How much marketing "science" lacks any real science? (Hint: A lot)
I've seen a few studies recently that apply real, empirical methods to accepted marketing "science" and have more or less debunked - or at least suggested the overblown importance of - several supposed truths in marketing. It led me to wonder, how much of the thinking in the marketing world is actually based on science, and how much is simply philosophy or 'common sense' intuition?
The first article that got me thinking in this direction was from ArsTechnica, entitled, The "Google generation" not so hot at Googling, after all.
In other words, it seems a few too many proud parents mistook their child's comfort level with technology as aptitude.
No doubt that kids raised in an environment of technology will have a certain base-level understanding that their parents might lack, and that this base-level understanding may serve as a foundation upon which more sophisticated knowledge may be built in the future, but to assume that kids know what they're doing simply because they figured out how to use Google is going a bit too far. After all, Google invested a whole lot of money into making their service as easy to use as possible.
The next article that helped trigger this post was from Fast Company, and it was entitled, Is the Tipping Point Toast?, a jab at the famous 'Tipping Point' by Malcolm Gladwell.
That article revolves around Duncan Watts' hypothesis that influentials aren't as influential as we may think. He ultimately concludes that trends are sparked almost at random, and have less to do with key influencers and more to do with the public at large being primed for a new trend to hit. He uses the analogy of forest fires - thousands start each year, but only a few turn into the raging infernos that make headlines.
This makes a lot of sense, and while there are portions of his argument that I may disagree with, overall it holds together as he's applied testable science to the problem and generated a consistent outcome. You can't argue with data. Data can hold its own in a fight.
Granted, we're in a huge state of flux in the media / marketing world as the Internet's influence is growing at a fanatical pace. New ideas are needed, and an open dialog is needed to discuss and validate those thoughts. But just as marketers are tasked to spark trends, they also seem pretty susceptible to believe in them as well. Maybe it goes with the territory.
tags related links
