As someone who was originally from a publishing background, I’m constantly amazed by how the Singapore media (and even worldwide) is getting pimped for monetary gains. The issue of Straits Times Life has a wraparound across the cover. That’s not so bad. But Today I noticed before has, if I remember correctly, an advertisement that actually disguises itself as the front page. And I’ve just noticed a Wired magazine advertorial in the latest issue that advertises the Motorola PEBL (albeit with a tiny advertorial line across the top). It actually took me a bit of time to find the disclaimer since was so tiny. Plus the article did read a little phony to me. That got me thinking about a concept I call Pimp Marketing - where marketeers basically deceive the consumers in one way or another.

Here’s my honest stand on this:

i. It’s not good for media. Sure, I do believe that quite a lot of readers out there will look at it and not think twice, or even get remotely irate that it’s an advertorial. In fact some might actually enjoy the paid-for content. But it’s still misrepresentation. And it wavers the integrity. Sure the Motorola PEBL is cool, and some people are actually looking forward to it. But it you could pimp yourself for the PEBL, why couldn’t you pimp yourself for an advertorial selling an obviously sub-par product and lying about it? After all, readers are clueless right?

One day very very soon, readers won’t be clueless anymore. Information overload has caused consumers to become more aware, more discerning and more choosy. Some countries (US, UK etc.) more so than others (Thailand for e.g.). Pimp marketing will ensure that your readers will go away and that you’ll be left with nothing.

ii. It’s not good for marketeers. Readers/consumers are not clueless. Call me idealist, but I do think that the media should respect the readers. True, the masses as a whole are clueless (me included), but does that mean that you can talk down to me? They are clueless because the media treats them so (maybe explaining Singaporeans apathy towards the world at large - since our media is/was so regulated). And without a doubt, consumers are lazy. That just spells trouble for online marketers. We will always pander to consumers’ laziness since that’s the easiest way.

BUT - the laziest consumers are also the least loyal. Empower the consumers to want to work, and think for themselves, and if they choose you - you’ll have loyalty and a rock solid lead. That’s what Google achieved with Search, what Blogger achieved with blogging, and that’s what Flickr achieved with photos. As far as I can see, that’s going to be a challenge

Which brings me the my point for ii. Do pimp marketing and you’ll lose all your customers in the long run. The sell has to be in the brand, AND the proof has to be in the product. Pimp marketing ignores this.

iii. It’s no good for consumers. Sure you’ll sell a few more hundreds of your product - to consumers who will not get what they are expecting. Even if that is a sub-set, you will have on your hands consumers who feel cheated. Cheated customers tell 50 friends for each friend that a satisfied customers evangelises to (or something like that). Not good for you. In addition, how would you, as a consumer, like to be treated? With honesty or with a lemon?

Let’s look at the other side of the coin. Let’s say consumers become apathetic. They start accepting lemons. How will that drive innovation as a whole? In fact, I would argue that its even worse than the first scenario - since consumer products will then start falling into a “good enough” rut. Some extremists might even say that it’s where the world’s at right now. No innovation in products, no advances. Of course, this scenario doesn’t play out in the long term. There will always be something disruptive that consumers will embrace that breaks out of that evil “good enough” spiral. Pimp marketing will ensure that YOU will never break out of that spiral.

In a nutshell - Pimp Marketing bad. Be honest about your products (although not brutally *my product sucks period* stupid - just respect your customers and admit your faults but make sure to reiterate the pluses). How to send that message across is another matter altogether. But to circle back to the original opener - using deceptive methods in the media to do this (like buying an editorial spot and not disclosing it) just flies against the face of this principle. Same goes for non-news items on TV and the press that just serves to push the media itself. It’s the same thing. I can remember when the Tsunami happened - all Channelnews Asia played on the house ad slots on TV were “We were there first” kind of trailers. Not tasteful and not good.

Posted by pallid on Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 at 2:15 am.