why no one likes brands

[Re-posted from www.good.is]

What if 70 percent of brands in the world disappeared overnight? Most people wouldn’t care, according to a new study of 50,000 people in 14 global markets performed by Havas Media, an international communications firm.

Of all the brands surveyed, only 20 percent made a notably positive impact on people’s lives. That means for all the millions spent on marketing and ads around the world, most people could care less which company sells them their lunch, television, or car. “The overall consumption model and the overall marketing model is not working anymore,” says Sara del Dios, the Havas executive behind the survey.
Reflecting demonstrations and disappointment in the global economy, the survey notes that most consumers don’t trust companies, think their efforts to be responsible are largely spin, and that they don’t work hard to fix big problems.

Some brands have succeeded, however, in creating a meaningful image. The top 10 list includes Ikea, Google, Danone (the French diary giant), Leroy Merlin (a global Home Depot), and Samsung. The survey’s results suggest that these brands succeed by convincing consumers that they are working to improve their lives, whether through their products or their responsible business practices.

Take Coke as an example. It’s one of the most well-known global brands, but comes in 20th on this list because only 35 percent think the soda improves their quality of life; others worry about the health concerns that come with sugary soft drinks.

According to the survey, 85 percent of consumers worldwide expect companies to be tackling major problems, whether environmental or social. That fact is reflected in another finding—53 percent of consumers surveyed said they would pay a 10 percent price premium for a product made responsibly, up from 44 percent last year.

There is a huge disparity between how brands are perceived in the developed and developing worlds. In the United States and Europe, far fewer brands are respected than in Latin America or Asia. That’s a reflection of economic reality, too: Growth is happening in the developing countries even as it slows in most established economies.

This, researchers say, is because brands and material advancement are more connected, and consumers reward companies who provide them with transportation (like cars from India’s Tata Motors) or hygiene (like Unilever’s Lifebuoy disinfectant soap). In more developed nations, where basic needs are more frequently met, consumers focus far more on the responsibility of the companies in question. And broader economic trends that have led to a poorer middle class in the developed world are also syncing up with what del Dios calls the “post-materialist society,” as consumers look to brands not just for products, but also for some sense of a richer life.

"Many of the aspirational stories that brands try to communicate are not so true, and what we want is more authenticity," del Dios says.

Whether or not corporations can provide actual meaning in people's lives was not addressed by the survey.

empathic civilization

I never realized how truly powerful empathy is and can be.

I thought it was really interesting when he said that there wouldn't be any empathy in utopia, because we wouldn't need it with out any suffering.  How would we connect with other people if there was no empathy?  Utopia doesn't sound like such a warm and friendly place then.  Would we be isolated in ourselves with happiness?  That just seems odd.  Is this why we aren't meant to find/create utopia? Something to think about...

power of belief

It's crazy to think how much our beliefs can change our physical health...

If we can do all that with our minds, can we also change our circumstances too?  I don't think it's possible all the time, but I do think we can make our own luck.

education in America

Interesting video analyzing the education paradigm in America.  Just thought I'd share :)

marketing

I recently got a new job in marketing, so I've been thinking more about what exactly it is.  Marketing has changed quite a bit in the past few years.  It's more about building relationships and taking part in a conversation.  Marketing is so critical to many of the things we do and participate in.  I read this blog post earlier in the week by Michael Hyatt.  He gives a quick overview of marketing in today's world.  Worth reading :)

change blindness

In any given setting, we choose what's important to remember about our surroundings.  When details we don't think are important change, we often don't notice.  Up to 75% of the time, people don't notice a change to something the believe is unimportant.  I'm a fairly observant person, but it makes me wonder what things have changed in my everyday life while I've been unaware.

Dunbar's number

I recently listened to an NPR piece on Dunbar's number.  Essentially Dunbar's number is the number 150, and it represents the number of stable social relationships we can maintain.  For example, when companies have over 150 employees, employees no longer know everyone and can remember them by name.  This is also the number at which smaller hunter-gatherer societies max out, and so on.

When we live and/or work in communities larger than 150 people, there are social consequences.  Listen to the 5 minute NPR piece.  Very interesting!

actions can change your thinking

I recently read about a study that said changing your behavior can lead to changes in your mindset.  "Changes in behavior create changes in mindset. If you act powerfully, you will begin to think powerfully. Cuddy theorizes that some people are a bit more assertive then others, naturally, but by behaving in assertive ways and adopted assertive poses, they magnify their advantages."

But if you act more powerfully, it's because you want to be more powerful and want others to perceive you as more powerful.  So I guess we should start acting like the people we want to be, and then we will become that person.  It seems simple enough.

I think our personalities are more malleable than we think they are. 

being thankful

This morning I was watching a TV program with a friend.  The show took place in Saudi Arabia.  A camera crew placed a hidden camera inside a drive-through coffee stand.  They monitored whether not not people said 'thank you' to the salesperson after they got their coffee.  Then they would stop the car after it drove through to ask the person why they did or didn't say thank you.

As the show was in Arabic, I didn't catch all that was said.  However, those that didn't say thank you seemed to say that it was because of peoples' different personalities on why or not they said thank you (I don't know if I'd agree with that argument). 

The point of the show was to call attention to a Quran verse that reads, "He who does not thank people, does not thank Allah."  I thought that was probably pretty true...  If you can't thank people, how can you thank God?

new humanism

Recently the NY Times columnist David Brook's wrote an article entitled New Humanism.  He talks about the new insights we have into human nature and their potential implications on politics, economics, and our own self-knowledge.  He highlights three of these insights.  I particularly liked the second two, and the are that:

(1)  Emotions are dissenter of our thinking.  They assign value and are the basis of reason. "Reading and educating your emotions is one of the central activities of wisdom."  (2)  "We are not individuals who form relationships. We are social animals, deeply interpenetrated with one another, who emerge out of relationships."

Instead of  looking at things like IQ, degrees, professional skills, he also suggests new ways to measure human capital.  This list contains:

Attunement: the ability to enter other minds and learn what they have to offer.
Equipoise: the ability to serenely monitor the movements of one’s own mind and correct for biases and shortcomings.
Metis: the ability to see patterns in the world and derive a gist from complex situations.
Sympathy: the ability to fall into a rhythm with those around you and thrive in groups.
Limerence: This isn’t a talent as much as a motivation. The conscious mind hungers for money and success, but the unconscious mind hungers for those moments of transcendence when the skull line falls away and we are lost in love for another, the challenge of a task or the love of God. Some people seem to experience this drive more powerfully than others.

In his article/speech, he lacks ways to practically use this insight, but it's all definitely something to think about.  He also discusses these insights here (if you can get past the bad jokes in the beginning)...

self-control

I was recently listening to an a short piece on NPR that discussed self-control.  According to social scientists, there are three things that largely affect and define a child's success in life: IQ, the family's socio-economic status, and self-control.  Self-control is the only one of those three that is relatively easy to change.  The reporter talked about how kids with less self-control  were more likely to be substance abusers, have financial issues, have a criminal record, have more health problems, etc.  When you think about it, that all sounds pretty logical. 

I never realized before how much self-control can affect our lives.  This made me think about self-control in my own life...  In what areas do I lack self-control?  How are these things affecting my overall success and happiness in life?  It's something worth pondering...

gendered reactions to nudity

Both men and women…knew exactly how to respond to female nudes: women had internalized their object status and men had internalized their subject status.

Interestingly, both men and women felt uncomfortable looking at male nudes.

Men responded by either expressing extreme disinterest, re-asserting their heterosexuality, or both.  They did not compare themselves to the male nudes (like women did with female nudes), except to say that they were both male and, therefore, there was “nothing to see.”  Meanwhile, because men have been trained to be a lustful sexual subject, seeing male nudity tended to raise the specter of homosexuality. They couldn’t see the bodies as anything but sexual objects for them to gaze upon.

In contrast, the specter of homosexuality didn’t arise for women because they weren’t used to being positioned as lustful.  Eck explains:

“When women view the seductive pose of the female nude, they do not believe she is ‘coming on to’ them.  They know she is there to arouse men.  Thus, they do not have to work at rejecting an unwanted advance.  It is not for them.” 

From Gendered Reactions to Male and Female Nudity

defining danger

Lately I've been thinking about how different societies define danger and assess risk.  While living in Morocco, I've seen parents give much more freedom to their children than I've seen in the US.  I've seen kids running with sticks, playing with knives, walking around on their own, holding small things they could potentially choke on, etc.  It's not that Moroccan parents don't see that these objects are potential dangers, it's simply that they think the likelihood of something bad happening with the object is minimal.

American parents smother their children with protectiveness, and with good reason.  I think there are many  more potential dangers in America than in Morocco.  For instance, American homes have many more dangers (more small items, more glass objects, low electrical outlets...), people live in larger communities/neighborhoods where they don't know all their neighbors, American media hypes up dangers and cases of tragedy, and you get the idea.  If you look back through American history, we perceived less dangers.  People could hitch hike, kids could walk somewhere alone, and kids could play unsupervised.  I read recently that statistically there hasn't been a rise in danger over the past few decades as you think would be the case.  There's just a difference in perception.

How does our perception of danger and risk affect our society?  This is a big question that can't entirely be answered here, but I believe there are some bad consequences.  For one thing, American children aren't being as independent or gaining some of the experiences that older generations had.  Also, a lot of stress is put on parents to keep their kids safe and supervised all the time.  But perhaps more importantly we should ask: What can we do to change this perception?

social media today

[Disclaimer: In this post I'm not trying to argue the pros and cons of using social networking websites, but rather take a look at how our society uses these tools.  These thoughts are only meant to stir discussion, not say either is right or wrong anything.]

I recently heard someone say, "social media is to relationships what fast food is to nutrition — a quick way to feel like we’ve gotten what we need. But when compared with what we really need, what we get is insubstantial."  I see some truth in that statement.  Nonetheless, there is no doubt that social networking websites can help us to keep in touch with far away friends, reconnect with long lost ones, and meet new people.  However, how aware are we of how social media websites and our usage of them affect us?  When examining the time you spend on these websites, how much times is spent communicating with others versus time spent looking at others (often people you've only met once or barely know), playing games, "liking" random stuff, etc.?  How deep are the connections you make on Facebook, Twitter, and the like? 

Aside from connecting with people, social media is also a place where people can support products, ideas, or causes.  Is online support making changes in the real world?  Yes and no.  It's a place to organize people and get the word out, but as Malcolm Gladwell writes, "The revolution will not be tweeted.  Social media can't always provide what social change has required."  Our actions on social media can't take the place of physical action. Although social media is revolutionizing our time in many ways, we can't expect it to do everything for us.  There are still things we have to do without it.

As a society, we need to examine whether we are using a tool or whether the tool is using us.  We don't do enough of that.  This post got me thinking a lot about digital clutter and how the way I spend my time online affects me.  Are you aware of how you use social media?  Do you manage your use of it?  What are we gaining from using these social media tools?  Is it worth the time we put into them?  Is there a cost involved for us to use these tools?  If you think social media is helpful or a waste of time, either way that's great.  What matters is that we're making a conscious, well thought out decision about our use (or non-use) of social media and other technological tools. 

the power of vulnerability

I like what she has to say, and the sociologist in me loves that she can back it up with research.  It's true: connection is what defines our existence.  In order to connect, we have to be seen.  It's our decision to let our guards down, take our masks off, and be vulnerable.  I pray we all have the courage to do so...

communication these days

Recently I listened to an NPR piece that was talking about communication.  These days there are so many ways to communicate (i.e. e-mail, blogs, social networks, cell phones, snail mail, etc.) that we often don't even realize that we're connecting long distance.  With the ease and access of technology, we can communicate really whenever and wherever we want.  We can carry cell phones anywhere, access our e-mail while walking down the street, or send texts all over the world.

At this point "it's so easy to communicate, there's no reason to communicate anything of interest" (Ted Widmer). I heard this and instantly thought of status updates where people feel the need to let the world know they are brushing their teeth and watching the 567th episode of Grey's Anatomy or whatever it is at the moment.  Widmer even goes on to say that as he sits on the subway he hears people's cell phone conversations that consist of 'Hello. I'm here.  I'll be home at 5:19 instead of 5:18.'  It's the most mundane stuff.  Really.

Back when America was being forged, all people had were letters to communicate over long distance and there was no guarantee your letter would make it.  People took time and made an effort to make sure that what they were communicating was quality.  This really got me thinking and led me to ask myself, am I communicating things of quality and depth?  Am I communicating things that are relevant to others?  Would I want to hear/read what I have to say?

distance

In a previous post, I wrote a little bit about Mary Pipher's book, Writing to Change the World, and her thoughts on wisdom.  Another issue that she writes about that really got me thinking is the de-humanization of others and the separation of ourselves from others.  We see other people as simply a means to an end.  She gives the example of seeing a bank teller as a way to get money, not a human being.  Or we call people "illegal aliens" when no one can really be illegal and no one can really be an alien.  It's easier to treat someone poorly if you think of them as an "illegal alien" rather than another human being.

"Distance negates responsibility." -Guy Davenport

Without thinking we turn other people into objects daily.  We forget to put ourselves in their shoes and take note of the humanity we share.  The world becomes full of objects that affect us in some way as we are the center of the universe.  We have trouble looking beyond ourselves.

How can we keep from doing that all the time?  I think when we take the time to truly sit with ourselves, we discover our own humanity.  By discovering our humanity, we find what links us to everyone else.  But at the same time our culture so systematically de-humanizes people that it can be overwhelming to try to cope.  The least we can do is start with ourselves.

wisdom vs. information

Last week I started reading the book, Writing to Change the World by Mary Pipher.  In the introduction of the book, she very succinctly outlines several of the major issues of our time.  The first issue that really struck me is the problem of wisdom and information.

"We understand many facts about the world, but we cannot discern their meaning or their implications for action...  While we call our time the Age of Information, wisdom is in short supply." (p.3, emphasis added)

She points to how the average American can identify over 1,000 brand names, but can't identify 10 indigenous plants or animals.  With all the knowledge we have, we're more depressed and stressed than ever as a species.  It's as if knowledge is overloading us.  It's complicating our lives and distracting us from the simpler matters of life.

Webster defines wisdom as "knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and of the best means."  It is easy to gain knowledge.  It's everywhere-- the television, the internet, books, etc.  Anything we wish to know we can look up online at anytime.  On the other hand, wisdom has to be sought out.  It takes work and discernment.

This leads me to ask: Can you turn knowledge into wisdom?  How does one get wisdom?  How does one encourage others to attain it? 

"It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf." -Walt Lippmann

happiness & joy

I read a while ago on the BBC that over 1 in 10 websites is pornographic.

That's a lot of websites.  What does that say about humanity?  Well, we obviously like sex and pleasure.  I wonder how many people are actually looking at these sites.  Is it 10% of the population or maybe more?  I don't know.

We, as inhabitants of the developed countries, seem awfully consumed with what can make us happy and provide pleasure-- techno gadgets, delicious food made completely of chemicals and unnatural substances, escapism through movies and music, clothes that wear us instead of us wearing them, the cycle of wanting (which we turn into needing without so much as blinking) and getting the latest 'thing'. 

People aren't driven by their own fulfillment.  All they can eat are shadows.  They crave happiness and don't know how to seek joy.  They fill themselves with Nothing.

Do most people even understand joy?  Joy can be tricky.  One can have joy, but not be happy.  But the unhappiness is only for a moment.  Joy is a river that runs deep.

why shout?

A master asked his disciples:
‘Why do we shout in anger? Why do people shout at each other when they are upset?’

The disciples thought for a while, and one of them said:
‘Because we lose our calm, we shout for that.’
‘But, why shout when the other person is just next to you? ‘Isn’t it possible to speak to him or her with a soft voice? Why do you shout at a person when you’re angry?’
The disciples gave him some other answers but none satisfied the master.

Finally he explained:
‘When two people are angry at each other, their hearts are distant. To cover that distance they must shout to be able to hear each other. The angrier they are, the stronger they will have to shout to hear each other through that great distance.’

Then the master asked:
‘What happens when two people fall in love? They don’t shout at each other but talk softly, why? Because their hearts are very close. The distance between them is very small…’
And he finally said:
‘When they love each other even more, what happens?
‘They do not speak, only whisper and they get even closer to each other in their love.
‘Finally they even need not whisper, they only look at each other and that’s all. That is how close two people are when they love each other.’ 

[I found this story here.]