Reciprocity – Fact or Fiction in Marketing?

A key element of ethnography is reciprocity – giving back to those you study. It can come in many forms during fieldwork, from physical gifts or service, to a written history of a group’s culture. But how does this concept translate to marketing?

Last week on Twitter I posed the question of whether or not reciprocity is possible in marketing and advertising. Many people said no, but those who said yes had two perspectives. One that reciprocity is possible, but it is very controlled and manufactured. The second group argued that social media and the internet are forcing marketers to be reciprocal if they want to survive.

I’m going to have to agree with the latter position. Sure, not all brands are giving back as much as they’re asking for – but that’s not a sustainable model. The internet has democratized marketing and advertising. People now have the power to learn the truth about brands and have an infinite forum for expressing their opinions both good and bad. As a result, brands have had to give up control and try harder to form a symbiotic relationship with people.

As an anthropologist in marketing, I find comfort in this transformation of the field knowing that the research I do aims to understand how we can build relationships – not to learn about people so that we can exploit them. If we (marketers and anthropologists) do it right, we can reverse the bad reputation that marketing has earn the loyalty and evangelism of people because reciprocity is a given, not a pleasant “surprise and delight”.

What do you think – is it a dream or a foreseeable reality?

Us vs. The Other

In Anthropology we spend endless hours discussing “Us vs. The Other”. It’s social, political, educational - you name it. The anthropologist vs. those she studies. The school administrator vs. the children he teaches. There’s a constant struggle as we walk the line that divides us from them.

In marketing, the debate goes unspoken, but it exists at the core of what we do. Recently AdWeek reported on a study that found that Ad people had different perspectives on what makes an ad effective than the general public. No, really?

Walk around any ad agency and you will hear constant banter about our consumers or customers, not people – or in many cases us, our significant others, children or friends.

In my last posting I discussed authenticity and the role it plays in both marketing and anthropology – if we apply that to the “us vs. the other” debate, then authenticity means breaking down the walls between marketing-types and customers. Just as Julia Child broke down the walls between French cuisine and the American people, marketers should simply be striving toward erasing “The Other.”

In the new marketing democracy where people choose when, where and how they interact with brands, in order to truly find success we must stop thinking of them as consumers or customers and begin approaching them as people. It is from that perspective that we will be able to create the most effective relationships between brands and people, because we will be designing and creating for the actual needs and desires of people, not what we as marketers assume they need and want.