Purple persuasion No. 28 by clikybd. Virtually nothing to do with this post but the word of the week is beauty and I’m fed up with photos of the First World War.
I get the whole brand engagement thing.
I understand the new world of the empowered consumer. I have believed for half a decade that all markets are conversations and that brands can only take part in those conversations if they can add something positive to them.
I was cluetrained to within an inch of my life while most of the new marketing mafia were getting their cycling proficiency badges.
And I want to do a whole load of things with brands that help them engage consumers and engage with consumers. On and offline, in analogue and digital media.
BUT am I the last person alive that thinks that there is a role for more active persuasion?
That businesses still need to actively approach consumers and persuade them of the merits of their brand or behaviour.
Sure I see active persuasion as a subset of brand engagement – persuasion should be engaging otherwise it is unlikely to be very persuasive.
But I worry slightly that in the new world order solving business problems by actively persuading people about a brand’s point of view is regarded as heresy.
Of course I don’t mean we can pull the wool over people’s eyes, convince them that a bad product has merit, deny that reference to each other has replaced deference to the advertiser or spend our way into peoples lives.
I just mean persuasion must be more active than the cult of ‘brushing past people in the lobby’.
Too much foreplay and not enough consumation is not good business for businesses
Fellow bloggers of the plannersphere we need to tread carefully.
Lets not throw the commercial instinct baby out with the corporate bullshit bathwater.
Friday rant over.