Why “I am right, you are wrong” is bad for brands

by Nigel Hollis

Everyone knows that to get noticed in today’s frenetic media environment you have to pick a side and argue your case as vehemently as possible. That strategy might spawn a negative reaction, but then they say there is no such thing as bad publicity. But what if making hyperbolic assertions is undermining the effective practice of marketing?

In her article ‘Efficiency And Emotion: Finding The Balance In The Digital Advertising Equation’, Jane Ostler notes,

“There’s an endless swirl of arguments about digital vs. traditional, AI or human, attitudinal or behavioral, brand-building or sales, targeting vs creativity. Proponents at either end of the spectrum portray one as good, the other as bad, veritable “mine is bigger than yours” contests, designed to grab headlines.”

The recent ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ debate over the value of brand attitudes serves to illustrate Jane’s point. Professor Byron Sharp’s asserts that “Sales (i.e. behaviour) strongly affects perceptions, so correlations between the two are largely, if not totally, due to behaviour causing the perception.” This assertion evokes a counter-response from Professor Koen Pauwels citing evidence that attitude change can lead behavior change and concluding, “I don’t see how the truth is served by Byron Sharp’s unfounded and absolute claim.” Mark Ritson piles on and suggests that Sharp’s approach is “defensive to the point of being blinkered and rhetorical”.

If you want to read a more balanced response you might check out the post from our own Josh Samuel from last week. And in subsequent discussion, Josh suggests that if you ignore Sharp’s dismissive rhetoric then most of what he says is true: gather image data is useful and can inform advertising decisions; some people may over-state the importance of minor changes in attitudes, and we need to learn more about how attitudes do influence behavior. It is not so much the substance of what is said that is problematic but the way it is said.

Sharp’s strategy of asserting that accepted wisdom is wrong has worked well for him in the past, but his overstatement is beginning to wear a bit thin in the face of the mounting evidence that the world of marketing is not as simple as he makes out. Growing penetration is not the only way to build market share, even if it is the predominant one. Attitudes do not always simply follow behavior (particularly when brand choice is more deliberative), they can anticipate it. And knowing that big brands will have more loyal users tells you nothing about how brands actually grow.

Irrespective of whether Sharp is right or wrong, the bigger issue is what this vehement debate, and others like it, does to people’s confidence in the practice of marketing. As Jane Ostler points out, this is just one minor scuffle in a melee of conflicting opinions. The apparent lack of agreement about basic marketing principles likely confirms to skeptical CFOs that marketers are flying by the seat of their pants. New marketing practitioners will be confused and left wondering which pundit they should believe. Most will settle for figuring it out themselves and, as a result, likely end up confirming their CFO’s worst expectations.

The practice of marketing progresses when different viewpoints founded on different data sets are reconciled to produce a new understanding. Unfortunately, I fear marketing is following the world of politics into becoming ever more divisive. But what do you think? Please share your thoughts.