There’s no such thing as a free lunch, but here’s some free knowledge. I have just published as Virtual Special Issue of Marketing Theory on Psychoanalysis as a Marketing Theory. In it, I argue that psychoanalysis is essential to marketing practice and research and offer an overview of current research in the area. READ IT.
Every consumer researcher (which sadly I have to be from time to time) encounters the “attitude-behaviour gap”. That is, we observe that the things people say they value are rarely reflected consistently in their behaviour. Think about it, you probably care about the environment, but do you really do EVERYTHING you can. Do you recycle everything? Of course not.
Critically-minded academics in a business school face similar dilemmas. It would be perfect if we could align our research, teaching, administration and personal values and behaviour outside of the academic but this seems very difficult. In terms of research, it is incredibly difficult to build a career in a business school engaging purely in critical theory, political economics or philosophy. In terms of teaching, we have an obligation to educate students in the foundations of business disciplines – even if we critique those foundations in our research. As administrators, we might want to help shape our institution but, in the process, become the managers we readily critique in our research and teaching.
And then there’s life outside the academy. One charge levelled at critical business researchers is that they talk a good game but happily ignore their critical values in everyday life. Rumours abound of successful critical scholars demanding and commanding huge salaries; consulting institutions for research audits they complain about in print; exploiting junior colleagues emotionally, physically and productively; jet-setting round the world, starbucks coffee in hand and apply laptop constantly charged with little thought of their carbon footprint. They bemoan the conventional nature of journal articles by writing journal articles. They complain about journal lists but always seem to publish, work for and support them (see Rowlinson and Hassard for more on this).
Rather than simply highlight these attitude behaviour gaps, I’ve been thinking about how to work around them. In particular, it seems to me that if we accept that universally aligning critical attitudes with the demands on our behaviours is out of the reach of most of us, then which is better:
Is it better to research and teaching conventional business ideas but live an unconventional life outside the academy?
Or is it better to research and teach critical ideas but live an uncritical conventional life outside the academy?
Here’s a new paper I contributed to. We interviewed around 80 consumers to probe their experiences of marketing – which were mainly negative – and discovered the various subtle ways in which they see to beat, ditch and hide from marketing and marketers. We had some really surprising findings. For example, some consumers would happily invite marketers to interact with them so that they could toy with them. They would keep marketers on the phone only to beat them at the last minute. It’s interesting stuff!
I recently watched the footage of Dylann Roof’s police interview on the New York Times. Roof killed nine African Americans in their church
I found the whole thing fascinating. But what really struck me was the seemingly banal role of Google Search in the story. As the Times reports:
He said his “racial awareness” had been inspired by a Google search of the phrase “black on white crime” after the reaction to the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, a black 17-year-old, by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla. ”That was it,” he said.
Later he talks about how he came to see things in racial terms and I wonder whether and how Google supported this. Did it confirm what he already thought or give Roof the impression that his beliefs were fact because Google said so? And Google doesn’t lie. They aren’t evil.
Let’s ask a counterfactual question:
What if, when Roof searched, he’d found some different results? Would it have changed things? We know that Google matches results to a users interests. So, if someone demonstrates latent “fascist potential” (as it’s called in the Authoritarian Personality studies) what if Google used this to restrict their access to provocative material? I’m not saying they should but things might be different. Doesn’t that mean Google Search has some active role in this crime?
As regular readers (all zero of them) will know, the logic behind this matching of search results is largely driven by an appeal to advertisers and a need for Google’s business model to work for the myth of matching to be applied across Google Search. I don’t want this to fall into yet another “aren’t algorithms evil” post but I think it’d be interesting to consider Google Search’s role in radicalisation. As I understand it, in the UK it’s a crime to encourage terrorism.
I was looking at the 2018 European Marketing Academy Conference theme. It’s ‘People Make Marketing’. I’m not saying they have stolen the theme of this blog but it’s remarkably similar! I hope to be there.
It’s a few years old now but I just came across this series of posts by Ad Block Plus in which they surveyed users of their Adblocker about the service. One of the questions asked why people used Adblocker. The results are quite interesting.
They gave respondents 7 possible reasons and forced a choice through a four point scale (ie there was no ‘neutral’ option). Forcing choice in this way can distort results as it, obviously, forces people to express an opinion on a matter they might not care about.
I think we can group 3 items as ‘content issues’ (distracting animations and sounds, offensive or inappropriate content and missing separation of ad an content); 3 items as ‘provider issues’ (security concerns; privacy concerns and page load times); and one as a personal issue (ideological reasons). If this was done more robustly we might separate each of these items out into multiple dimensions and see how they inter-relate. But it wasn’t.
Just eye-balling it, it seems that most of the motivations for Ad Blocking relate to a lack of trust – provider issues. This is followed by content issues. Although ideological reasons motivated about half the sample (and given the selection bias you’d expect this is an over estimation), that leaves about one-third of the sample who block ads not because they are “anti branding” but just because they don’t trust advertisers to act responsibly and because their ads are kind of annoying.
If I were a brand I’d find this very hopefully as these are much easier to fix than overcoming ideological opposition to ads. In fact, the same problem has already been solved on other media through regulation initatives (see my other blog on advertising governance).