Posts tagged as:

Changes in Advertising

[This article published by The Globe and Mail on March 20, 2010]

Lucky No. 7: Understand emotional triggers like lust and mystique, and you can wield them to advantage with great conviction

BY VICTOR BARAC

What pulls your trigger? Sally Hogshead, author of Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers To Persuasion and Captivation, knows. You are putty in the hands of someone who employs lust, mystique, alarm, prestige, power, vice and trust to bewitch you.

Or, conversely, you can redeploy those triggers back at them. A marketing version of a light-sabre battle.

Screen shot 2010 04 04 at 12.55.43 PM 221x300 Lucky No. 7: Your Fascination Triggers (from the Toronto Globe and Mail)

"The marketing mistress of captivation"

In Fascinate, Ms. Hogshead, a U.S. advertising executive turned brand-innovation consultant, maintains that the ability to fascinate is more imperative than ever In a world oversaturated with media messages and where internet browsing has shortened attention spans. Competition for that fleeting attention has driven advertisers into a frenzy globally.

In her opinion, fascination significantly elevates one’s credibility and brings others around to caring about and spreading your message.

“Every day, intentionally or not, you’re using fascination triggers to persuade people at work and elsewhere,” Ms. Hogshead says. “This is true even in your personal life: whether pitching a new client, or inviting a friend to lunch, or lulling a cranky toddler to sleep, you’re using triggers to elicit a certain response.”

Apparently we all actively seek to be fascinating these days. Just look at shopping. Drawing on research from the Kelton Research Fascination Study, commissioned for the book, Ms. Hogshead shows that across the demographic and socioeconomic spectrum people pay big bucks to be fascinated, but will pay even more to become the most fascinating person in the room. The national survey of more than 1,000 Americans over the age of 18 indicates that people spend 15 per cent of their income on becoming more fascinating.

The author enumerates examples of the triggers in action: The TV show Gossip Girl, incorporated the initial negative press it received – “A Parent’s Worst Nightmare” – into a branding campaign that generated audience fascination by exploiting the vice trigger.

Federal Express, she says, thrives on triggering alarm. “When the threat of negative consequences runs high, we’re willing to pay extra for overnight service in order to trust that it will arrive.”

In another study, children in focus groups unanimously said that McDonald’s branded chicken was tastier than the identical chicken unbranded.

The McDonald’s brand employs the trust trigger with legendary success.

“We don’t necessarily think of Coke, Olive Garden and Rachael Ray as similar brands,” she says. However, they all rely on the same two triggers as many mainstream food-oriented brands: lust and trust.

Triggers are a deeply rooted means of arousing intense interest, Ms. Hogshead says. “For example, a delicious slice of chocolate cake might arouse lust. An unsolved puzzle activates mystique. A tight deadline arouses alarm.” Those who fail to fascinate will be pushed aside or, worse, forgotten.

Ms. Hogshead defines fascination as the ability to induce a “spellbinding focus … when you become lost in a moment, losing track of time and the world around, completely focused on a person or message.”

Fascinate is part of a trend in marketing books that purport to uncover the hidden forces that shape human behaviour. Paco Underhill’s bestselling Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping cleared the ground with detailed observations derived from his training as an anthropologist.

More recently, Massachusetts Institute of Technology scholar Dan Ariely cleverly applies the methods of behavioural economics to similar ends in his talked-about Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions.

Ms. Hogshead is not a scholar. She comes from advertising and honed her skills in the corporate world. But she provides a cogent argument on fascination as a driving force in human affairs and has done her homework, referencing a range of contemporary studies in evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology and other behavioural sciences.

“I spent three years researching across a wide spectrum of disciplines … to offer a fresh perspective on why, and how, we become captivated,” she says. “Turns out all our behaviours can be traced to the same factors seen in ancient Rome, Salem witch trials, and during economic bubbles.”

She makes the occasional gaffe, but Ms. Hogshead’s central argument is unassailable. The seven triggers of fascination are firmly rooted in a human evolutionary history that is social as well as biological.

It helps to explain why (perhaps unsurprisingly) more people are more fascinated with their own children than by anything else in life.

Victor Barac (www.anthropology.ca) is a cultural anthropologist in Toronto who specializes in brand strategy, corporate culture and identity.

Brands that fail to fascinate will lose. Period.

by Sally Hogshead on March 30, 2010

Fascinating companies win.

They win bigger budgets, more time, better relationships, greater admiration, deeper trust. They can charge a higher price, create more buzz, and garner more loyalty.

Brands that fail to persuade and captivate will, increasingly, lose the battle. It’s that simple. You can’t survive if you can’t persuade someone that your message matters.

Most of us, at some point, are trying to get others to “do” something. But we can’t get them to do much of anything until they’re focused on our message. People won’t change a preference, start a thought process, or form a bond unless they’re provoked to change their opinions and actions.

What behaviors are you trying to persuade… in work, and in life? And more importantly, how long can you fascinate the goldfish?

Screen shot 2010 03 30 at 2.32.19 PM Brands that fail to fascinate will lose. Period.

Find out your own fascination score by taking the F Score test, based on our proprietary research of over a thousand Americans.

You’ll discover your own natural fascination strengths and talents in applying the seven fascination triggers: power, lust, mystique, prestige, alarm, vice, and trust.

Once you find out your own unique combination of personality talents, feel free to share your results below, as a comment. I’ll be responding directly in the comments section to each of you, offering extra insight on how to apply your unique trigger combination, to become more persuasive in your own work and life.

The Talented Asshole vs. the Sweetheart Hack

by Sally Hogshead on February 22, 2010

“I believe you do not have to be an asshole, or work for one, in order to do great work.”

I posted this on Facebook last Saturday night at 8:27 p.m. Apparently, I’m not the only one who dislikes assholes. Almost immediately, folks ranging from CEOs and professors to newbies and retired stars were joining in to criticize obnoxious leaders. No one, it seems, enjoys working for nasty people.

This includes Donna Lee Jahn Merz, the soft-spoken reverend who baptized my children as newborns, who posted, “I am so totally over working for or with assholes. … What ever happened to ‘do unto others?’” (Hey, if she can drop the A-bomb on Facebook, so can I.) Comments about mean or egomaniacal bosses, both past and present, ranted on.

So it’s unanimous: No one wants to work for a jerk, under any circumstances. Nastiness is never tolerable. That’s settled. Right? Well, hold on. Not so fast. After getting such emphatic responses, I asked a question on Facebook:

“Would you rather work for a talented asshole, or a sweetheart hack?” And this, my friends, is where it started getting interesting. Of the dozens of ensuing comments, the response was startlingly clear: When forced to choose, the talented asshole wins. Nothing, it seems, is worse than working for a hack — even a sweet one.

Why? Comments ranged from “respect” and “better opportunity to grow,” “higher quality of work,” but the main sentiment was the one expressed by freelancer Robert Manley: “Talent trumps nice.”

Helayne Spivak, exec VP-chief creative officer of Saatchi & Saatchi Wellness, pointed out, “Sweetheart hacks? I don’t want to sound heartless, but … can we afford nice people who aren’t good at their jobs? How’s this: We pair every talented asshole with a sweetheart hack who just walks around all day apologizing for the asshole’s behavior. Problem solved.”

What’s so bad about being a sweetheart hack? Most cited either weak leadership, or inability to create and support great ideas. Sam Harrison, speaker and author of “IdeaSelling,” remarked, “Looking back on my career, I’ve loved the pats on the back. But I’ve grown most from the people who were willing to look me in the eye and say, ‘You’re a good person, but your work needs work.’” Bart Cleveland, creative director of McKee Wallwork Cleveland, weighed in: “Both are equally dangerous and helpful to one’s career. … You may learn something from the jerk. A sweetheart always erodes potential.”

This need to learn from genuine talent became a recurring theme, especially when I asked the question on Twitter. Copywriter Jenn Totten tweeted, “As a young person in the biz I’d rather work for a talented asshole than a hack … but if you’re a talented sweetheart, I’ll work even harder.” Anthony Kalamut, professor and program chair of creative advertising at Seneca College in Toronto, asserted that the “biggest killer of young fresh talent is ‘the sweetheart hack.’” Deborah Morrison, a professor of advertising at University of Oregon, wrote, “Transparency is a beautiful thing. … There’s probably a blog and Twitter feed on ‘here’s an asshole’ updates.” Hacks, the group surmised, are not only untalented, but also insecure.

The most dreaded combination, it seems, are the leaders who are both hacks and assholes. Nasty behavior can become part of the culture in some marketing departments and ad agencies, as mercurial behavior seems to get confused with genius.

If we can all agree that nasty leaders are bad, then why do they so frequently seem to rise into management positions? In this environment, a less forceful personality can unfortunately be perceived as less charismatic, or even weak. Kathy Hepinstall, former creative director at TBWA Chiat Day, wrote, “The sad fact is, assholes break through. They’re colorful. They are spoken of. Like sound over water, assholism travels far.”

Do some bosses unfairly earn this reputation? Talented leaders must make tough choices, fight for innovative ideas, advocate for their team, and refuse to settle for average. They’re unafraid to ask questions, and don’t pander to the committee. They push everyone around them to work harder and go outside the comfort zone, and along the way, they’ll occasionally step on toes. (Do you think Apple’s Steve Jobs is a sweetheart?)

In my book, “Fascinate,” I delve into research on how influence develops and expands. Persuasive leaders, like persuasive brands, tap into specific “fascination triggers.” Intentionally or not, they elicit certain patterns of response every time they communicate.

The most dominant or polarizing brands — a.k.a. the talented assholes — tend to overuse certain traits. They gorge on the power, alarm and vice triggers, taking these traits to an extreme. Sweetheart hacks, on the other hand, become so hyper-reliant on the consistency of the trust trigger that their creativity and passion takes a back seat.

As a result, the asshole/hack debate is highly subjective. What appears to be brilliant leadership to some people might feel like power-mongering or ego-run-amok to others.

True talents can do great work and support others. Cathy Austin, president at Loop9 Marketing, advised, “The talent lies in being able to tell someone (honestly) their work sucks and it serving as inspiration, not condemnation.” The best leaders keep their focus on the organization, rather than making it personal. Mark Trueblood, copywriter at Turkel, says, “Being a leader means serving something greater than yourself. This requires a firm hand and an open heart.”

In a tough economy, pressures run higher, tempers are shorter, budgets are smaller and deadlines more unreasonable. Stress and insecurity run high, and intolerance for jerks runs low. Larry Tolpin, chief creative officer of Y and former chief creative officer at BBDO and JWT Worldwide, adds, “The same goes for hiring people … don’t settle.”

Bob Kuperman, former president-CEO DDB Worldwide, New York, quoted the ultimate source, Bill Bernbach: “We have two requisites for people working at Doyle Dane Bernbach. Number one, they have to be nice people. And number two, they have to have a lot of talent. I’m sorry for the nice guy who doesn’t have talent, but that’s bad for my business. And I don’t give a damn how much talent the son-of-a-bitch has. I don’t want him. Life is too short.”

Next week, we’ll continue on the debate with a closer look at asshole brands, hack brands and the pursuit of the talented sweethearts. In the meantime, if you’re curious to know which triggers you’re using to persuade others, check out the F Score personality test in my book.

One last thing. To everyone who shares his insight and experiences with me online, thank you! You make conversations like this fascinating. If you’d like to share your thoughts on this topic, please do, at facebook.com/hogshead, or at twitter.com/sallyhogshead.

“What? A free copy of RADICAL CAREERING? …seriously??”

February 5, 2010

Yep, seriously. A free copy of the whole book. You can tweet it, post it, and share it to your heart’s content.

Read the full article →

A top-secret press kit, only for the media (and you)

January 31, 2010

A press kit about FASCINATE, Salem witch trials, ancient Romans, and 1,059 Americans.

Read the full article →

Hog-isms, Issue 001

September 28, 2009

Introducing Hog-isms, Issue 001. A collection of recent tweets, online posts, random mumblings, little ditties. That sort of thing. – We love your feedback.

Read the full article →

Put down the beer bong, and read this blog post.

March 11, 2009

Welcome to day three of “A dozen things I wish someone had told me.” Today’s topic is, appropriately, about being in school. (Of course, as always, this applies to those of us who graduated long, long ago.)
1) Your taste will change. Several times. Enjoy that evolution and stay open-minded. (And don’t get stuck in a [...]

Read the full article →

Geez, I wish someone had told me this while I was still in school.

March 9, 2009

Hindsight is 20/20, sure. But foresight is even better.

To that end, I’ll be blogging each day this week with one dozen pieces of “foresight” that I wish someone had told me when I was in school. A few of these points reference advertising, but most apply to anyone in business. (Most are probably [...]

Read the full article →

How to Recession-Proof Your Career

September 22, 2008

The worst thing you can do right now is freak out and hide. Here’s how to stop acting scared and start making progress.
Yes, unquestionably, the rules of work have changed. We’re in an angst-ridden environment now. Planned layoffs in July rose 26% compared with June, according to consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. But [...]

Read the full article →

500,000,000 sperm can’t be wrong.

March 18, 2008

Six Tips to Help Develop and Sell Your Best Ideas
At one point in your life, many years ago– approximately nine months before you were born, in fact– you competed in your very first new-business pitch. You were competing against a few hundred million others, but apparently you won, because you’re reading this today.
The principles of [...]

Read the full article →