(All reference according to 2009 edition by Portfolio of Penguin Group)
Introduction
All marketers are liars builds up on his previous book Permission marketing. It has 2 basic theme: First is about self-fulfilling prophecy i.e. if you expect sushi by a Japanese chef to taste better, it does taste better & second is about how it has become tough to lie and not get caught in the internet era. In the preface itself he gives his primary advice: “So, go tell a story. If it doesn’t resonate, tell a different one. When you find a story that works, live that story, make it true, authentic, and subject to scrutiny. All marketers are storytellers. Only the losers are liars.”
Disclaimer
- This is not a book which will teach you how to tell a great story. For that, you should check out Story by Robert McKee. Contagious by Jonah Berger and Made to stick by Chip & Dan Heath can also be good resources for writing good story.
- He talks about the shift from differentiating from competition (branding) to differentiating customers from one another. Prof. Peter Fader’s advice (customer centricity) on the same topic is more honest (read less sensationalized) & better structured.
- Though I am not a marketer in traditional sense (employment), I am still trained as marketer & I do use the tools of marketing. So don’t be offended when I criticize marketer, I am one myself. Kinda!
Summary + Analysis
Highlights
Author’s hypothesis starts with story, which he believes, are shortcuts we use to make our life easier by not drowning in all the details. He denies to distinguish between fiction and intentional lies. Stories are “special kind of lies” & marketers use it because customers demand it. I think he uses ‘story’ quite generously, a more accurate term would be “experience”. Whether it is Georg Riedel, the glass blower or Arthur Riolo, the real estate broker, they are actually selling an experience not just a story. Story means narrative, it is hypothetical; experience on the other hand is visceral. But I digress.
Coming back to story, what makes a good story?
Author suggests great story is “not factual but true” in the sense that it is consistent and authentic. Great story makes great promise which generates trust, the scarcest resource we got left (Note: In his previous book Permission Marketing ‘attention’ was the scarcest resource. Author needs to make up his mind.). Great stories are subtle as it intentionally leaves blank spaces to push the listener to make it their own. It happens fast as it takes advantage of first impression by conforming to customer’s worldview. By being fast it targets our senses not logic. Logic is calculated, senses are instinctive. Most importantly great story is consistent not just internally but with the whole setting. For example, at a restaurant everything needs to be consistent from parking lot, to reception, décor, music, everything; not just the food. But one key issue with this book is it assumes all decisions are based on story (or lies) & rationale doesn't play a role. It might be true for low ticket item like a t-shirt but not for something that costs thousands of dollars unless someone likes a half-eaten fruit or sound of potato.
He remembers his encounter with Kiehl, a brand by L’Oréal which keeps up a charade of being a boutique shop of handmade cosmetics. Being a true marketer, he is totally convinced that the customers are lying to themselves not Kiehl. It is the same situation as Insurance company not honouring claims or consumer durable company not giving warranty by pointing out a small sentence written in a little font somewhere in the TnC, which make it all our fault and dissolves them of all their responsibility.
‘Got marketing?’
In the Beginning of this chapter author writes: “Marketing has become far more than an old lady crying, “Where’s the beef!” ”. I don't know where’s the beef, but I know where the bull is. It’s in the next para: “Marketing is about spreading ideas, and spreading ideas is the single most important output of our civilization.” Principle of syllogism would conclude Marketing is the single most important output of our civilisation. That’s just poppycock.
Again the same theme continues with Granola example. He defends marketer by saying customers made the fatty, sugary Granola healthy & that only after customer believed the lie, marketers came. This statement is WRONG! Well, if they already believed it, what was the need to spend millions on marketing? Case of Granola is same as sugar. Sugar manufacturers spent a lot of money to convince fat is more harmful and to substitute sugar for fat in pie and cake. When British scientist John Yudkin proved otherwise, they labelled him crazy and sponsored many fake scientists, nutritionists and doctors to attack him. Who do you think branded Ancel Keys a rockstar?
He doesn’t stop there. “Consumers are complicit in marketing. Without their belief there is no marketing.” Though I believe, strongly, that gullibility and stupidity should be a punishable offence, I am not sure if we can give free pass to those who are using it to their advantage. Can we say the same thing about victims of Ponzi scheme or con artist? If people feel something is working for them, it’s not just natural to tell others, it is their civic duty. It might have worked for different reasons, may be because of self-fulfilling prophecy or placebo effect, but it did work for them. How can we equate their genuine mistake to intentional lie of the guy with fiery pants?
Author believes customer spread the stories for their selfish reason. The question of selfish reason arises only for those product that require network effect to enjoy full benefit like mass market car, credit card etc. Granola or any FMCG product doesn’t require that. Lets say you believe a credit card or payment app is good for you, then if you convince others to use the same. As more people use it, more shop/businesses accept that form of payment, so here you need others’ support/participation to enjoy the full benefit. In case of Granola you don’t need anyone’s participation.
Author tells us this book is not about lying rather it’s about telling and living the truth. I, on the other hand, found it is about shifting the onus about lying from marketer to customer. He believes none of the marketers sit around to scheme a deception. They are not at fault as they’re lying to themselves as well as to the public. He is contradicting himself, if they are indeed lying to themselves why should they need to try to be consistent and live with the lie? Wouldn’t that be spontaneous? Marketers sell fairness cream to brown people and tanning cream to Caucasians. As dark skinned people became more interested in important aspects of skins like softness, dry/oiliness & glow rather than fairness, they just changed its name from fair to glow without even changing any ingredient. He himself gives the example of puma selling pair of sneaker costing $ 3 for $125; Porsche Cayenne being virtually same as VW Touareg, yet sold for more than double price. There more examples of deception in the whole book from Banquet's crock pot plus to Philip Morris, Coke, Pepsi, Beech nut etc.
He explains the evolution of marketing. Before the golden age of television, producer targeted commodities or need. So focus was on pricing and distribution. With the introduction of television ads focus shifted to brands i.e. distinction from crowd. But in this age of mass market, they forgot to distinguish between different customers, with internet that all changed. Now they can’t get away with a commercial, they now have to live them.
How marketing works (when it works)?
He tries to link story with attention, which was the topic of his previous book “Permission marketing”. Marketers aren’t in charge anymore as the fundamentals of marketplace have changed. It’s not just that more people are fighting for attention; the product themselves have becomes more customized & targeted, which in turn made them complex requiring more time to convey the details. In this era of internet and social media, information are bombarded from all direction. So it’s very hard for the marketers to control the conversation & set the narrative. The ever-changing demand & entry of new competitors make it even worse.
Then he introduces the concept of power curve which is a great insight. Earlier in the time of industrialisation, value was in production so focus was on quality, efficiency, timeliness, cost etc in short operations. Due to lack of legal framework it was easy to copy a product or perfecting the operations. But in 21st century making stuff isn’t hard anymore. (Being an Engineer myself, I don’t agree. It might be easier to find an engineer, but the process of engineering i.e building something new or for first time hasn’t become any easier.) Consumers demand frequently updated product which has shortened product life cycle, so importance of innovation has increased. This also means positioning through initial impression, control over story i.e Marketing is more important than ever.
Author believes, “A remarkable product is much likely to make profit if you can get it to market before the competition.” (Not really! Gmail, Google, Facebook, none of them were first. Microsoft is repeatedly not first. Refer Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation by Constantinos C. Markides & Paul A. Geroski to know how wrong is that statement.)
Author denotes steps of permission marketing but they are rather different aspects of it.
Aspect 1: Their worldview and frames got there before you did
We want the same thing, but the definition changes due to our biases. You and I both want the ‘best’ bike but for me best is a sporty one which makes me grin like an idiot, for you it might be a couch on 2 wheels. He uses the term ‘worldview’ to explain the composite effect of rules, values, beliefs and biases of an individual. This worldview makes people interpret the same data differently which leads to different decisions. Frames are elements to mould the story according to consumer’s worldview. But when we try to nudge their worldview towards our story we don’t get the result. It takes a great deal of time & effort to change worldview & it’s the time that we don’t have in today’s fast world.
Those who still try to do that, make the mistake of assuming customer as a cohesive audience, a large group of similar people (Check out Customer Centricity (book) or Customer analytics (course) by Peter Fader to know how wrong is that assumption). But there is no monolith of want. Many people criticize both Seth Godin & Peter Fader arguing that we can’t change our story/experience customized to each single customer, because that would require a million different ideas. But that’s not what they recommend. Seth’s take: “Marketing succeeds when enough people with similar worldviews come together in a way that allows marketers to reach them cost-effectively.”. Opportunity lies in the neglected worldview as it has less competition, so less information bombardment which make it easier to mould our story and leverage customer’s worldview.
One thing to remember here is that each group sees itself at the center, not on the fringe. This means they expect others to converge to their worldview and that they are the group worth choosing (Just like in politics). But in reality, it’s the fringe that has the number. He later gives the example of Howard Dean who gained a lot of popularity in the beginning of his campaign by portraying himself in the centre opposed to the fringe, but his supporters couldn’t convince the fringe that he could actually win, so the story didn’t catch on. That’s why millennials need to google who he is. It is not enough to find a neglected worldview, people with that neglected worldview need to be active enough to convince others to join their group, otherwise it has a grim future. (Though not always, there are enough examples of successful niche, those who couldn’t make billions but definitely worth millions). Another way is to convince the fringe that they are the center; they are the sane one. Fox news used the same tactic with its slogan “Fair and Balanced.” It tells their targeted base that they are the center and in doing so encourages them to recruit outside people to make the group bigger and commercially viable. In India the same thing is going on for may be last 4-5 years, not that the leftist media is any better. Denzel Washington rightly said, “If you don’t read the news you’re uninformed, if you do then you are misinformed.” But again, I digress. Author gives you another option: to create a oxymoron to find a profitable segment. This can be targeted to people who think they are in center but rather they are on both side (fringe). But in most cases this will be a small population. Starbucks was really lucky with Soy Decaf Latte.
Price of entry to get people’s attention is respecting their worldview. If there is friction between your frame & their worldview, they’ll ignore you or even try to destroy you. As the product life cycle has shortened, the quality of the original idea matters more now. So author believes we don’t need to introduce a new frame with every iteration or in other words ‘Don’t fix something that ain’t broken.’ But doesn’t this make us vulnerable? Case in point: the cereal & bakery industry in west. They amassed a lot of wealth selling people fatty, sugary, unhealthy product. When people change their worldview the industry wasn’t flexible or lean (may be due to all the fat and sugar) to adapt a new frame. Today there is one industry where shift is occurring yet they are much more observant and adaptive: the fertiliser industry. Those who made billions by selling poison to farmers, to a great extent, have re-adjusted their strategy by introducing organic fertiliser (which is even more costly to push more farmer to suicide).
Author says “General Mills didn’t invent Atkins, but once Atkins changed the bias of a large audience, General Mills was quick enough to tell a story to those people— while they were still listening”. I am not so sure. Corporates do sponsor studies directly or indirectly just like political party/govt. sponsors studies by ‘historian’, ‘journalist’ & ‘experts’. And, of course they have an ulterior motive. I can’t believe in a book about telling "lies", author mentions George Carlin who was unapologetic about speaking the truth. And he has spoken many times about these ulterior motives.
Nuances of worldview
Worldview is smaller than the world that means consumer’s bias affects his view on world-sized issue which in turn affects his view on less important issue. Think of it like coming from general to particular. Let’s say you see snakes as evil poisonous creatures. Then it’s highly likely you would run away or try to kill any snake you encounter even if it is a small non-poisonous snake which can cause you no harm.
A shared worldview doesn’t make a community but people from a community do influence each other’s worldview. They talk to each other, share ideas and adjust their biases. Author says, “Individuals who don’t like car salesmen, for example, aren’t part of a coherent community.” But I am sure there are communities dedicated to ‘not like’ Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu, IOS/Android, EV/IC engine etc.
Not all worldviews are created equal. From a business stand point not all worldview can be leveraged commercially. All worldviews are personal but not necessarily private. Private worldview is not profitable. West world, where the makers of the show have put so much effort taking care of minute details, got it totally wrong. What to do when the existing customer has a strong/active worldview? Customers believe “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This becomes an entry barrier even for the most effective solutions. Author rightly puts it as “The fear of change is greater than the cost of sticking with what you’ve got” which means the expected return from change falls short to the extra risk be it in terms of time, cost or effort. Author advises to break the offering to smaller modules which, in theory, warrant less risk. (Check out Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey Moore for better understanding of this situation but keep in mind it is useful primarily in high tech segment.)
The step 1 concludes with a good example of ‘Putting frame to work’ where author explains how to construct our story as per the worldview of customer which minimizes friction & increases the chance of trial. “People want the art because their friends do. If it’s unique, it’s less appealing” 1st part is true. People want same things to keep up with the Joneses. But it’s same, same but different. People want art because someone else has art but not the same piece of art, in many cases not even a similar one. Every luxury product attains its luxury due to scarcity. Let’s say to sell a million units, Ferrari launch a new model at the price point of Suzuki or Hyundai. What will happen to the pride of owning a Ferrari. The original owner might even sell theirs and switch to a different brand.
Aspect-2: People notice only the new and then make a guess.
Let’s take the example of water. When you move to a new place you notice the water tastes funny. Most likely, there is nothing wrong with water. It may be perfectly fit for human consumption, yet you have your apprehension. It’s due to the difference in concentration and composition of salt in water. Petrol-heads, including myself, don’t mind the smell of burning rubber & even like (love?) the oh so sweet smell of two-strokes. Yet this might induce vomiting in some. Now if basic senses react so severe to new information, you can imagine how the complex brain would react to new information.
Aspect-3 is about the importance of initial impression. As people get only a fraction of total information and process even less than that, the initial impression is very important. People go to great lengths to defend their initial impression. He makes a good point of Siebel being the inferior product w.r.t Salesforce yet was making profit as it is easier to justify own past decision than to take a new risk.
But it’s important not to obsess over creating perfect first impression as we never know when will be the first impression. You can wear a $1000 suit, but most people won’t notice you. This makes authenticity(consistency?) more important. As much as I personally hate to admit it, facts (& logic) are not the most powerful antidote to superstition (bias/idiocy); powerful, authentic personal interaction is.
People get upset when they can’t defend their initial impression. Most (all?) politically motivated causes doesn’t tell the whole truth. Author explains this with the example of recycling. It’s same with PETA/vegans "fighting" animal brutality or EV being “greener” than IC engines (at least for developing countries).
Aspect-4: Great marketers tell stories that we believe.
It starts with how marketers changed their way of delivering story with changing market. We won’t be lucky every time to find a commercially viable but neglected worldview. In that case we must give enough information for the customer to notice us yet not so much that they would fight back/ignore. We must then tell a story not lecture i.e. more focus on experience rather than facts/logic, not a list of feature but how it would make their life easier. We must provide enough slack for customer to want to change and make the decision that we are the correct choice. He explains it well with the naked emperor story. (its side effect is discussed in Competing in the lying world section of chapter)
In doing so, we must be vigilant not to cross over from fibs to frauds. Fibs are lies that make the story come true. Remember Georg Riedel of Ch-1; by convincing people there is a correct glass for each beverage, he enhances their experience. Even if you prove shape of glass isn’t a factor which determine taste of wine, customer don’t feel cheated as they really felt the enhanced taste. But their response to fraud isn’t so casual. E.g. Nestlé baby formula. Just like technology and science isn’t bad, but people still use the power of technology and science for bad purpose, same is the case with marketing.
Aspect-5: Marketers with authenticity thrive.
Sometimes it is not easy to modify customer behaviour. They might have rigid worldview, their interaction with brands might have become more of a custom/tradition. It is tough to teach old dog new trick. Vivian Cheng realized this & came up with the idea of ‘Soy Luck Club’. Instead of buying the loyalty of Starbuck’s core customer she targeted the groups which focus more on health than hip culture.
We discussed how people might process the same information differently due to their worldview. So what to do then? Author advocates for personal touch. Personal interaction is the only way to cut through bias. But will we get that much attention/permission to have a personal interaction? Author has discussed this in ‘Permission marketing’.
Competing in the lying world
Everyone has an idol or rival. In both cases people (& organization) try to imitate them and defeat them in their game. Author rightly puts it as “out-yell someone with the same story”. For this to work, the customer need to accept that they were wrong. On the other hand, it’s easier for investors and bosses to spend time and money going after a proven market. Marketers will be in the middle of this churn.
“The only stories that work, the only stories with impact, the only stories that spread are the “I can’t believe that!” stories.” I am not so convinced with that statement. It does increase sharability, but doesn’t really ensure action. A video of someone coming in front of a moving bus and getting out scratch free becomes viral but it doesn’t encourage people to run in front of a speeding bus, does it? He does take on the example of Goodyear blimp but doesn’t tackle the actual issue. Author believes it doesn’t sell tires, but actually it does. Well, consciously no, subconsciously yes! (Martin Lindstrom wrote a book on the subject titled Buyology. He even tells you how to use it right with the example of American idol (Ch-2).)
If you are convinced with Author’s idea, you should take a look at the set of QnA author has left for you at the end to act as a guiding light.
Conclusion
There are so many things that I don’t agree with this book. But is it that bad? Actually, it is a pretty good book. The only reason I am this harsh is because he is a good author with great reach & my expectation from his future books is high.
I learned many things from it. I don’t agree with certain auxiliary details of the book (or story if you will), but I do agree with the key points like importance of story/experience, how to construct that story, how to find a profitable segment, addressing each customer not only as a part of community/herd but individual with decision making ability etc. And these are the things which most marketers don’t understand/ignore. In the end, it’s a net positive book & worthy of your time.
Comments