Hi team, me again.
Just testing the new blogBuddy and looking at my post. Funny how you start out to say something reasoned and measured, strong yet subtle, and end up with a crazed rant like that.
It occurs to me that listening is not the same as market research, and that speaking to someone, conversationally, is not the same as advertising. An obvious but necessary truth.
Surprise, I hear you mutter, the dimwit gets it. But this is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Doesn't classical marketing actually consider market research to be a synonym for listening and advertising to be a synonym for speaking? Rather than as inadequate substitutes for these essential elements of human interaction?
Doesn't this major league misconception explain the massive disconnect between marketers and their markets that Chris is on about? Isn't this the source of the cognitive dissonance that arises when one observes marketers trying so hard to be nice, but just absolutely pissing you off?
Have you ever sat in an executive meeting and heard "Where's the market research?" and wondered to yourself if anyone, ever, just did something because it made sense? Just because they'd listened, cogitated, questioned, listened and cogitated some more, and then just did what came naturally from that?
Aren't the people (and companies) that do this the ones that stand out? Like Apple in their early days, or with their blueberry notebooks, or like the people that make and sell Viagra. Hey - they KNOW what we want! Because they're horny PEOPLE, too.
Like GonzoMan, the new species in interactive marketing: he says what he means, he means what he says, he tells it like it is, and he puts his own money where his mouth is. He speaks to you like a human being, treats you like an autonomous intelligent individual, like you have something to say worth listening to, and you have something listening that is worth speaking to.
Aaaah, the novelty value alone is priceless.
P.S. Chris, I bought your feckin book today from Amazon, I hope it's as good as I say it is . . . . . .