One Red Hot Country Mama!

I used to work in a place with Lotus Notes, which let us attach little themes to our e-mails – like a thumbs up, confidential, stuff like that. One theme was an envelope with a flame on it. When those were sent, it almost never involved an important business issue. No, those were communicated in person or through a formal e-mail from upper management. A flaming e-mail was always one person with an axe to grind with another, usually about a very petty issue. The angry invectives would then go back and forth until someone stepped in or there was a direct conflict.

I have never seen an angry e-mail exchange result in a greater understanding to between the two parties. I have never seen it become a foundation for compromise.

Instead, it is a relationship ruiner. If you really hate someone, and you want to wreck a current and future relationship with them, get in an e-mail flame-war with them. It works, guaranteed.

I got one of these the other day, and I responded with:

"It seems that we have a disconnect here that can only be dealt with in person. Please call me."

I then left a message with them saying the same thing. Yeah, we are busy. We are tired. But, e-mail is a problematic communcation method in conflict because it is unidirectional (you can’t sense the other person’s responses like you would in person), difficult to determine tone (someone could look angry therefore scary when they are really just upset therefore vulnerable) and they can be written on a whim (there is no wimping out on the way to someone’s office and no throwing out the envelope before it goes in the mail). So – I think it is best just to take the old-fashioned direct route when it comes to conflict… and talk.

I’m condo shopping lately so a lot of the newer developments are catching my eye. Today, I was driving through a very industrial area on the way home from work and the word "regal" jumped out at me. Now, what the heck is an adjective like "regal" doing written on big colorful flags amongst the mac truck drop-off point, auto-part dealers and sex shops? I then saw it was a townhouse-condo development… on a busy thoroughfare, with mud for front lawns and walkways too close to the road. Hmmm… there is a marketer out there who is clearly abusing the word "regal".

Another example of optimistic claims is the Park Lake Residences condo development (located at the Lakeshore and South Kingsway for Toronto readers). Yes, the condos are near to High Park and Lake Ontario. But the more obvious thing about them is that they are located between a highway (the Gardiner) and two major thoroughfares (the Lakeshore and the Queensway). So, I joke that the name should be changed from "Park Lake" to "Highway Street". But, I guess my new name wouldn’t sell condos.

But, the "Park Lake" name, reminds me of what people hate about us marketers… that our claims are too optimistic – we are overselling and underdelivering. But, doesn’t that quality in marketers also bring a kind of poetry to life? I was remembering today about how when we were kids we used to fold up our sheets into a triangle at the front and leave them as a rectangle at the back, and pretend that our beds were boats. It was so fun to pretend that we were in boats, and it felt so real – even though the simulation was rudimentary, even for us kids. Believing we were in boats made it much more fun and provided some kind of escape.

So, maybe the "Park Lake" name helps the residents forget the noise of the highways and streets and gets them to focus on the positive. Maybe living in an industrial area labeled "regal" gives some dignity to it. People are attracted to strong imagery and a nice dream-image, so much so they are willing to lay down their life savings for it… even if it is not quite honest.

Remember this guy? Well, it seems like some people still think that this is a good way to charm a lady – or at least this is the very mainstream way of viewing dating situations. To constantly chase, be unrelenting, and not take no for an answer. Pepe sees the cat as purely an object instead of as a being like himself.

But, the question is, who was the cat? What was her name? (I don’t remember her having one.) What were her needs and interests? (Pepe’s are clear.) Obviously the attraction was not mutual… so why didn’t they show the cat with her own love interest (making it a triangle or something)… instead of defining her only as one running away from Pepe?

If only Pepe talked to her and got to know her, maybe he would have had more luck… maybe she would have fallen for him… or who knows, maybe she would have ended up chasing him .  Just another reason why it is so much more fun not to be mainstream.

Very interesting news from The Economist’s Luddites in Cyberspace:

49% of Americans are considered Luddites or Laggards

ie. people who are slow or reluctant to embrace new technology. This is from a comprehensive study from Pew Internet & American Life Project.

Only 8% of consumers are considered early-adopters

ie. people who embrace technology quickly. This is huge news for technology marketers, because most of us like to be on the leading edge of things, but when the leading edge is only 8%, it probably isn’t the best thing for our products. Yes, there is a trickle-down effect, but, I think no one suspected the number of Luddites and Laggards to be so high.  For example, how many people do you think have ever listened to a podcast?

13%

according to Podcasting News. So, as technology marketers, we have to remember to stop Marketing to ourselves, and start thinking more about our audience.

I like this public service announcement from WWF showing people going about their daily routines while the environment is in crisis… yet they don’t skip a beat. The tagline is "Ignoring Global Warming Won’t Make it Go Away".

Many of us engage in this feel-good positivism, and when someone brings up the environment, it is met with avoidance and denial. And, I know there are still some doubters about Global Warming based on people making claims without the full weight of science behind them. But, based as said before, the science is now there:

In 2001, it said that it was "likely" that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; "likely" in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.

Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface.

How can we still be going about our daily routines in light of this fact? In psychology, denial is known as a defense mechanism. When something is too painful face directly, we tend to pretend it isn’t there. There are many different types of denial, including denial of fact, denial of responsibility and even denial of denial (you can see more here on Wikipaedia). I think the most relevant form of denial is "denial of impact" when it comes to global warming.

Denial of impact: Denial of impact involves a person avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms their behavior have caused to themselves or others. By doing this, that person is able to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent that person from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.

And… I think it’s too bad. I am definitely "for" feeling good, since I believe that life is supposed to be pleasurable. But, there is are lots of differences between being positive and being in denial, even though they can appear similar at first glance (my tool doesn’t let me make tables, so I will just color these to add contrast):

• Being positive is grounded in reality, denial is not
• Being positive is a healthy coping mechanism, denial is not healthy
• Being positive is genuine and from the heart, denial is image-driven
• Being positive is facing reality, denial is avoiding reality
• Being positive gives you an opportunity to make change, denial does not

So, I think a positive, non-denial-oriented attitude would be "hey, we have a problem, let’s act differently and try to turn it around". Instead, people are going about their normal routines. They are saying "Shhhh… don’t point stuff out… we’re trying to pretend it’s fine when it’s not fine". Then they don’t sense the pain from the poor decisions. Then they don’t change.