Are Scary Ads Ethical?

  
A Norfolk theme park has had an advert banned for being too scary. 

Marketing Week Clown advert article explains how Norfolk Dinosaur Park are running a Primeval event which has attracted controversy for frightening children  through its advertising. 
Now call me a cynic, don’t you think it’s all a bit suspicious? What a great way to get more than the expected level of interest in your value proposition. Get it banned and improve your brand!

There seems to be a pattern here with Norfolk and marketing communications controversy. Remember the Britain’s Magical Waterland that tried to re-describe Norfolk to attract more visitors? 

So is sailing close to the ethical wind justifiable in order to sell more stuff? The advertising standards authority clearly don’t think so. 

What do you think? Is any publicity good publicity or should a compelling offer of value be able to speak for itself? 

In the end maybe it’s all down to the ASA suffering from Coulrophobia ?

#fearofclowns #clowns

Advertisements

Welcome to the era of the Schizophrenic University 

  
Jo Johnson wants universities to pay more attention to teaching and aims to do this through the Teaching Excellence Framework. 

This ambition is based on certain assumptions such as most universities favour research rather than teaching. This is a flawed assumption. Some universities – often the post ’92 variety have always had a reputation for excellent teaching and drawn from the wisdom and experiences of seasoned professionals rather than the idealistic musings of early career researchers.

According to The Guardian today this will lead to universities having to choose between Research or Teaching or suffer from what business strategist Michael Porter has always advised against – being stuck in the middle. 

This middle ground is a recipe for organisational psychosis with the conditions being created for academic schizophrenia – ‘am I a researcher or an educator – how can I reconcile two related yet utterly contrasting skill sets’?

And yet this middle ground is exactly what some universities are trying to straddle and generating a deep psychological imbalance in the very people who originate and deliver value – the individual academic. 

The supreme irony is that the discourse of marketing which so many university managers have bought into belies there complete lack of strategic marketing competence. 

The era of the schizophrenic university is upon us. Symptomised by incoherent value propositions, confused competitive positioning, and an impoverished grasp of the value definition, creation and delivery. 

#university #academic

How do you rate your customer’s behaviour?

  
We are all familiar with supplier ratings but a powerful new trend is emerging that focusses on driving better customer behaviour.

Marketing Week has published a fascinating case study on Uber and Airnb titled Creating the 5 star customer.

Petya Pavlova consumer analyst at the Future Foundation forecasts that public rating of customers by suppliers is an increasing trend. 

The interesting thing for me about this is the lag that exists in the public sector in relation to  current marketing thinking and practice. 

Having bought into the idea of customer satisfaction measurement about 25 years after the rest of the planet it seems they will continue to play catch up with cutting edge marketing ideas.

The dominant discourse in higher ed’ for example is that students are customers. The unintended side effect of using this metaphor is that some students think this gives them immunity for taking responsibility for their own learning. This in turn can generate hyper critical customer feedback because they feel they weren’t ‘taught’ adequately which in some cases amounts to personal attacks on the reputation and personality of tutors. There is no opportunity to feedback to students how their ‘in class’ attitudes and behaviours are perceived by academics. 

The notion of customer rating changes that.

Customer rating by suppliers is current and resonates with the very latest academic thinking about co-creation of value (Vargo and Lusch 2004 etc) Value Appropriation, the idea that value is not just created to produce customer value but for all stakeholders including the supplier (Corsaro 2014) and the absurdity of unfettered customer centricity (Gummesson 2008).

What this means is that measurement is a two way street. If you are a bad payer, abusive, petulant, unforgiving, nasty and vindictive then you will get a customer rating profile that reflects your poor behaviour. That said:

This isn’t just about keeping tabs on customers. It’s a hallmark of many industries that rely on mutual trust and respect. Saying to customers “we need you to behave well” is actually pretty similar to saying “we need you”.’ The article claims. 

What I find especially interesting is that we are entering a world where:

‘Just like banks have access to your credit score, we reckon brands will have access to your Personality Score’

I for one am certainly all for this.

Time for uncritical marketing to #stfu

  
This article in Times Higher today by a PhD early career researcher really brings home the reach of the classic marketing management discourse set in motion by Sydney Levy, Ted Levitt and Philip Kotler.

This discourse is epitomised in Kotler’s 1972 article The Generic Concept of Marketing – Kotler, P (1972) A Generic Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36, (April), 46-54
If ever there was a selling job it is this. What it has produced is an army of neophytes who have bought into the idea of market orientation lock stock and barrel, who evangelise its principles and sneer at those who ‘don’t get’ marketing’s apparently obvious revelations about how business should be done. 

Now marketing has reached higher education and the idea of the student as customer reigns supreme. This is an idiotic idea. 

Don’t misunderstand me, of course students deserve good service but casting them as the arbiters of the educational value of higher education is ludicrous. 

Imagine I had an interest in space science and I attended a course by Professor Brian Cox. In this course he introduced concepts and ideas I struggled to understand such as the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics and relativity. I then claim that it is Professor Cox’s poor teaching is unstructured and disorganised and the reason I am not learning. It’s all his fault I don’t understand the subject and I’m paying him to teach me. 

The problems with this view are firstly it is assumed that an education is a product that is given to the consumer and the value is embedded in the product rather than co-created at the point of delivery (Vargo and Lusch 2004) and that secondly higher education is simply a 3 year extension of secondary /high school. The identity of ‘student’ is far more complex that re-describing them as a consumer. 

The marketing assumptions driving the current policy and management attitude to higher education are flawed because the idea of higher education is to take ownership of one’s learning within a designated challenging and transformative framework devised by highly qualified and experienced professionals. It is not to consume the intellectual equivalent of a bar of chocolate.

The marketing concept is not all good news as the consequences for people in the article link above show. It is generating an attack on professionalism and encouraging a discourse of anti-intellectualism. 

And by anti-intellectualism I don’t mean making the abstract approachable I mean the suppression of the critical voice. In other words if you don’t agree students are customers you are out of touch and possibly weird.

Work by Zaltman revealed that marketing is metaphorically seen as a manipulative and ‘noisy neighbour’. Writing by Saren, Brownlie, Hackley and Tadjewski show marketing to be a force for unfettered consumerism and materialism. 

Philosophically (and not many marketing neophytes know this) it is base on a Postivist epistemology that deliberately airbrushes human beings out of the picture in favour of objective metrics. All that matters is the numbers. All that matters is consumer satisfaction. All that matters is the survival of uncritical marketing.

I think it’s time to push back. I think it’s time to talk about where the value is for all stakeholders not just the consumer. I think it’s time for uncritical marketing to #stfu

New Critical Event Customer Segment Discovered 

Silver Splitters are set become the latest happy hunting ground for marketing teams. The BBC’s Ruth Alexander explains that it is often a realisation that people have fallen out of love or were never really in love in the first place when they reach level 60 of the game of life.

  
One of the triggers is meeting someone else that has similar interests. There is plenty of scope for that with people who are retired. Walking clubs, art societies, book reading circles. It all falls in the bag of propinquity – the affinity people have when they spend time together on common projects.

So what will marketing people dream up? Romantic holidays to Split no doubt! A new range of celebration cards with tear along perforated sides? What about a new type of party event – The Splittering? Who knows but once the marketeers use big data to track your marital status and age watch out for junk mail dropping through the letterbox soon.

%d bloggers like this: