Anyone of us can attest to shift in public sentiment on a great number of political and societal issues. Whether we trace it back through the CIA or Ronald Reagan neoliberalism or some other lineage, something has changed in society. Was it on purpose, or a result of bad incentives? Whatever the case, I think we can safely say that the guardians were asleep at the watch.
Recently I read Boomers by Helen Andrews, which is essentially a book about how a generation turned on, tuned in, and dropped out. The book as whole is very entertaining while being informative and presenting the information in a non-typical manner. I would recommend it both for its laser-sharp wit and sobering analysis. It looks at six well-known personalities from the Boomer generation and details how they each typify (or go against) that generation, how they thought, felt and fought. In particular, fought for rights. The main ‘right’ one feels that Boomers battled for was that to consume, and Andrews makes this patently clear.
My dad is a Boomer, and he always brings up Woodstock like some mystical event, something that changed history. He typifies that generation. He’s all for revolution and peace and love, but he became a banker, an accountant, and eventually a CEO. I know he is a principled man, but that kind of duality of thought versus reality is what makes the Boomers who they are. This is what Boomers uncovers, how such a well-meaning group of people grew into their own worst nightmare, and how that became a nightmare for all of us, one that we cannot wake from.
For me, as a non-American, the chapter that stood out the most was the one on Al Sharpton. I have never given the man much thought, but how Andrews framed him was enlightening. Take this section:
The boomers persuaded everybody that transformational leadership was the only kind worth admiring, which left transactional leadership, the kind that bargains and compromises, with a low reputation that it did not deserve. Sometimes transactional leadership can be the more noble type. The transformation mentality looks at opposition and sees nothing but reactionary holdouts who don’t deserve to be accommodated, only defeated. A transactional leader sees potential allies whose cooperation could be gained if their concerns were placated.
Sharpton is transformational. He wants to change the world at any cost. This is the Boomer mindset, and this is why Bret Weinstein is shouted down by, ahem, wonderful young women of colour.
You can blame Millennials or Gen Z, the woke generations, but they wouldn’t have got woke without the Boomers. The parents of these brats taught them that consuming is good, TV is a teacher, charity is a self-interest, pop culture is art, religion is nothing more than demanding justice, and the law is yours to change. Above all they taught their progeny to be prodigies. These aspects of Boomer parenting are reflected in the personalities that Andrews so deftly touches on, but it is the transformational versus transactional aspect that I think is key.
The young today want to change the world. This is what I wrote about in Weaponized Childhood. They are a force for good, so they think. Their parents told them they were special. I thank God every day my Boomer parents were not like this, because if there is anything my Dad got right it was not mollycoddling his children.
Now, this is a slight segue, but consider modern companies. They are the parents for adults, going so far as to install monitoring devices on computers to make sure their employees are compliant. There’s less room for error. As a result, there is less faith held in the sales department, the place where mavericks thrive. Oh, sure, it’s still necessary, but you move more units with a focus on marketing and publicity than you do with sales. Marketing budgets are blooming, while sales budgets stagnate. Gone are the days of Glengarry Glen Ross.
A salesman is transactional. The goal is to meet you halfway where halfway is as close to his desire as possible, and you just think it’s fair. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how civilizations thrive, through competitive cooperation. Conversely a woman in marketing will sweet talk you so you think her product is the best there is. She will lather on the platitudes and feel-good vibes so that really, what other choice is there on the market? A salesman wants what’s best for you and for him. Someone in marketing doesn’t care about you so long as you buy their trash.
Of course, the propaganda against salesmen is something to consider. Always the no-good car salesman ripping you off, the hopeless door-to-door salesmen who needs to feed his family. Think of Gil Gunderson from The Simpsons, always on the out. Then compare him to Lyle Lanley who shills a faulty monorail. That’s the difference between sales and marketing these days.
This is all to say that thanks to social media, the young have grown up trying to market themselves. They are a brand that has to be seen to be real. They can’t sell themselves to anyone, but they do expect you to buy what they’re marketing. They are in a world where what matters is transformation. They all want to change the world, a world created by their parents, while they were enabled to indulge in their worst fantasies. We live in a planet of children, of childishness, and it’s because everyone is nothing more than a persona that promises to change your life.
The problem is that no one is willing to take no for an answer. That’s the danger of forgetting how to be transactional.
This is not why marketing budgets are up while sales are down (this also depends on what sort of biz you're talking about.) An ad is a salesman in a letter, a video, an image -- whatever. Marketing is about positioning your salesmen (or ads) so they can better succeed at conversion.
Your broader point about no one willing to take no for an answer is true...And also indicative of the true problem: The people marketing generally have no idea what they're doing in terms of marketing itself. This is also true with salespeople -- if you have a good salesman for the right business, this is a huge benefit. But most salespeople are bad at their job. Same with most marketers.
BTW the best marketers are and always have been mavericks -- and have always been pretty damn good at sales as well (this is probably an understatement). I've never met a good marketer who at least did not understand AND respect the sales part of the process. This is because the two parts work together. Customer service is included in this too...The problem has nothing to do with marketing itself, advertising itself, business itself.
"A salesman wants what’s best for you and for him. Someone in marketing doesn’t care about you so long as you buy their trash."
This is...ridiculous. There are many salespeople and marketers who don't care. They generally fail or self-destruct in some other way. There are also many salespeople and marketers who believe and trust that their deliverable will improve the lives of the customer. These are people who generally perform better -- because this sort of attitude is "felt" through all parts of the marketing and sales process.
A true problem might be that people want things that destroy them. Another true problem might be that the general market trends are influenced by mega-corporations/governments/ghouls so that certain types of desires are fostered. Every business rides these trends (either with or against -- you understand!)
The ideas you write about are very common in these online spheres at the moment. Such is life. The idea of consumption being a devil. And yet consumption is the mechanism that all men use to change. If you consume the Bible, you will change. If you consume pornography, you will change. Consumption is neutral. Consumption is also one of the hardest challenges that a marketer faces -- considering that most customers do not consume what they buy. (Yes, these things are tracked and the numbers are shocking. Most books are not read. Most games are not played. And even a lot of food is thrown away...)
The problem is not consumption. The problem *might* be quality of consumption. And this does not mean the thing being consumed. This means the mechanism and process through which the person is consuming whatever they are consuming. People have little taste and little sense.
But I speak on deaf ears -- do I not? You will tell me that this problem I speak of is something else. That men have been shaped into these senseless things. I tell you it is likely true that men have forever lacked sense.
You believe what you believe...and so too do these online spheres...without even knowing the game. The game is unfortunately being won by some rather senseless people. And yet, it is a little amusing. Perhaps it is only senseless on this side of the view. Perhaps if I step over -- ah, what wonders on that side of the tracks? And then look how kind they are, how cheerful, to someone who has shown they know the game.
No, this is not truly my position. But perhaps it is? I'm not sure myself. You see, *I do not even know the game...*