Consumers Should Hate Themselves and Not Satan’s Little Helpers
Marketers pride themselves on their ability to break down an audience into specific groups and target them with a customized message. It’s this very ability comedian Bill Hicks (below) righteously attacked when he said that advertisers and marketers should kill themselves (NSFW).
As long as there’s been advertising, there’s been a constant tug-of-war between marketers and their audiences. 
Hicks sharply refers to marketers as “Satan’s little helpers” and “Ruiners of all things good.” However, there’s nothing that says as consumers we must buy what we see in advertisements. Yet we still get pulled in, often by the desire to match the lifestyles and even attitudes that we see in ads.
Devil’s Advocate
So what if the problem isn’t with marketers? What if consumers (that would be you and me) are complicit? When you buy a product you’re endorsing a culture, a way of life.
Apple does an amazing of selling its culture, thanks especially to Steve Jobs. We have a very human response to the idea that buying Apple’s products makes us different in a good way. We also have the very human blind spot of ignoring that a lot of people who think they’re different self-identify as a group every time they put on those white ear buds. Apple specifically made the ear buds stand out even though the primary product remains hidden in a pocket. It wanted anyone watching to immediately identify that “different” person as owning an iPod/iPhone without actually seeing the real product.
For all the stated angst against marketers and advertising, we’ve becoming walking billboards for the brands we adopt. In our pursuit of individuality we set ourselves up to self-identify with different groups based on our buying behavior. And advertising does a fantastic job of reaching into our innermost thoughts and connecting with who we believe we are, whether that matches with reality or not.
We can’t blame this ability solely on the spooky ability of marketers to target their audience. In many instances we’re willing participants in what’s becoming the largest, ongoing case study of consumer behavior: social media.
One-to-One Marketing
Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have made one-to-one marketing a reality. Any marketer can quickly and easily scan the feeds of these platforms, identify who already uses their products, and refine messaging that reinforces their connection to a brand. Hicks’ rant reflects an earlier time when marketers broke us down into niches. Now we’re doing it for them.
Marketers get the added benefit of seeing the role their particular product plays in a consumer’s lifestyle. In many instances marketers don’t even pay for this information. We’re broadcasting what we do far and wide to anyone who’s willing to listen. So what if marketers are the exact opposite of “Satan’s little helpers?”
What if marketers have found a model that actually benefits consumers? We’ve heard the latest campaigns referred to as permission-based versus interruption marketing. In theory, we’re ignoring the interruptions, but when they’ve gotten our permission, how do you complain?
What exactly do we expect marketers to do? Follow the motto “Don’t be evil,” like Google espouses? You can see how well that’s working. We’re giving marketers an information bonanza that allows for targeted, personalized content that’s relevant to how we say we want to live our lives. Isn’t that exactly what we want in an immediate gratification society? Who wants to waste time sorting through varied ads that may or may not have value?
Stereotypes Exist for a Reason
In the last U.S. presidential election, according to the New York Times people who drank Evian water were more likely to buy a Volkswagen. If they bought a VW, they were more likely to have a college degree. If they had a degree, they were more likely vote for Obama. However, if individuals bought Fiji water, then they were more likely to buy a Ford. If they bought a Ford, they were more likely to have a trade job. If they had a trade job, they probably would vote for McCain.
People are self-identifying every time they make a purchase. Without any direct interference from marketers, consumers are creating easily identifiable groups to target. Even though our ego-centric country focuses on the power of the individual, we still end up in categories that share specific traits, values, and aspirations. This grouping doesn’t prevent us from trying to shake things up and change the label, but it’s rare that we avoid moving into yet another different category with a different culture as an attempt to be different.
Our Behavior Informs What We See
Marketers as a general rule aren’t stupid, so why would they ignore the volumes of data we publish every single day, hour, and minute? If we still persist in defining marketers as the bad guy, then at minimum, we’re willing accomplices. Isn’t it time we stopped getting upset for being called on it?
