be pulled together at almost a moments notice to work on one product for several months, and then they can break apart. In a phrase, "small pieces, loosely joined." People were wondering, could the rest of industrial America learn something from this?

DARPA handed out a number of grants to researchers. The one that I know of best (my best friend was somewhat involved with the project) was the one that went to Ted Goranson and lead to this book:

link

But actually, everything useful (to non-managers) in that book can be gleaned from this 6 page pamphlet:

link

I wrote to Goranson last month and asked him to reissue this thing.

One thing to come out of the research of those years was that America was suffering a lack of corporate agility: there were a lot of innovative ideas in small companies, but it was expensive for the Fortune 1000 to add new companies to their supply chains. The results were economically rational in the short term, but harmful in the long term: innovation remained trapped in small companies, and large companies remained lacking in innovation. Large companies also were shown to often be unable to take advantage of the innovation happening inside of them.

The upshot of the research of the mid-90s was push toward legal and technical infrastructure that supported the rapid grouping and ungrouping of independent entities. Again, "small pieces, loosely joined."

I could be wrong, but I've always assumed that agile efforts in software grew out of this larger effort toward corporate agility.

2
Ethan - 3:13 pm 4/4/2006

Not to be one of "those people" who quotes song lyrics and sits back reveling in one's coolness, but upon re-re-re-re-reading the "markets are conversations" slogan, I was reminded of:

Money doesn't talk, it swears. - Bob Dylan

Man, am I clever. ::: sitting back and admiring handiwork :::

But seriously, that's what I was reminded of at long last. Can we make that the 96th Thesis?

3
Shelley - 3:13 pm 4/4/2006

That sounds about right, Lawrence. What we should realize is that when a company gets over ten people, it's Godzilla. It can't help itself. If we realize its Godzilla, we won't be surprised when it crushes small buildings and people when it's flaying about.

4
Shelley - 3:16 pm 4/4/2006

Ethan, two points for you.

Me: I think I'm getting so good at this anti-marketing stuff, I should package it up, and market it. I just need to learn to think in bright pastel colors. I already have the rounded corners. Agile software, too.

5
Ethan - 3:18 pm 4/4/2006

I just need to learn to think in bright pastel colors.

You mean like "pinko"…?

::: ducking :::

6

What is it with you and emotions ? Marketing and all that buzz is just our culture having emotions. It's about hearts and minds … nothing rational … and it's certainly not about making stuff work. But without the emotions, making things work would just be a grand boor. Me, i can't really do things any more that i don't feel about. Why is it that you seem to be trying to take all the feeling out of our world ?

7
Shelley - 3:43 pm 4/4/2006

You're so right, Seth. If I don't have anything good to say, I shouldn't say anything at all.

8

Well, i think there is a difference between markets and marketing. Markets are us trying to exchange things - swap things we want less for things we want more. Marketing, classically, is attempts to manipulate people. Broadcast favours this mindset, just as it favours the totalitarian one in politics. I'm not saying marketing is totalitarian, but it has the same mass manipulation feeling.
Going to the farmers market doesn't give me that feeling at all.

9
Joe1 Norve11 - 4:40 pm 4/4/2006

Lawrence Krubner wrote that agile efforts in software grew out of a DARPA initiative toward corporate agility dating back to the early 90's. I'm no expert on au courant "agility," but I do remember Dan Ingalls work from the early 70's and Alan Kay's keynote about it, "The Subject Is Not Objects," given at OOPSLA, 1986. That's prior art, no?

10
Danny - 4:44 pm 4/4/2006

I'll go for pinko. When more effort's gone into the box the present came in than its contents, the emotion tends to be disappointment.

Interesting stuff on agility, Lawrence.

11
Shaded - 5:19 pm 4/4/2006

I got your lime green, and yellow bubbles.

"really wary"

I can relate.

The internet used to be more of a fresh idea place. Now that the Marketers have shown up it is more of a regurgitation place.

I'm tired of making lemonade just because the internet is full of lemons.

Shelly tell me you made that up about the buzz marketer. Tell me we'll make it through the storm and everything will be alright.

I've always been the kind of person to dig optimism from disparity but lately on the internet the only celebration has been bloggers screaming "Yay! I get the big chunks." before the marketers let go.

12
Karl - 5:31 pm 4/4/2006

"Broadcast favours this mindset, just as it favours the totalitarian one in politics. I’m not saying marketing is totalitarian, but it has the same mass manipulation feeling."

Kevin, the best "marketing", the holy grail of marketing, from what I understand, has always been targeted - the closer to word of mouth, to one on one, the better.

Just the kind of marketing empowering machine we're building - whether we want to admit it or not.

Seth Finkelstein has mentioned data mining in relation to Web 2.0 - he's saddly right. What a sales lead gold mine something like MySpace is. Or ummm… Technorati.

And Shelley, I can relate to how you feel.

"Marketing and all that buzz is just our culture having emotions. Why is it that you seem to be trying to take all the feeling out of our world ?"

You're trying to be sarcastic I hope Seth?

13
Charles - 6:02 pm 4/4/2006

I got up this morning at 5 AM too. But at about 6, I decided to go back to bed and I didn't get up until noon.

Your stories of the motivational meetings are so typical of big corporations. I read a research paper that said these motivational exercises can temporarily lift people up, but they always return to their old level of motivation, and there's nothing you can do to make long-term changes in people. They're either motivated or they're not.

14
Shelley - 7:22 pm 4/4/2006

Shaded, no, wouldn't make the buzz marketing up. No that good an imagination.

Agile programming is also related to eXtreme programming, which I am _not_ fond of. It is interesting, Lawrence and Joe1, to see that the concept has so much history.

Kevin, I agree and I loved the Farmers Market in San Fran. I think what is happening is the 'market' is moving to us now, and whether we want it or not. If I went down to the market to buy my olive bread, this is good. If the bread maker comes to my house while I'm taking my shower, says he wants to be my friend, and oh, here, buy my bread–well, the market just became less charming.

As for getting up at 5, good for the soul, rise with the birds.

15

I'm one of those cranks (actually I'm not sure if there are many of us — I avoid cranks as much as possible (irony intended)) who believe that marketing and marketers are among the people at whose feet the continued destruction of all that is good and true in our modern societies can be laid. I'm entirely serious.

Dovetailing nicely with that belief is the four-part BBC documentary series, the Century of The Self. Highly wonderchicken-recommended. Torrents are generally available in the usual places, if you can't get it any other way.

16

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts, longform, on extreme programming, Shelley. When I was part of a special multidisciplinary committee (as the slightly whacked-out visionary guy) to research and make recommendations to totally re-engineer the development division and map out product line strategy for the future, at the big ol' IT company I worked at in Australia, it was one of the things I did some research on, and much of what I could find on the subject seemed quite sensible.

I didn't end up making a recommendation to adopt it, but it was one of the things I looked into.

17

I'm with Stavros. Marketing sucks the soul out of everything it touches and gives nothing back. Anyone who tells you anything different is selling something.

Doesn't mean it isn't useful. Electricity can kill you and it's pretty damn useful.

Just got to learn how to live, and keep your soul, in a world full of soul-sucking marketers. Because marketing is not going to go away, until this gigantic group hug of social-software-enabled wirearchy turns all the means of production into one big generous collabortive effort.

Of course, we're all going to lose a lot of weight eating all that virtual food, and it won't matter that we're wearing rags because our online massive multiplayer social simulation of life will have us dressed to the nines. Probably even wearing bespoke suits from blogging tailors from an island nation where everyone talks with an accent, even the people who don't.

18
daveadams - 8:08 pm 4/4/2006

I understand the concern about meaningless marketingspeak, but "agile" in terms of software development does have a real meaning that it seems you've missed. It means writing code that's easy to adapt to new requirements without having to go back and refactor everything from the design document up. It's a more descriptive nomenclature for, as stavros hints, extreme programming. It's probably not a design philosophy that fits in well with most enterprise (to use another not-completely-meaningless buzzword) development, but it has its place.

19
Shelley - 9:27 pm 4/4/2006

Oh no Dave Adams, I would never miss a thing like that. Go to Google, search on "agile programming" and click the I Feel Lucky button.

The whole concept of 'simplifying' the software development process has now exploded into different approaches. Oh the concepts are good, but now the approaches are 'camps' and each requires understanding a lingo, which then 'marks' who is or is not in the knew on this 'new' way of doing development.

It's like Java — yeahs, it makes our job easier. We have to spend 20 hours a day keeping up with all those innovations that make our life easier.

Even the best concepts and ideas will eventually become codified, formalized, and eventually institutionalized.

Stav, that would be a good post to write. I will — just for you because its so damn good to see you writing again. And because it would be an interesting discussion to have.

20
Charles - 9:28 pm 4/4/2006

Yeah, yeah, getting up at 5 is great, unless you got to sleep at 3AM. I always have trouble making the switch to Daylight Savings.

Anyway, your musing on marketing reminded me of an essay I read long ago. The writer was a lecturer on mass media and the evils of advertising. He described his trip to NYC to deliver one of his lectures, and everywhere he went, the radio was blasting. He was getting more and more annoyed at the constant inundation of media, and as he was sitting in a coffee shop running over his notes a few hours before the speech, he suddenly heard a radio announcement of his lecture on the radio. He said he had an epiphany, the broadcast media is all marketing, whether it's pitching the latest Top 40 song or chewing gum, and it's all irrelevant until something YOU want to know about comes along, and then it's important.
Well, I got to thinking about that, I grew up reading anti-media manifestos like "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television," and I always tried to live by those lessons, we should be attuned to attempts to persuade us into buying stuff through advertising, and try to turn a blind eye towards all ads. But eventually I realized, I NEEDED to buy crap, and I was missing out on bargains in the advertisements. Silly me.

21

Thanks, Shell!

22

I dislike the practices of marketing people because I view it as too close to confidence hustlers - the goal is to play off greed and trust in combination, so as to extract something from you for the enrichment of the group working the game.

Note the whole point of effective deception is that you don't see it coming.

23

Wow! Very interesting and insightful mash up between marketing and agile programming. Color me impressed (in bright pastels even)

Shelley, the story about your experience with the potential buzz marketer is something that happens all too often. Whatever his intention or motivation, he quite literally gave you a 'bad vibe' that crossed your threshold of trust. Initially it felt like casual conversation, chit-chat. But after pursuing the same topic for too long in an unusual way, you could no longer believe that he was real and that his advice was real. His focus on the store was a sales pitch, not a conversation.

That is the sort of experience I was referencing in my comment on the other post. It is the sort of perspective that Dave so eloquently pointed out by saying Just got to learn how to live, and keep your soul, in a world full of soul-sucking marketers. and the feeling that Seth reflected by referring to them as 'confidence hustlers'.

A few bad apples does spoil the whole barrel.

I have exchanged a few emails and blog comments with Tara on the whole Pinko Marketing thing and finally came away with this perspective. Marketing has received a bad rap in many circles and like the used car salesman of old, the profession needs a makeover - for the presentation and for the substance. Going Pinko is one way to look at it, but I think that the basic premise of marketing is to match the needs of real people with real products and services (not vaporware, not with what we would like the products to be). This is to say that the purpose of marketing is to help make a real match between people and the products that will satisfy them.

This is not evil, this is not hustling - it is providing a good service to all. In short, the practice of marketing form my perspective is honest, truthful, authentic and most of all REAL. It is why I think what Tara, Doc, you and I are referring to is beyond Cluetrain 2.0 and beyond customer relationship management - it is moving the concepts back to the basic fundamentals. It is very literally and figuratively, "Real Marketing". More people need to understand what is real with regards to marketing, and what is the result of the few bad apples who use the marketing toolbox for disingenuine purposes.

I have been talking about this model which forms the basis of what I call The Communications Strategy since 1999. One of the core ideas proposed in this model is that most companies still focus too much effort on getting the sales, without looking at the negative costs of those sales to people who will be unsatisfied with the product or service. (coupled with the network effect, this could result in the loss of potential customers who may have been a perfect match for the product)

Companies should instead focus on getting more customers who will be satisfied and educating them on getting the most value from the product/service so that they become evangelists. This shift in focus would drastically alter the shape of this curve I present and dramatically increase potential for profitability (with solid operations of course). Therefore I propose that it is in the best interest of the company to not behave like "confidence hustlers" but to instead treat all customers and potential customers as they would their real friends - to be as real with them as they would be with their real family. To provide them with the best, truthful advice, even if it means recommending the competitor's product. This trust can pay huge dividends if it is really understood - look at the reputation Progressive Insurance has for taking this stance.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted your comment with regards to your feelings about having marketing people everywhere these days, but am glad for the conversation it produced.

24

the profession needs a makeover

I'd put it just a tad, just a titch, stronger. I'd say the profession needs to be killed with fire and buried in an unmarked grave. Then micturated on. Copiously.

But that's probably just me.

25

But eventually I realized, I NEEDED to buy crap, and I was missing out on bargains in the advertisements.

I hope that's sarcasm, but I'm not sure.

stavros and dave, what's your endgame here? I mean, your unmarked grave or wirearchy scenarios are fun to read, but not very realistic. If we accept your premise that marketing is all soul-sucking evil, that seems to leave us with a world in which we are forever surrounded by soul-sucking evil. How can any of us hope to maintain our souls in such a world? I see a lot of discussion of the problems of marketing, but little talk of solutions.

Shelley's take seems more practical to me. I like some marketing too. (But I'm writing this from my work at an advertising agency, so that's probably just my soulless evil side talking.)

26

Scott,

Apparently my iDisk sync boned me this morning as I dashed from my apartment before the asphalt layers started towing cars (long story), so a post I wrote the other night and re-wrote this morning didn't make it up although I sync'ed the disk before bailing. It's probably just a glitch, so it'll be up this evening after I get home, assuming the parking lot hasn't become a shallow tar pit and I become trapped like a wooly mammoth or something.

Anyway, the end-state is that marketing never ends, but people have to learn how to live in a world filled with marketing. I'm using a water metaphor, "drowning" in a "flood" of marketing, or learning to "swim."

Next post will mention drown-proofing. It's a nice metaphor. Relax, stop struggling, you'll float. Be still. It's a nice reflection on "being still" or (shhhhh…. don't say it too loud) meditation.

I still owe you a time and meaning response, but it'd be interesting if you thought about what you wrote some more and shared where that leads you. Just think about mindfulness and time. It sorts itself out.

27

Well "What if there were no stars?" … literally … what would our culture be like today if, when you looked up at the night sky, there were no stars there at all. Now play that game on marketing. What would our culture be like if there were no marketing? … no way of getting people's attention whatsoever. Think about that before you rag too much about the facts of our existance. Sure it can become obnoxious, i posted about such a case here, but buzz like Web2.0, and Ajax, and DHTML have a legitite place. Buzz is just as easy to ignore as spam, perhaps we should design better BS detectors … like this one, sounds like this .. sorry can't get any more of them at the speaktomecatalog.com.

28

Marketing is useful, but there are real problems.

In some ways, marketing is too successful. We have problems with obesity, diabetes, drug addiction, energy production, environmental degradation, and the list goes on and on, to say nothing of the "quality of life" issues that may be associated with our "continous partial attention," "always online" existences.

We've become shackled to a treadmill of consumption, and this economy is largely a consumer-driven economy, with Seth Godin's "Blanches" and "Bettys" buying junky Christmas ornaments and making Hallmark a "star" of marketing; while we sip bottled water that consumed energy to produce and distribute and adds platics to the waste stream, when Seth Godin even tells us that drinking water in the U.S. is among the best in the world and it's (nearly) free! But marketing tells us is a good idea to spend our money on bottled water to tell ourselves "a story."

That can't go on.

29
Ethan - 9:51 am 4/5/2006

What would our culture be like if there were no marketing? … no way of getting people’s attention whatsoever.

Interesting. I'm hesitant to agree with this as I don't quite agree that all attention-seeking behaviors boil down to marketing. And not all marketing attracts attention, so this isn't a clear cut all or nothing situation.

Actually, here is the analogy that came to me by way of good old Sesame Street. They once had a story about the King and the picnic, where the King kept telling everyone to bring the same item. After lots of samey instances where the entire kingdom brought potato salad (usually at the urging of the King, who said "you can't have a picnic without potato salad!"), the King learns how to delegate and a good time was had by all.

That, in a nutshell, is my problem with sweeping declarations like "markets are conversations" or "all marketers are liars" or "go Pinko". It's not a picnic without potato salad, but it's not a picnic with ONLY potato salad. Dig?

This comment was brought to you by the letter X and the number 4.

30

Ethan ++

Some things and concepts can not be boiled down to a phrase, and others that can, may make it more useful to further interest, but even they are not able to fully embrace the meaning in all situations. In short, even "Pink" phrases have some "Grey" in them.

But through conversations such as this, we are able to shed some light into some of darker bits and make things a little bit more clear.

Dave +

The use of marketing for the sole purpose of amassing excessive profits, of driving sales without concern for the negative impacts is indeed problematic. Still, we can not presume that everyone should create low fat, organic cereals in a free society. I want my Cocoa Puffs from time to time. But if I am educated, if the knowledge of nutrition is not only available to me as a consumer but considered, I may choose to only have it once in a while rather than at every meal.

It is simply not realistic to expect that we can change the whole of society's expectation of fulfilling their desires. We can however shift how companies operate to meet those needs. We can, collectively discuss the implications and through things like nutrition labels, things have started to change - at least a bit among the educated.

Knowledge is power. It may not be sexy, but when people understand the world around them, they can perhaps make better choices than those who don't. Or like me, they can lose the battle to desire for that extra serving of Ben & Jerry's and remain overweight.

Our real goal in this regard is to balance personal freedom with social responsibility. Just because you think I should not be smoking (I don't) does not mean I should be listening to you.

The marketing of powerful knowledge, however, like the Truth campaign, can bring about change over time as such behaviours become less fashionable and eventually are no longer tolerated by society at large. This to me is where 'marketing' should be headed, into the realm of Knowledge Marketing through the use of Real Marketing. Helping people discover those things that will be useful for their particular needs and interests.

I have been in talks with a few people to form an organization behind these principles with the intention of embracing some of these ideas as a practice area. We call it KNOWMA (the Knowledge Marketing Association). I don't have time to lead this at the moment, but if anyone is interested, I would be happy to work with someone to make this real.

31

Great analogy, Ethan. I'm going to be using that all over the place.

32
Karl - 1:45 pm 4/5/2006

Chris, I can't help but find it sad that you attribute responsibilities normally associated with educators, historians, and journalists with marketers.

Marketing does indeed serve an important purpose in our society - but I can't buy it as a nobel pursuit except when *used* for nobel pursuits (like you suggest) - and that is the exception rather then the rule - especially since a primary tool of it is manipulation. Of language. Of attention. Of desire.

I feel the need to paraphrase and build on what I said in the other thread here (apologies Shelley)….

If there is a *normal person* Web 2.0/Web 1.0 difference it's that services like MySpace, Xanga, Flickr and TypePad, are mainstream now, and participating on the web, besides email, has reached the not only the non-techs, but teenagers and children.

Marketers are salivating because where once there was a concern for privacy, we now share more of our private identities, needs, wants, desires, friendships, in public then ever before.

Web 2.0 == the post-spyware age. We are past concerns about cookies. About tracking. About companies holding on to our personal data.

Now every act of participation is cached, indexed and syndicated. We are doing so willingly. Enthusiastically. We trade our public participation for social capital, while companies are learning to transform that into revenue.

Being a natural optimist I believe there are positive reasons to empower people to share and connect, but there are causes for concern.

Shelley, you said, "All I care about is that you're real. Don't pull me into your marketing. I don't want to be there."

The scary thing is that echos the cluetrain manifesto pretty damn well. Get past its marketing-speak and that is what it proposes: http://www.cluetrain.com/#manifesto

My fear is that companies are actually learning this - and soon - very soon - you will never know who is selling you what because they are your 'friend'.

The information we give up so freely makes it easier and easier to target advertising that is *that* personal.

33

If we accept your premise that marketing is all soul-sucking evil, that seems to leave us with a world in which we are forever surrounded by soul-sucking evil. How can any of us hope to maintain our souls in such a world? I see a lot of discussion of the problems of marketing, but little talk of solutions.

I left Canada more than a decade and a half ago. I limit my discretionary spending to $75 per month, most of which goes on beer, and that from the company that advertises least. I don't buy things. I build my last computer out of parts — none of which came from a company that I'd ever seen ads for (other than the CPU, and I bought the one that was least advertised). I almost never buy electronic toys of any kind, and when I do, I base my choice solely on reviews from other users on the net, throwing away the obvious shillfuckery. I loathe iPods, which are lower quality for higher price than other options, and successful only because of marketing. I rarely buy packaged food, and never do I buy it if I've seen ads for it. I do not eat in fast food restaurants or drink Cola. I don't own Nikes or Pumas or Levis. I don't drink coffee at Starbucks (when I have the options)

I block all advertising on the internet. I do not have a mobile phone, so I do not receive spam calls. I do not answer my home phone unless I recognize the caller ID.

I do not own a car. I do not watch TV, except what I download, and that's free of ads. I do not listen to radio other than ad-free internet radio.

I make an effort to piss from a great height on all the marketing and advertising that has infiltrated the weblog space, because those people infuriate me.

Those are a few of the things I do.

I don't give a damn what the rest of you do to keep your souls, to be honest, but mine's just fine, thankee. Most people wouldn't be able to go to so such lengths, of course.

34

OK, that comes off a bit like a doctrinaire ranting weirdo hippy-throwback, and thus is easily dismissable. Typed over my first coffee on waking up, which is when I'm usually at my most cranky. I'm not someone who is constantly Fighting the Invisible Enemy, by any means. Far from it. The things I mentioned above are only in part deliberate pushback against marketing. They're also consequences of the life I've chosen, and where I've chosen to live it.

Part of my disgust is that of the outsider, watching from abroad the ways that marketing and advertising have grown and spread their influence in the 18 years or so since I first left Canada.

On my rare visits back, I've been literally shocked by — to pick an example — the frequency and bullshittery of drug ads when I turned on the TV. Or political ads. Or fast-food ads. Or.

Not that it's better here in Korea, by any means, of course. It's just easier for me to tune out (and I'm only exposed to it brief hitandrun snatches). And it's often clumsier, and more easily deflected and discounted for what it is.

If you're a marketer, I don't hate you, though, honest. I just hate what you do, and what it's done to modern society. And I'll fight you with every damn breath I take.

Our real goal in this regard is to balance personal freedom with social responsibility.

If by 'our' you mean 'marketers',' the real goal is to sell crap to people. For the most part, crap they neither want nor need. Call me a simpleminded reductionist, but sometimes things actually are simple.

You know, I think I may have to write something long-form about this, in a bigger textbox.

35
Sour Duck - 7:04 pm 4/5/2006

"OK, that comes off a bit like a doctrinaire ranting weirdo hippy-throwback"

:D Only a little bit… it was interesting actually so no need to amend your earlier comment…

(Thanks for introducing me to the word "micturated". Oh yes had to look that one up.)

36

Wow! I guess my response to that is equal parts admiration and fear!

I am no way disciplined enough to live that kind of lifestyle, though I do see the merit in it. I also happen to think we'd be in a world of economic hurt if, overnight, everyone could adopt Stavros' ascetic ways. For a while anyway.

I am susceptible to marketing. I bought an iPod, mostly because I kept reading about them and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Of course, I bought a previous generation refurb, but still. And I bought my kids iPods for Christmas because (Surprise!) that's what they wanted. By satisfying that desire, I am afraid I merely reinforced the consumer conditioning all marketers, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or unintentionally, instill in people. (Calling it "passion" is more a salve to the consciences of the sellers than a virtue to the buyers. But no marketer will admit that.) They seem to have been a source of some pleasure to both of them, and I did buy a refurb for my son, but I am troubled by the thought that I've merely forged another link in a chain that they will have to one day dismantle on their own, even as I work on mine today.

But I don't think "fighting" marketing is a fight that can be won. I think the best you can do is choose not to play the game, which is what I think Stavros is describing. I choose not to play Technorati's game by not "claiming" my weblog with them. I need not "claim" my weblog to Technorati or anyone else, and Technorati, more than any other company, including Microsoft or Apple, proves to me, day after day, the vacuous, morally empty nature of the whole Cluetrain Manifesto. And I think Doc's views about "morality" in the marketplace will have the same depth of meaning as his views regarding "authority." I.E. - It's just marketing. A word that'll catch a little buzz because it's novel in this context. I know I'm in a small minority in that view.

I think the biggest challenge, Chris Heuer's noble intentions aside, is that people are content being marketed to. They don't perceive a problem with a consumer culture until they're confronted with a significant emotional experience as a result of it. So "public service" marketing isn't going to be terribly effective, and marketers will find a way to "embrace and extend" the message as a response to the competition.

I really have no easy answers.

37

I am no way disciplined enough to live that kind of lifestyle, though I do see the merit in it. I also happen to think we’d be in a world of economic hurt if, overnight, everyone could adopt Stavros’ ascetic ways. For a while anyway.

I've lived in Japan and Taiwan, so I have some experience tuning out everything around me. I suspect I consume even less than stavros, as I don't drink beer and I'm vegetarian. But I don't think that makes either of us disciplined ascetics. Ghandi was a disciplined ascetic. I'm a lazy cheapskate. Not being part of the problem doesn't make me part of the solution.

If you’re a gay marketer, I don’t hate you, though, honest. I just hate what you do, and what it’s done to modern society. And I’ll fight you with every damn breath I take.

Boy, I'm glad I'm not a marketer. But I am a web developer at an advertising agency, so I'm around marketers every day. I find your super-villian image of marketers somewhat unrealistic. In my experience, they're normal people. If anything distinguishes them, it's that they are extraordinarily normal. They don't recognize when they're repeating lies any more than you or I do when we do the same thing every day. Most people think diet Pepsi is healthy. Most people are wrong. Marketers are wrong more loudly.

38

I'm a lazy cheapskate.

Got me to a 'T'. Heh.

In my experience, they're normal people.

Yes, of course they are.

Your 'gay'='marketer' equivalence is a cheap tactic and ridiculous to anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, and I won't bother addressing it. You know, unless they're gay strictly to make money, which is another thing entirely, then, and another discussion.

I will say, though, that Every Single Fucking Time (which doesn't happen that often, believe it or not) that I actually express my thoughts about Admerica (online, for the most part), without fail some marketing unit will put on the sad face and go all defensive and droopy because I'm apparently attacking them. I'm not. That would be why I said it. I'm attacking what they do. There are probably marketing people out there that don't deserve the tortures of hell (even if I haven't actually met any yet) for their actions. The people themselves, though? They're just whores. And most of us are, to one degree or another, in our hot pursuit of the mighty buck. We live as best we can, but whatever means we can. Some of us have less choice than others.

But, to repeat myself, I believe the kind of whoring they do (that'd be advertising and marketing, for those following along at home) subverts any serious pursuit of the good life and rots the foundations of our culture: political, economic, social, personal, ethical.

I find your super-villian image of marketers somewhat unrealistic.

Not surprising, because I said nothing of the kind.

39

Seth: "What would our culture be like if there were no marketing?"

I perceive at least three levels of marketing.

Plain ol' marketing is when you show up at the parking lot, unload your produce, and put out a sign that says "Apples for $x/pound".

Then there's the marketing where you polish the apples, offer "Buy 2/Get 1 Free" opportunities, and hire an attractive person to make change.

And then there's Modern Marketing, where you coat the apples with chemicals to make them look fresh when they're not, offer a rebate on a purchase of apples while knowing that most people won't bother to struggle with the obtuse rebate form, and hire two attractive people to stand next to you and pretend that they love your apples in the hope that the customer will equate apples with sex. Oh, and throw in a big sign declaring that your apples are state-of-the-art and the best available, even though you didn't actually grow them yourself and have never actually tasted one.

I think the world could do quite nicely without Modern Marketing.

Chris: "The marketing of powerful knowledge, however, like the Truth campaign…"

I must be the only person who *loathes* those ads. Trying to manipulate me by telling me how someone else manipulated me isn't a particularly effective means of engaging my sympathies.

40

Roger, i hate to be manipulated by marketing too. But there are things happening here that are bigger than us. Think evolution … think of a virus evolving … then think of the proteins it produces evolving … then think of our culture. We are in an explosion. The objects that are around us are evolving at phenomenal rate. They are evolving due to the science and art of modern technology … and that explosion is being fueled by consumerism, marketing and other reflections of human nature. Now you may not like it, but i'm pretty sure that you like that we have an Internet now where we can find each other on Shelley's blog and talk about things that we care about. Tell me how we can have the good without the bad.

41

Scott, I was using "ascetic" in the "marketing" sense. ;^)

See?

But what Stavros describes is more of a discipline than simply being a lazy cheapskate. So, for that matter, is being a vegetarian.

To follow up on Roger Benningfield's comment, "modern marketing" is, as Seth Godin tells us, "emotional marketing." It "tells a story." Now we could go on for hours about the social and cultural utility of story-telling, and it has been used to manipulate people for centuries, so it's not strictly a "good."

Something that really troubles me is when marketers use functional MRIs to study which parts of the brain light up, show greater activation when viewing particular ads. They're using science to learn how to tell better stories to manipulate us emotionally more effectively. A greater (ROI) for their marketing dollar. Perhaps the better to make us more "passionate" as "users." Now, I don't think you can stop this, and I think trying to might cause more problems than it solved; but I think we're all going to have to become a lot smarter about how we think and how we behave as individuals in order to simply protect ourselves from all the people who have a financial stake in making us behave in their interests ahead of our own.

Of course, when they have a view of "us" like the one Seth Godin chose to use in his talk at Google, chances are they might think they're doing us a "favor" by manipulating us. Giving our lives "meaning" even if it means us giving them our money.

To return to Scott Reynen's comment, I agree that marketers are "just people." But that observation has been made about nearly every single group of individuals who've been involved in carrying out some great evil. It's not that the people are evil, it's just that they don't seem to be paying attention.

42
Phil - 4:50 am 4/6/2006

I think Doc’s views about “morality” in the marketplace will have the same depth of meaning as his views regarding “authority.” I.E. - It’s just marketing

Urgh. I've just checked, and the 'About' page still says "Technorati is the authority on what's going on in the world of weblogs".

- Yeah, sure, whatever. That's just a marketing proposition.
"But markets are conversations, aren't they?"
- No, that slogan means that markets used to be conversations and can be conversations and ought to be conversations. Obviously it doesn't mean that actual markets actually are conversations. If markets were conversations there'd have been no need for a manifesto that says markets are conversations, would there? Do try to keep up.
"So markets ought to be more like conversations, and marketing ought to be more conversational. Where does that leave Technorati claiming to be the authority?"
- Now you're just being petty.

You could go round that one for years. Or you could find out how good it feels when you stop.

43

Well Phil, the point is, to the extent that there is a point, is that when Doc invokes "morality" I'm convinced it has no moral force in his actual choices.

It's just marketing. Meant to evoke a particular feeling from others. Not meant to actually inform his choices.

44
Phil - 9:02 am 4/6/2006

It’s just marketing. Meant to evoke a particular feeling from others.

And maybe that's a usable definition of the 'marketing' Stav would like to see a lot less of, as distinct from the 'marketing' which supposedly we're all doing all the time (if we really like something, such as a technology, shouldn’t we market it?). Marketing: the instrumental use of communication so as to influence the hearer's subsequent choices by non-rational means. Or: the use of concepts so as to evoke a positive (or negative) response in the hearer, without the speaker taking responsibility for the value proposition being put forward. Or: something like that.

45

Works for me.

See: Justification for Iraq War.

"It's just marketing."

46

stavros wrote: "You know, unless they’re gay strictly to make money…" and "They’re just whores."

Exactly. I don't blame prostitutes for prostitution. Most marketers would rather be professional artists. It's hard to get health insurance as a professional artist, so they prostitute their art for corporate profit. When someone starts paying a million dollars for a 30 second art film, marketers will start doing something more worthwhile. But we don't pay for what we say we value in society.

dave wrote "A greater (ROI) for their marketing dollar." I think you have it all wrong here. Marketers don't pay for marketing. They make the ads they're asked to make by the people who give them the money they need (want) to buy beer.

Then he wrote "It’s not that the people are evil, it’s just that they don’t seem to be paying attention." That's true of many, but some are paying attention, and don't see any better options. What would you have them do instead? I'm not too keen on any position that suggests people should quit their jobs with nothing to fall back on, having done that myself.

Seth Godin and Doc Searls are not marketers; they just play them on the web. If marketing were made illegal tomorrow, they'd both still have jobs writing. Marketers would be unemployed or working at Walmart.

47

dave wrote “A greater (ROI) for their marketing dollar.” I think you have it all wrong here. Marketers don’t pay for marketing.

I lump in the product producers who pay for marketing with marketers. Marketers compete with one another for marketing gigs, they're going to make claims about what types of marketing give a greater ROI than others. See the recent discussion on blogging at Amazon.

That’s true of many, but some are paying attention, and don’t see any better options. What would you have them do instead? I’m not too keen on any position that suggests people should quit their jobs with nothing to fall back on, having done that myself.

Market all you want, and I don't begrudge people making a living. But don't bullshit me about what marketing is. It's not a spiritual endeavor. It's not about making people have a better "experience." It's about getting them to surrender their authority (their money) in return for whatever the marketer is selling.

Make funny commercials. Show me talking geckos with British accents and I'm fine. Don't tell me "markets are conversations," or "the marketplace for something to believe in is infinite," or any other variation on what a tremendous human service marketin "really" is.

Godin and Doc are most certainly marketers, they market themselves and their ideas. Bullshit about bullshit, meta-bullshit, is the worst kind.

Marketers are never going to be unemployed, and it's never going to be outlawed. Politicians need marketers too much.

From time to time, when legislative authorities can be roused to see to their responsibilities, there will be laws passed regarding things like "truth in adverstising" (there ought be be a law against legislative oxymorons, but that would be like outlawing marketing), regulating the claims that can be made regarding particular products or the financing terms - which will be rattled off in advertising at a speech velocity impossible to absorb, or printed in tiny low-contrast type at the bottom of the page, or appear briefly at the bottom of the TV screen ("Results not typical.") There will, from time to time, be legislateve "consumer protection" efforts, but marketing will never be outlawed.

The problem is really not the marketers. It's all of us who are so easily manipulated by others. We give them the opportunity, and then begrudge them when they take it.

The biggest problem with Seth Godin's picture in his presentation to Google isn't that it's contemptuous of consumers, which is a problem, it's that consumers (and I include myself in this remark) are so deserving of contempt. But still, it helps to be clear on what's going on.

We buy junky plastic Christmas ornaments, and bottled water, and SUVs, and computers that are obsolete every three years, and more crap than we'll ever really need, mortgage ourselves up to the eyeballs, get fat, ignore our kids, neglect our civic duties and allow callow leaders to goad us into foolish wars, the list goes just goes on and on.

But don't tell me that marketing is a good thing. It makes all our problems harder to solve.

At some point, you just can't take the bullshit anymore.

I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks. I'm a little bit angry writing this, and I probably shouldn't "Say it!"

48

"But don’t tell me that marketing is a good thing."

I won't. I think marketing is a symptom of a troubled society. Great products don't need marketing. We make crap, we buy crap, and then we complain that they advertise crap.

"Godin and Doc are most certainly marketers, they market themselves and their ideas."

That's what authors do to sell books. Marketers get paid to sell advertising. Authors get paid to sell books. Some books are about advertising and some advertising sells books. I don't think that makes authors marketers.

"I’m a little bit angry writing this"

You probably shouldn't read this then.

49
Phil - 3:43 am 4/7/2006

“Godin and Doc are most certainly marketers, they market themselves and their ideas.”

That’s what authors do to sell books.

See above re: two definitions of marketing. What you (Scott) are really saying that authors publicise their work, which indeed they do (although I think you'll find, if you look into it, that most book publicity is organised and paid for by the company publishing the book, with the author going out as an expenses-paid employee). I think what Dave's saying is that Godin and Doc market themselves and their ideas, in the sense of deliberately arranging words to make pretty (and persuasive) patterns.

50

Phil, I don't disagree that Searls and Godin market. But I think everyone markets something (excepting the independently wealthy, perhaps) and that doesn't make us all marketers. We all typed these comments. I wouldn't call myself a typist. A typist is someone whose primary job is to type. A marketer is someone whose primary job is to market. Seth Godin's primary job is to write books. He markets those books, which are about marketing, but then he goes back to writing. He doesn't market cars or beer or computers or anything else he isn't selling for himself. Can I hire Seth Godin or Doc Searls to market my product? I don't think so. They're too busy selling books.

51
adamsj - 7:16 am 4/7/2006

It was very useful to work for a decade in two really big corporations (Great Satan, Inc. and BullConversation, in case you're curious). It destroyed any ideas I had in my head of those people–now my co-workers and peers–as mindless corporate drones.

It didn't change my mind about their efforts being guided from higher up toward bad results–that's built into the system.

On the other hand: MONEY HAS A WAY OF TURNING EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES INTO CHEESE.

52
Phil - 8:04 am 4/7/2006

I think you're missing my point, Scott. You're using the verb 'market' to mean something generally neutral and potentially positive:

market (vb) (1): to convey interesting or useful information about a subject, in the hope that one's hearers will come to share one's own enthusiasm for it

But remember what Shelley said about marketing in her original post ("Yes and yes and yes. And no and no and no.") "Marketing" doesn't only have that neutral meaning; Dave and Stavros are using it to mean something quite different.

market (vb) (2): to use language so as to produce a positive reaction in the listener and influence their subsequent choices in ways that will benefit the speaker, without regard for the truthfulness or coherence of the claims being made

When Dave criticises Doc for 'marketing', that's what he means. When Stavros says that 'marketing' should be done away with, I think that's pretty much what he means, too. I tend to agree with both of them.

Of course, there's no absolute dividing line: anyone can start out by marketing(1) and find that they've strayed into marketing(2). But this is a bug, not a feature - it's to be condemned (in ourselves as well as others), not shrugged off (sure, it doesn't make sense, but it's just marketing…)

53

I'm guessing that what everyone is concerned about here is that we'll get to a point in our world where we can't trust anyone. We'll all be schizophrenic, with noone to turn to and ask, "is this for real?" because even that person standing next to you who you think you could trust is trying to sell you something.

Egad, I can so relate.

My greatest fear is that someone with less ethical intentions takes what someone with a pure heart is trying to build and exploits it to fuck with people's heads. Yep, they will sell a bunch of crap. Probably make billions. And then they'll publish a book to say it works and make another billion off of that and many other unethical marketers will jump on board to do the same until we end up in the predicament I described above.

I sometimes feel like I'm part of a machine who is that guy in the Terminator movie who found the Terminator's robot hand and figures out the secret to A.I. which leads to eventually robots nuking the planet and waging war on humans. And Linda whatsherface and Arnie have to kill him to stop it from happening, but he's a good guy. He has good intentions. He has no idea about what he's contributing to.

Okay, so that's, like, giving myself way to much credit (and, dammit, I like robots), but am I right in assuming that's what we are saying here?

"Sorry, you are part of something very evil, however well intentioned, so you have to die in order to prevent it."

But remember how they had to throw the robot hand into the molten lava at the end because even though that guy died, someone else may come along who could figure out that chip…and then what do you do?

That's the real enemy. What are we trying to do with marketing? Make money. It's always about making more money. Not enough. The widgets aren't selling fast enough! Our investors are pissed! Our stock is down! The board of directors wants to see 150% profit increase!

As long as there is a drive towards biggering and biggering (ever read The Lomax? I loved that story as a kid. I cried.), there will be marketing.

I dunno. Marketers won't change that. We can try to disrupt the process, but we won't change that. I don't have any grand delusions.

54
Ethan - 9:37 pm 4/7/2006

OK, this is decidedly low rent on my part, but:

Homer: [soothing, to the plant] There, there. We had quite a scare today, but you're going to make us millions. Yes you are.

Lisa: You're about to launch a terrible evil on the world. You've got to destroy this plant.

Homer: I know, honey, but what can I do as an individual? I wouldn't know where to begin.

Lisa: Just burn that plant right now and end this madness!

Homer: I wish I could make a difference, Lisa, but I'm just one man!

55
doc Searls - 7:36 am 4/8/2006

For what it's worth, Cluetrain was an anti-marketing effort. "Markets are conversations" was never intended to be a marketing statement. Instead, it pointed to the non-marketing aspects of real markets like the Orchid Show in St. Louis.

Also, what Scott says about typing is a good analogy. As for my being "busy selling books," not quite. But wait till next year. If I manage to write a book in the meantime, that may change.

56
Karl - 10:51 am 4/8/2006

I guess it counts upon point of view Doc. I re-read the book recently.

When I did, it seemed to me a book written to educate those in business and marketing to new realities - to wake them up. It shared with them a new vocabulary, a new set of metaphors, and taught new moves. It laid it out - you better change or die. That's not an anti-marketing statement to me. That's a revitalization effort.

57

Dave Rodgers wrote: "We’ve become shackled to a treadmill of consumption, and this economy is largely a consumer-driven economy… That can’t go on."

I'm curious, when you remark upon the consumer nature of the economy, is your complaint a moral one, an aesthetic one, or a utility/economic one?

I've the easiest time understanding (though not necessarily agreeing with) the economic one, which I think goes like this: In 1920 66% of the American GNP went to producer goods, and only 33% went to consumer goods. That is, we had a producer economy. A stalled world-economy after WW I left us in a situation of over-production, which became a contributing factor to the Great Depression. To get us out of the Depression, the government encouraged measures that facillitated consumption. By 1980 we had the reverse situation of 1920 - about 66% of GNP was going to consumption, and only 33% was going to production. This became a contributing factor to America's trade deficit, which is unsustainable.

Is it in this sense you mean that the consumer-driven economy can't go on? Or is your objection primarily moral or aesthetic? I think I understand those other objections as well, though I'm not sure I can state them concisely.

58

Chris Heur wrote: "It is simply not realistic to expect that we can change the whole of society’s expectation of fulfilling their desires. "

Really? But where did that expectation come from?

59

"I also happen to think we’d be in a world of economic hurt if, overnight, everyone could adopt Stavros’ ascetic ways."

And yet, if you assume a hypothetical situation where everyone keeps the same jobs they have now, yet they stop buying things, save what they absolutely need, then the savings rate in America would sky-rocket. That is, people would still have income, but they would no longer be spending it. They'd be saving it.

The savings rate in America peaked in the 1920s and has been in serious decline since the 1950s. The falling savings rate has been a contributing factor to the emergence of the trade deficit that has dogged America for the last 40 years. At its current rate, the deficit is not sustainable.

It's possible to imagine our current economic path being described in the same terms that you apply to the alternative. That is "we’d be in a world of economic hurt" if the trade deficit continues and foreigners lose faith in the American dollar.

People often seek healthy situations without even knowing it. People are often guided to sustainable lifestyles through gut-feelings or moral intuitions. Perhaps, then, those who are uncomfortable with the current excess of marketing in America are simply patriots trying to save the economy?

60

Lawrence, my knowledge of economics is next to nil, but my objections cross all three areas. Principally because the defects in each area contribute to greater suffering.

Typically, this is where we get into an argument about what "suffering" means, and people will point to various economic and demographic statistics that suggest life has never been better, and therefore suffering should, reasonably, be at something of an all-time low. And then I would point to another set of statistics that suggest that perhaps suffering is greater than the opposing set of statistics suggests.

And this being the internet, we would argue about that forever.

We build crap to sell to each other. Mostly, people in other countries build crap so that people in this country can sell it to other people in this country.

Seth Godin tells the story of the marvelous marketing acumen of Hallmark, and the creation of the annual collectible Christmas ornaments, which on one day in July in 199-something, transferred $110M of wealth from the pockets of American consumers into the hands of Hallmark, on which they made a profit of more than $90M. Godin later describes the ornaments as "junky." But he rationalizes this transfer of wealth for crap on the basis that the buyers have told themselves a "story," which, to them, is worth the $10.00 they spend on the thing. It's a vacuous story. A meaningless one. One that a clever marketer has suggested to them. But this is a good thing!

Because this is a free country and people are free to make their own economic choices and follow their own desires. Except, whose desires are they really?

But to get to your latter question about people not buying crap anymore, that's called a recession, and that brings about its own suffering. For the most part, this economy seems to be about keeping money in motion. If the money slows down, people get hurt. Which is the treadmill we're chained to.

There's also this phenomenon of more and more wealth being concentrated into the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, or the shrinking of the middle class.

Maybe that's not something that's subject to a value judgment. For most of human history, a small minority seems to have done rather well, mostly at the expense of the vast majority who do far less well. Maybe a large middle class is an historical anomaly, and we're simply returning to historical norms as the world grows "flatter."

Aesthetically, I'm less antagonized. Taste is subjective, and regardless of how many consumer products are in the marketplace, I think Sturgeon's Law would remain in effect, 90% of everything is crap. Somebody will pipe up and tell me I got Sturgeon's Law wrong, but that's the way I learned it a long time ago, so sue me.

The Hallmark Cards example is the way it bothers me morally. If you want to sell junky Christmas ornaments and tell people they're "collectible," fine. Just don't sell them at an obscene mark-up. But, it's a free country and I guess Hallmark is morally obligated to make as much profit as it can for its shareholders.

The environmental consequences are disturbing as well, and they will probably be more obvious and sooner than any economic, social or moral consequences.

But there are people armed with statistics who will wave their hands and claim I'm just an anti-American, anti-free market, tree-hugging environmentalist whacko, and that all this stuff will be sorted out and taken care of by "market forces."

Faith in "market forces" seems to be a new religion for some people. Or a useful adjunct to an existing one.

Meanwhile, marketers have to continue to feed the beast. Keep the consumers plodding along on the treadmill and keeping that money in motion. "Emotional marketing" seems to be the order of the day. Warm, engaging stories we're encouraged to tell ourselves about the crap we buy. And marketers will study fMRI experiments to figure out how to best tell those stories. Never mind that none of them are really true. What is the truth, anyway?

Perhaps, then, those who are uncomfortable with the current excess of marketing in America are simply patriots trying to save the economy?

Nah. We're just irascible curmudgeons who don't "get it." We don't get the metaphors, we make unreasonable demands of people to put their money where their mouths are.

You know, it's no surprise that so many people have so little problem with a President who orders domestic wiretaps without following the law. Because we don't think "responsibility" has anything to do with "authority."

"Authority" is just a word. It's not an important concept. We can use it in marketing any way we want, and we shouldn't feel as though we're insulting anyone's intelligence, or doing damage to the culture, or deceiving anyone. It's just marketing.

It's just a "story" we tell. Technorati tells stories, the President tells stories, manifesto writers tell stories about what their manifestos really are. It's all just stories. None of it really means anything. We don't have to actually do anything about them. Well, except buy them. Enjoy the warm emotional feelings we get of President who just wants to protect us, and marketers who just want to have a conversation with us. And if we don't like the way the current story is turning out, we'll just sell ourselves a new one. "Markets are conversations" not doing so well? Maybe a new story about "market as God" and "business as morality." That might be more appealing, emotionally.

After all, we're "writing ourselves into existence." Are we not? Reality is something that can be edited and revised? I always thought existence preceded narrative, but what do I know?

I'm reminded of a Joni Mitchell lyric just now, kind of a story, but it's just a song:

The last time I saw richard was detroit in ’68,
And he told me all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe
You laugh, he said you think you’re immune, go look at your eyes
They’re full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies, pretty lies
When you gonna realise they’re only pretty lies
Only pretty lies, just pretty lies

He put a quarter in the wurlitzer, and he pushed
Three buttons and the thing began to whirr
And a bar maid came by in fishnet stockings and a bow tie
And she said drink up now it’s gettin’ on time to close.
Richard, you haven’t really changed, I said
It’s just that now you’re romanticizing some pain that’s in your head
You got