Imposing My Beliefs on Others? A Little...

Dr. Walter Carl was kind enough to write a critique of SPSII, so it’s about time I responded to a few of his points. First off, he notes, ”I think it's essential that we create a space to discuss the issues that Kate raises in her analysis about the societal and ethical effects of brands and in our lives and the marketing methods used to promote those brands.”

Cool. I’m hoping this blog can be a forum for that discussion, and SPSII could serve as a launching pad.

Now, onto Carl’s “Areas of Divergence.” I’ll put these in separate posts since it’s Sunday and I’m hung over and I don’t know if I’ll get to all of it today. He writes

“I'm sensitive to, but ultimately resist, the argument that people are "facilitating their own exploitation" by participating in organized WOMM programs. This seems to reproduce a kind of "false consciousness" argument where the critic defines somebody else's reality for them. Kate's suggestion that the motives for participating in organized WOMM programs -- empty lives, desire for belonging, acceptance and insider knowledge, and sheer materialism -- could all be valid. But I wonder if the critique is somewhat reductionist by only, or at least primarily, looking at their participation in the WOMM program; this is likely just one aspect of their multi-faceted lives.”

Here, Carl references my contention that the rise of CGM and WOM marketing are “the ultimate score for marketers,” contrary to the belief among media pundits and Internet evangelists who call it a consumer coup over the brand tyrants. I go on to note, “Companies may have less ability to control their brand messages; however, the fact is that by willingly engaging in orchestrated WOM campaigns, people are condoning the deliberate injection of brands into their conversations. In essence, people are facilitating their own exploitation, merely because marketers have asked them to.”

I can see how my argument may come off as patronizing or hyperbolic. After all, who am I to judge the lives of WOM campaign participants based solely on reports they’ve written or the mere fact that they are participants? Carl’s right; WOM marketing is one aspect of a WOM campaigner’s multi-faceted life. Here’s what I’m trying to get at: when someone deliberately discusses brands as a result of direct influence by marketers, he is engaging in conversations he wouldn’t be having otherwise. The very fact that he’s chosen to participate in a WOM campaign has the potential to alter what he chooses to talk about with those around them. Where he may have brought up last night’s game or whether he thinks Rummy should get the boot, he may instead bring up how he’s tryin’ out this new 8-blade razor from Shtick that works way better than those lame 7-blade jobs.

In most instances, “exploitation” may be too strong a word. Perhaps “manipulation” or even just "modification" are better ones. In this case, however, the campaign participant is cognizant of the fact that his discussion is being manipulated or modified. It’s true that people who sign up to join WOM campaigns don’t think incorporating brand blab into their everyday chats has the potential to corrupt their relationships. I am impressing my own personal beliefs onto these folks, arguing that there is that potential. In the first SPS I called it “a barter of Faustian proportions.” It’s not that extreme, but that doesn’t mean it has no effect on their multi-faceted lives.