The source of this idea comes from Howard Suber, the author of The Power of Film and a faculty member at UCLA. (My son was lucky enough to have Mr. Suber as an instructor.)
What’s the flaw when it comes to pornographic movies? Layers.
You start with a man and a woman (usually), then things have to escalate. Two women and a man; two women, two men; three women, a young man, an old man and a dwarf. Every subsequent film has to go one better… another layer, ad infinitum.
American movies are the same, which is why they are declining in quality. Start with two murders, one affair and three car chases. Then it escalates: four car chases, two affairs and a dozen killed. Next? 3D slaughter.
Advertisements and marketing are the same: low price, then low, low price, then ridiculously low price, then crazy Eddie… prices so low we’re losing money (and he was, which is why he allegedly sold stolen goods).
I keep arguing that the nature of consumers has changed. Part of that is driven by ads and marketing that pile layer upon pornographic layer until consumers (B2C and B2B) just stop believing anything and everything… and the more you pile on layers of bull, the less they believe (which is one reason why ‘under-produced’ movies, ads and reality TV shows are somehow judged as more ‘honest’).
We pile on pornographic layers with absurd claims and use digital media to promote our work so our porno can be seen in every corner of the online world, whether consumers like it or not.
Pornography and movies have one advantage: they can be seen as fantasy; and as such the unbelievable layers are a bit more tolerated. James Bond can fend off five paid assassins with a duffle bag and we’re OK with that; some couples can keep up with dozens of partners, hour after hour and we’re still OK.
But… then some cosmetic promises instant wrinkle relief or a Dr. Scholls’ insert can help you ‘get your life back’ and we’re suddenly not OK (and advertising and marketing are further relegated to havens for shysters, liars and thieves).
What’s the solution?
Marketing/advertising that’s less sophisticated with fewer layers, more depth, more primal themes, and more mythical (archetypical) appeals.
Less sophisticated doesn’t mean dumbed down. That would be like saying that Hemingway’s simple sentences were written for idiots.
And mythical doesn’t mean King Arthur (although it could).
I’m thinking of basic archetypical myths -- the reluctant warrior (Arjuna or Achilles), the long return home (Ulysses, The Prodigal Son, The Searchers, Star Wars), the journey to adulthood (The Graduate, Huckleberry Finn), The Damsel in Distress (look at Tarentino’s Django -- right up front one character tells you about the Siegfried myth of rescuing the woman), 40 days in the desert (Jesus), trial by fire (Job), finding our long, lost love, being perfect mothers and fathers, seeking forgiveness, rediscovering belief, growing old with grace, etc.
These themes reach a deep, deep level in our consciousness, a place where we are hard-wired to make symbols, and symbols are good for advertising and marketing.
These primordial tales are not layered, they are single-mindedly simplistic: one inch wide and one million miles deep… they are poetic (“To be or not to be”), they transcend changing consumer natures and strike (again) at what’s hard-wired.
Marketing and advertising have lost this ‘simple’ depth, preferring to add layer upon layer of (fake) story, CGI, music, fantastic stunts, ridiculous claims and promises that a six-year-old can see through.
No… you’re not going to take this approach for toilet paper. But for anything NEW and GAME CHANGING, primal ideas are ideal.
-The Prodigal Son (or Daughter, these days) who finds his/her way home thanks to the newest smartphone or the next Facebook.
-The young entrepreneur who uses the latest software to start his or her own company that brings down the malevolent giant.
- A new biometric testing unit that allows people to take back control of their healthcare destiny from the medical bureaucracy.
-Look at the iPad ads showing their positive effects on children. What parent can resist that image of giving their offspring an advantage in this cold, cruel world?
-Last year’s Chrysler ad with Clint Eastwood in Detroit (David and Goliath, Rocky).
These single-layered, deeply emotional ads bring immediacy, authenticity, humanity… and the perfect combination of head and heart. They can lodge deep in the personal unconscious where symbols are being made; and the emotional connection with the product itself will be carried along.
This seems to me to be the new way to market and advertise and the only way to overcome consumer boredom, malaise and distrust.
Otherwise, we’re just cynical marketers whose true ancestors are the money changers in the Temple… creating our own marketing and metrics Tower of Babel… following the worst of direct response without style, humanity, emotion or creativity.
But marketers must deal with what’s real, so I’m always cognizant of the dollars.
Creative, mythic themes are a way to break through a crowded, me-too marketplace and align your product with our hard-wired nature so that consumers are happy to buy.
Talk about marketing that sticks, yet doesn’t seem cheap, intrusive or silly. All it takes is a lot of thought, some creativity and a great, honest product…. and, oh yes, dialing it down on the (Hemingway) bullshit meter.
(If you’re old enough to remember the Doors, you know that Morrison usually opened his concerts by shouting WAKE UP!
)
Here are a few takeaways for those souls interested in marketing and advertising and politics.
1. Attack ads work as does frequency (which is how Romney got so close)… but they have to be bolstered with some sort of positive vision. You can’t win/sell anything simply by defining what it’s not: ‘Vote Romney because you hate Obama’ is not enough.
The same for marketing. When it comes to attracting consumers, a product has to stand for something with a positive, inspiring long-term vision. Pepsi used to advertise that it’s not Coke. So what? Then they did taste tests… still, so what? Then they began their Pepsi generation theme and things took off.
2. It’s nauseating how pundits keep saying that republicans need to change their message. That is duplicitous at best and downright evil at the core. Change the philosophy and adapt your ideas to the 21st century, THEN change the message to match the new soul of the party.
Putting out a new message while your beliefs don’t change is the worst kind of cheap direct response. Change the product then change the message... not the other way around.
3. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time: after September, 2008 everything has changed: consumer expectations, middle class incomes, trust in banking, the role of government, belief in technology, levels of consumption, demographics and YES, THE AMERICAN NARRATIVE ITSELF.
4. You’ve heard all about the demographics, but let me add one more: each month, 50,000 Hispanics turn 18 and are eligible to vote. Do the math for 2016.
5. The American belief in self-reliance, perfectly defined by Emerson’s famous essay of the same name, has changed... only angry white guys have missed this watershed moment.
Want proof?
The republican mantra is built on individual hard work, an independent, entrepreneurial spirit and a refusal to take handouts from the government.
Think for a second: this philosophy is strongest in Asian and Hispanic communities. These folks work and work and work (more than most white communities), so they should be prime republicans, but they’re not.
Over 70% of Asians and Hispanics voted democratic.
Why?
Because the republican, classic American belief that small government is best for the individual is not shared by immigrants. Most don’t see government as the villain; rather, they see big, greedy business as the obstacle to their success, as it tilts the playing field against them, barely pays a living wage and sends jobs overseas.
Bottom line: marketing and politics are both about telling a story with vision, one that corresponds with consumer/electorate desires and is in step with their core beliefs. Anything else, and you’ll spend billions for frequency and market share and still lose to a smarter, more passionate, more in-tune competitor.
And... when you try to sell anything with a story that runs counter to the prevailing meta-narrative (core, unquestioned beliefs) you will fail, just as the republicans did… and you will continue to fail until you change more than your marketing message.
A new tag line won't do it... you have to change your heart.
Every once in a while and more often than parents admit, our children teach us things, particularly when they’re grown and have the advantage of a good education. I can say that about both of my children. At times we have conversations that sound like a college classroom. I taught college for a long time and was always lecturing around the house. Now they lecture me to the point that I’m getting headaches trying to keep up.
Here’s the latest revelation.
We were speaking about marketing and advertising and movies and wondered what makes something stick with you… be it a painting, an ad, a joke, a sporting event or just one of life’s random moments?
My argument is usually less scientific, more humanities based, so I’m generally talking about Jungian archetypes and myths: the more mythic an idea, a story, the ‘deeper’ it hits your psychological home and the more likely it will find a place to stick. When a story reaches your archetype you can’t help but pull it in.
My son who is just out of UCLA with an Master’s in Film Production agrees, but thinks it has to do more with right side/left side of the brain. Maybe. After all, it’s common knowledge that the left side is logical and the right side is more intuitive (for right-handed people, of course).
Long story short, after watching Jill Bolte Taylor on TED, she of “Stroke of Insight” fame, he says: “The left side of the brain is ‘me,’ my ideas, my ego, it’s exclusive; while the right side is ‘us’ what unites all humans, what makes us the same… the great ‘Oversoul,’ the universal mind, the collective unconscious.”
I never thought of it quite in those terms.
He continues: “The ‘me’ side of the brain limits information input to only what’s important to me. The left side is full of bullet points. The ‘us’ side, on the other hand, accepts more information; it’s inclusive and pulls in more data so it has a fuller picture of the universe and fills in with a broader, more inclusive brush that adds depth. The right side tells stories.
OK – stay with me. So, the question then becomes, “What makes a master: Bankei, Picasso, Einstein, Muhammad Ali, Hemingway, Godard, or David Ogilvy? Talent and intelligence, sure. But a lot of people are smart as hell and have talent. It’s more than that.
The ‘master’ resides in the right side of the brain, more in the ‘us’ than does the common man. He or she is inclusive and sees unlimited resonant connections… to cultural myths, universal human stories, common symbols and shared fears and joys. That's why a master can write about a female character living in 18th century Madrid and make it stick with you while he sits in 21st century New York. It’s all about what makes us the same. It's 'enlightenment.'
We live, for the most part, in our tightly-focused left, logical world with just a small foray into the right intuitive side. Our daily work is mostly logical. And we need a degree of logic to live. Remember, Taylor’s stroke left her living totally in the right side. She was happy, overjoyed, one with the universe, with heightened senses; yet, she needed help feeding herself.
Problem is, we in America and Western Europe have all but abandoned the intuitive right side and it’s to our demise. The result? We work but feel unfulfilled; we have things but don’t have happiness; we sense something is missing but we don't know what. This was the argument of The Modernists like Pound and Eliot and why Surrealists and Dadaists, (and Lady Gaga, come to think of it) try to blast us out of our rationality. Why Jim Morrison wanted us to break on through to the other side.
Interesting, but what’s the marketing point?
When trying to connect with people – be it through advertising, poetry, novels, art or movies – the ‘master’ tips the balance strongly toward the right side, the intuitive side, the shared experience side.Here's where memorable emotions are made.
The rational side wants to bludgeon people with facts; it wants to win the argument at all costs. The intuitive side simply wants to point out universal truths we may have missed. And when we see these new connections we’re astounded, overwhelmed, sometimes moved to tears… and these ‘revelations’ stay in our psyche.
“The Godfather” sticks while “Maid in Manhattan” does not. “Where’s the beef?” is a phrase known by 300 million Americans, many of whom weren’t born when the old lady made the commercial. But that simple line cut through the rhetorical bull of most advertising and remains a part of contemporary myth and symbolism.
A mythic movie or advertisement literally remakes the relationship between the artist and the viewer, between the consumer and the brand. And this relationship cannot be shaken by all the facts in Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britannica.
When you’re writing and trying to evoke a reaction you need to tip the scales strongly to the right side of your brain and lighten up with the left side. Hemingway did. Einstein did. Great athletes do. It's not easy but it is essential.
Remember: You can’t really change anyone’s perceptions until you connect at a deep human level. Facts aren't made to do that.
Let me end with a quote from Mr. Einstein:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
Or my favorite:
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
Great art, great marketing help reveal the ongoing, universal monomythic miracle.
("Monomythic?" you ask. "Is that even a word?" Hmmm… you haven’t read your Joyce, have you?)
Politics aside, Michele Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention was brilliant. She was able to paint her husband as the quintessential, mythical American, ‘common man’ hero. And in so doing, she held a metaphorical mirror to Mr. Romney and the reflection was as unflattering as it was clear.
How’d she do it? C’mon, you know the answer is the story she told. And while you can disagree with the politics, you simply cannot ignore the lesson she gave to marketers: there is nothing more powerful than a convincing, moving, compelling, slightly understated narrative.
Here’s what the
LA Times said:
The principal narrative of her nationally televised speech was about President Obama’s ability to maintain his ideals, and even his gentle touch as a father, despite the heavy strains of office…
Narrative is the operant word.
Notice, there was not a single mention of facts… the narrative spun a series of images that had nothing to do with facts, per se. If you intensely dislike Mr. Obama, there’s still nothing you can point to in his wife’s speech that was inaccurate… nothing that stretches the truth.
The First Lady had an airtight story grounded in a shared myth and these gave her the focus needed to decide which anecdotes would be included and which would be discarded as off point (and thus, seemingly untrue). In marketing terms, she found her niche message and gently stayed on it until the audience was in tears.
Mrs. Romney, on the other hand, told story after small story but to no real end, or to the overly large end of showing her husband to be kind, generous, one of the guys, caring, smart, witty, a great father, a shrewd businessman, etc. That was too big a task to bite off, so her message was scattered. Consequently, you can’t summarize what she said as succinctly as did the
LA Times with Mrs. Obama’s narrative.
Ann Romney is an attractive and articulate woman. But her speech was just so much talk show chatter. She had no narrative focus and no way of deciding which stories to include and which to leave out; consequently, she seemed to have told them all, hoping that the totality of her speech would miraculously move the audience.
Here are a few narratives that would have been better for Mrs. Romney. Just pick one – ONE – not all of them.
1. Mr. Romney was born into privilege but walked away from it to help those who had far less. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, like George Washington, put aside his interests to help fight for his country.)
2. Mr. Romney used his privilege and power and money to help others in need, and without fanfare or self-gratification. (Myth of the Lone Ranger, when you think of it.)
3. Mr. Romney used his privilege to educate himself. He studied long and hard so that he could put his knowledge to work in finding new, better ways to improve the lives of others. (Dr. Salk or George Washington Carver.)
4. Mr. Romney’s background shows a man who understands the plight of blue collar Americans, something he learned at his father’s knee. As president of American Motors, George Romney was very concerned about the life of his workforce. (Myth of the benevolent aristocrat who, for example, pays for the education of his workers’ kids or pays the hospital bills for the gardener’s sick wife.)
Again, pick one.
And whatever you do, don’t use the wrong myth. Why try to paint Mr. Romney as coming from humble beginnings? He’s not Abe Lincoln nor do we expect him to be. We admire wealth and don't care if candidates were born into the upper class. How disingenuous would it have been for JFK to speak in his posh Boston accent about his childhood struggles delivering newspapers on his little bike in the pouring rain?
Kennedy’s narrative was that he was born into wealth and taught that it carries responsibility, which is why he (JFK) went to war, saved a fellow seaman and dedicated his life to serving his fellow Americans after the sacrifice of his older brother.
Bottom line? Mrs. Romney chose the wrong mythical backdrop for a man of means and used a narrative shotgun; Mrs. Obama chose a classic American middle class myth befitting the child of a single parent and used a narrative laser.
We should do much the same with our marketing. But experience tells me we won’t. In spite of the clear lesson about the power of a tight, cohesive story, we’ll continue to produce work that’s fact-driven, repetitive, dull, boring and does not connect with our target audience… then scratch our heads when nothing sells.
