blog

I’m in the midst of yet another great book — “Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are” by Rob Walker of The New York Times. On page 96, I cam across Walker’s interesting summary of a particular article:

“[Consumers] are banding together, becoming ‘better educated and better organized,’ with a ‘growing familiarity with the mechanics of advertising’ and the endless range of gimmicky sales tactics. They have ’suffered from deceptive and stupid advertising’ long enough, and it is only inevitable that power would shift to them in an economy that has moved from scarcity to abundance. ‘These changes,’ the article summarized, ‘have tended to make consumers more critical and to enhance their importance’.”

Sound familiar? I bet it does; we’ve been reading the same basic message in the ad trade journals for several years, at least. Well, as it turns out, the article quoted above was in the Harvard Business Review. In 1939!

The more things change, the more the stay the same?

Reuters Science today reported on a couple of new studies that suggest people get as big of a kick out of being praised as they do by being handed cash. Our social standing is as important as our economic standing.

As reported in the piece, researchers “…found that these seemingly different kinds of rewards — a good reputation versus money — are biologically coded by the same neural structure, the striatum,” said Dr. Norihiro Sadato of the Japanese National Institute for Physiological Sciences in Okazaki, Japan.

The studies suggest that the need to be accepted by others is deeply ingrained within us. As is the processing of what our particular status is (and means) within a social hierarchy. From our earliest days as a species, people have had to concern themselves with their reputation within their group.

I think these insights give us plenty to think about when it comes to marketing products and services that make people feel that their status is somehow improved. It also helps shed light on the whole social networking phenomenon and the psychic rewards of sensing that our reputations are improving as our circle of “friends” expands. Read more here.

There’s a little economic ditty called the Easterlin Paradox (after economist Richard Easterlin) which suggests that economic growth within a country does not necessarily lead to greater happiness (except for those in poverty, struggling to stay alive, who then come upon the means to pay for basic necessities). What Easterlin believed had a greater impact on happiness was how much you made in comparison to others. The Easterlin paradox has been widely accepted since the early 70’s when it was first put forth.

But now the Easterlin Paradox is being challenged by two economists at the Brookings Institute: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfer. Their research suggests that money does bring happiness (though, of course, there are no guarantees; the proverbial runaway bus that could mow you down may be gaining momentum around any corner). When they looked at data collected by the Gallup organization, countries with the higher GDP per capita were dramatically more likely to register higher on the happiness scale. So, you have countries like Italy, Greece, Norway, Israel and the U.S., to name a few, several points, at least, (on a ten-point scale) ahead of Indonesia, Peru, India, and China, to name a few.

My sense of all of this is that the truth, as it often does, likes to play in the middle. Money can do a lot of things, including buying one happiness, beyond just material things. Disposable income allows us to do things for others, take trips to places we’ve never been, discover and support new hobbies, all of which can add joy to our lives. If we have lots of dough, we can even retire early. Perhaps way early. But traveling the world alone because you have no friends. Or not shopping much during the holidays because, say, your family relationships are strained to the point where gift exchanging doesn’t occur. Well, money can’t fix those things. And, to really underscore the point, no matter how much you may have in your wallet or purse, and in your bank accounts, its not enough to end the Iraq War.

Here’s a story from the Times of India that provides some additional insight.

I’m not out to offend anyone’s political sensibilities, but some research analysis by Arthur Brooks suggests that conservatives are more happy than liberals. Conservatives were about twice as likely to call themselves “very happy” when compared to liberals. And you can’t blame it on President George Bush; according to the pollsters, conservatives have considered themselves happier than liberals for more than 35 years. It’s not due to income either. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, conservatives aren’t richer than liberals.

What is it then? Well, Brooks says that part of the answer is that conservatives are more likely to attend church every week. When you compare religious conservatives to secular liberals, the happiness gap grows ever wider. Secular liberals are, statistically speaking, as likely to say they are “not too happy” as they are to say they are “very happy.” Religious conservatives are ten times more likely to report being very happy than not too happy.

Brooks goes on to suggest that one of the fundamental reasons for the red v. blue happy gap is that conservatives are more apt to buy into the “work hard and whatever you want will be yours” philosophy. This sort of self-empowering, optimistic attitude is bound to keep anyone relatively hopeful and happy.

I consider myself a liberal — a very happy one — so this news took me a bit by surprise. That said, I have to concur that the liberal point of view is often one of “woe is me; woe is society.” Perhaps a bit more “trading up” among my fellow liberals can help turn this around. Maybe President Bush was right: we just need to keep shopping.

Once again my nose has found its way inside a really enjoyable and thought-provoking book. It’s called “Against Happiness,” and its written by Eric G. Wilson, an English professor at Wake Forest University. Though I’m not yet finished reading the book, I can sum up its main point like this:

The American culture is so happiness obsessed that we have forgotten what great value there is in melancholia. For one, being down in the dumps has led to many a brilliant expression in art, science and government. In addition, happiness doesn’t really make sense, nor can it be fully appreciate, without its antithesis.

The point isn’t to deliberately make one’s self feel bad or depressed. But, rather, that we should not be so quick to search for a quick-fix to our blues. To ignore them, deny them or run away from them is only to ultimately dull the shine of life.

As Wilson so eloquently puts it: “…to desire only happiness in a world undoubtedly tragic is to become inauthentic, to settle for unrealistic abstractions that ignore concrete situations.”

I’m for the pursuit of happiness as much as the next guy or gal, but this little book is a fine reminder that true joy exists only because there is also pain and despair.

The Gallup people tell us in a recent international study“But wait!”, you say. “Obviously those with TV’s have more money than those without and, therefore, can afford more happiness.” But, Gallup says, even when you consider those with and those without TV’s who make the same amount of money, people with the TV’s still come out happier.

I assume that there could be many reasons for this. Obviously, we all get a bang out of the boob tube now and then, and certainly laughing and smiling makes you happier. And with a million channels to choose from, we can really hone in on the kind of TV content that most interests us and makes us smile, whether that’s home remodeling or science fiction. But I also think that the products and services advertising on TV not only, in many cases, at least, entertain us, they also remind us of the things that we are fortunate enough to already own as well as remind us about those things we hope to own someday. That feels good and gives us a reason to be hopeful and optimistic.

If you’re hopeful and optimistic, you’re almost certainly happy, too, right?

On nearly a daily basis, I find myself asking the question, “What has happened to customer service these days?” Perhaps part of the problem is that I’ve let the corporate-speak term “customer service” enter into my vocabulary. How about just treating me fairly? Then you won’t have to invent an entire department filled with employees with fictitious titles, absolutely no authority to make decisions, and call them “customer service representatives.” Frankly, I don’t feel well represented.

Case in point: a certain telephone company runs ads saying that you should switch to their DSL-based high speed internet service because they’ll give you the same speed as the cable company, but at a much lower price. Great. Sign me up. Which I did, 7 weeks ago. After three different sets of technicians came out to try to get it right, the best they could do was a speed roughly 8 times slower than what I was already getting with cable. Fine, I’ll stick with what was already working well, so I call the phone company to cancel. “I don’t have the authority to cancel your account,” says CSR #1, “but I’ll have someone who can call you tomorrow.” Translation: when it’s convenient for us. In all it took me five different phone calls and a trip to one of their stores to finally get the account canceled. I’d estimate I spent 15 hours getting that done. What does that tell you about how well this customer was represented?

Counterpoint. I’ve got a development team completely immersed in Ruby on Rails. One of the bibles of Rails development is Agile Web Development with Rails by Dave Thomas and David Heinemeier Hansson, so I bought a handful of copies for the team. While looking something up in one of the copies last night, I noticed my page numbering went from 56 directly to 89, so I sent a note to the publisher, The Pragmatic Bookshelf. Not even an hour later, I got an e-mail from Ellie Callahan at The Pragmatic Bookshelf, asking for my address so that they could express ship a new copy to me, no questions asked. There was no, “I don’t have the authority to…” or “…someone will call you tomorrow.” She simply apologized for the printing error and took take of the problem. They now a customer for life.

It’s something simple we impress upon the people here at Barefoot all the time. Do the right thing. Do the best work possible. Treat our clients and co-workers fairly.

One of the two companies mentioned above will not only continue to get my business, but they will get my support and recommendation as well. The other will not. I’ve quite literally put my money where my mouth is by linking to those I recommend.

One of our copywriters here at Barefoot, Sarah Knott, brought to my attention a study published in the March 21 issue of the journal Science that suggests people gain even more happiness when they spend their money on other people than when they buy stuff for themselves. You can read a nice overview of the research here on Yahoo Health.

While I think these findings confirm what most of us would intuit, it still offers up some good food for thought when it comes to marketing products. How might we as marketers add a philanthropic aspect to our brands that makes people more likely to engage with them, spend money on them, and feel better about doing so. I suppose the whole “(RED)” initiative to help fight AIDS is one clear example (though there’s considerable controversy over this specific program because the money spent advertising it has so far outpaced the money raised for the charity). I can also think about some fly fishing equipment I have bought from brands that support conservation efforts, which has made me more passionate about the brands, and, yes, more happy with myself.

New research, just announced in the journal Pyschological Science, suggests that happiness is, in part, genetic. The University of Edinburgh study of about 1,000 pairs of twins, identical and not identical, concluded that genes accounted for about 50% of the personality traits that make people happy. (Our relationships, health and jobs contribute the other 50%.)

The study showed that identical twins, who share the same genes, were dramatically more likely to be happy than their non-identical twin counterparts who don’t share the same genes. “This strongly implicates genes” as a key factor in happiness, the study director told Reuters.

By the way, what are those personality traits that keep a smile on their owners’ faces? According to this study: It’s being sociable, stable, hardworking and conscientious. (See, your grandmother was right, if you’re kind and have a strong work ethic, you’ll get more out of life.) Of course, owning a BMW or a high-end fly-fishing rod doesn’t hurt either.

Is their a particular “brand” of American happiness? It sure seems so. We Americans see happiness as a right, literally and figuratively. Perhaps that why so many of us so eagerly seek out one of the countless books about how to get and stay happy whenever we feel we’re not getting a big enough, or a tasty enough, slice, of that big ol’ American pie. For many of us, lack of happiness isn’t so much a “phase” or an indication of life’s vicissitudes, as it is a clear indication that something must be horribly wrong, that something is (cruelly and unjustly) preventing us from attaining our God-given right to happiness.

WATERMELONS

Green Buddhas

On the fruit stand.

We eat the smile

And spit out the teeth.