Too much fertilizer can burn your lawn: thoughts on control and participation in markets
Advertising Add commentsThis post begins with two seemingly unrelated thoughts: (1) a history of the study of mass communications in America and (2) misleading advertising by airlines. Bear with me and I’ll try and make it all fit together by arguing that shortsighted and misguided efforts to control the market (which we see more and more of these days) are serving to discourage people from participating in traditional markets. Put another way, too much fertilizer in the garden just might burn the lawn rather than make it grow.
The first idea stems from a wonderful history of the study of mass communications in America by Jesse G. Delia. In this remarkably concise and insightful chapter, Delia contrasts the early (i.e. pre-World War II) sociological study of communications at the University of Chicago with the more statistical and instrumental brand of sociology that became prevalent in later years. Instead of studies into, for example, how Chicago immigrants can be integrated into American urban society, the emphasis shifted to selling products and winning elections. Delia neatly sums up the contrast between the Chicago school and its more modern progeny: “… for the Chicago school the problem of modern society was not control but participation” (1987, p. 49).
The second idea is the reaction of my wife as she shopped for plane tickets to Scotland for a family holiday we’re planning. Disgust is not too strong a word to describe her reaction to airlines that routinely publish prices for tickets that are about 50% lower than the actual price you pay actually before you can squeeze into that too small seat (thanks to a plethora of taxes, fees and surcharges). It was the same feeling of disgust and desperation we both felt as we tried in vain to understand the incredibly complex and confusing pricing schemes for cellular phone plans. It’s also the same feeling of disgust I felt when a newly elected premiere for the Ontario provincial government cancelled the tax reductions on which he had based his campaign because he suddenly realized the province was running a huge deficit and not the surplus the previous government had reported. Strangely, the Globe And Mail newspaper had already figured out the deficit and predicted the new Premiere’s about-face weeks before the election.
The link between early University of Chicago sociology and these few examples of confusion and deception lies in Delia’s contrast between participation and control. Advertising campaigns, pricing plans and electoral platforms built on confusion and deception are all examples of efforts to control markets. Short-sighted and misguided, their effect, to stretch Delia’s point, is to discourage participation in the market. When disgusted in these ways, we throw up our hands, vow “never again” and look for different markets altogether.
No surprise, then, that voter participation rates are not as high as they once were. And no wonder consumers increasingly buy, sell and swap without the intermediary of retailers and advertising. Disgusted with shortsighted and misguided marketing approaches, consumers pick up their marbles and head for EBay, Kaza and their own forums for the exchange of information and reviews of products and services. Disgusted with the political process, they stay home or find other ways to participate in the political process.
The solution is simple, of course. Let’s go back to a brand of research, marketing and campaigning designed to foster participation rather than control. Let’s put our resources into listening, understanding deeply and creating environment in which consumers and voters will be welcome, appreciated and respected. A simple starting point: advertising campaigns, pricing plans and electoral platforms that are unfailingly honest, clear and complete. Simple, but I somehow suspect many practitioners will only go there kicking and screaming. The innovators who go there first and willingly, just might find that a market in which more people actively and happily participate is, in the end, much better for everyone involved. More on these innovators in a later post.
Viewing 5 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)