home : hartbeat : filtering-through-the-muck-a-cautionary-tale

09.08.2003

“HartBeat” is The Hartman Group's FREE online newsletter, providing insight, analysis, information and strategy to give business leaders the knowledge and vision to build sustainable brands.

Archives »
Click here for an archive of past HartBeat articles

digg
del.icio.us

reddit
twitter

friendfeed

StumbleUpon

Filtering Through The Muck: A Cautionary Tale

Spend any amount of time in our current world (US, circa 2003) and one would rightfully glean the following impressions: (a) consumers are extremely preoccupied with, if not downright hysterical about, the rampant rise in obesity, especially in the case of childhood obesity issues; (b) in the search for blame for such realities, consumers are increasingly distrustful of the motivations of large food and drink brands and manufacturers, as evidenced by the growing talk of class-action suits regarding the healthfulness of fast-food products, consumer food products and/or the desire to populate schools with soda machines; and (c) in effort to address such realities, many consumers are actively taking control of their dietary situations by consciously "eating better" and/or following the advice of one of several popular competing dietary regimens.

And as far as impressions go, those noted above remain more or less accurate. A quick Lexis/Nexis search for the incidence of the words "childhood" and "obesity" in mainstream media outlets shows increases of 23%, 37% and 42% accordingly over the past three years. And who, for that matter, has not overheard discussions of whether or not litigators will pursue fast-food purveyors and food manufacturers with the same vigor as tobacco companies. In short, there's a lot of talk these days about how fat we all are and who is to blame for all of this mess.

And yet as we began to discover in the midst of our consumer research, especially when we got to the all-important subject of behavior, what was missing were the crucial connections between these larger meta-dialogues (all of the talk) and actual real-world behaviors (the walk).

Instead, what became clear as we were listening to the narratives was that, much like the media itself, popular consumer sentiment has evolved to something of a "higher-order" dialogue that is not only unrelated to behavior (something that's been well established for many years now) but has now assumed a sort of epi-phenomenon position in our world, with little direct attachment to anybody or anything. In this, consumers would say things like, "Childhood obesity...yeah, everyone seems to be talking about it these days," as if the notion - at best a snippet of media dialogue - were as salient to their own lives as the great depression, scarlet fever or cribbage (i.e., not very). And we have observed a very similar disjuncture in our long-standing work on consumer behavior and environmental issues. That is, most consumers will talk about how protecting the environment is "an important issue," worthy of "immediate attention," yet their own lives (including their propensity to accept price premiums for environmentally friendly products) remains quite detached from such discussions. Put most simply, because of the highly abstracted nature of these dialogues, consumers are frequently unable to make any connections between those dialogues and their own behavior/situations.

In this, popular consumer sentiment has really begun to mirror the media itself - a meta dialogue that is increasingly detached from meaningful action/activity and more concerned with the nature of the dialogue itself. We found clearest evidence of this tendency when talking with consumers last winter before and during the much-anticipated war with Iraq. At the time, a plethora of media reports suggested that due to instabilities perpetuated by the events of September 11th, continuing fears of terrorism and the build-up to war with Iraq, consumers were "living more simply and humbly." As one of the many reports suggested, "consumers were turning inward, to their families and communities, in search of simple comforts in this time of crisis." The word "cocooning" was tossed around with surprising frequency.

And when we talked with consumers, we found that, indeed, "times had changed," "yes, people really were living differently," and the all-too-common maxim "after Sept 11th, nothing has been the same for us...". Wherever we went, consumers went to great length to spell out precisely how everyone was "living differently" (walking more) to expound upon "what this meant for us as a society" (a wake up call) and to wonder "if things would ever return to normal" (probably not). Moreover, consumers were excited to talk about this stuff. Sitting there listening, one got the sense these consumers felt as if they were dictating history to the generations to follow, describing the details of life in "these most troubling of times."

Yet, when the time came to assess their own behavior, to articulate precisely how they were "living differently," consumers often struggled. As our discussions of everyday life progressed, it became all the more clear to us as researchers that, by and large, consumers really were not living any differently than they were before the events of September 11th, let alone the war with Iraq. All that had really changed was the meta-dialogue - the talk. Nothing illustrates this point better than a quick exchange we had with a consumer living in Washington DC - in this case, a single mother raising three children on, in her words, "a limited income." Asked if the above-noted instabilities had caused people to live differently, she replied:

Oh yes, our life is nothing like it used to be...if you would have talked with us a couple of years ago you wouldn't have recognized our life. We used to do things together and play and be happy all of the time, and now we spend as much time as possible in the house to stay together and save money. We try to focus on simple things, reading, things like that.

We probed further, asking for specific examples from her own life. After several moments of struggling to articulate how, precisely, her life was "radically different," she remarked:

Oh! I know. Just last week I bought this TV [in this case, a 42" high-definition television] for the kids to play video games on. And while it's big and nice and all, I really wanted one of the flat-screen TVs with that surround sound stuff. But you know, I just couldn't justify the extra $2000, especially in such uncertain times, you know? Besides, I already have a better TV upstairs anyway, so the kids can watch that if they need to.

And an extended analysis simply confirmed the general tenor of the above exchanges. That is, this woman's life had not changed in any substantive ways - at least not from a consumer behavior standpoint. All that had changed were the meta-dialogues.

On a related note...

As these meta-dialogues and discussions become evermore abstract and diffuse - with ever-fewer connections and ties to actual real-world events and behavior - one would rightly predict that the media will become evermore preoccupied with justifying their relevancy and ever-less interested in empirical accuracy or the objective reporting of facts. In other words, the story will be increasingly about the story and less about the reality of the story.

This picture came full circle to me just the other day when, moments after Kobe Bryant's brief court appearance, I witnessed the lead anchor on CNN Headline News turn to a media expert to discuss the issue of whether or not CNN should be covering the Kobe Bryant case. Mind you, this was no textbook case of meta-analysis/self-referentiality as we've come to expect from the likes of John Stewart's The Daily Show or The Onion. No, this was CNN Headline News - the mainstream, cut-and-paste, 30-minute news wrap-up - and they were devoting several minutes(!) of airtime to the issue of justifying their actions and, by proxy, their relevancy. Whereas the news used to be about the reporting of so-called "facts," apparently it's now about a) how the news does what they do and b) why we should be paying attention to the news. (Oh, and for those keeping score at home, in this case the analyst decided that, indeed, CNN should be covering the Kobe Bryant case. Close call, that one.)

Some final thoughts...

But lest this quickly devolve into the heavily stylized media critique that is now de rigueur among analysts and critics of all persuasions, we should be clear that our point here is not to decry this seeming disconnect between meta-dialogues and consumer behavior or complain about the supposed lack of objectivity in the media. Plenty of others have led that charge with, in our opinion, fairly pedestrian results (e.g., Bill O'Reilly).

Nor, for that matter, are we suggesting that we bury our heads in the sand and simply ignore the confluence of meta-discussions and dialogues swirling about in the cultural milieu that surrounds us. For even if such discussions remain detached from everyday consumer behavior per se, they still have the power to indirectly affect behavior by shaping the larger institutions that constrain and mold behavior, etc. Quite to the contrary, we are realizing now, more than perhaps ever before, the heightened need for intensive, detailed ethnographic research to look evermore closely at the exact nature of consumer behavior with respect to health interests, food practices and eating habits. Unfortunately, such intensive research requires a financial and time commitment well beyond that of most conventional focus groups, one-on-one research methodologies and attitudinal surveying. Thus, rather than having consumers meet at research facilities for a 30 to 90-minute interview/focus group sessions (largely out of convenience for the researcher), we suggest injecting researchers into consumers' lives for periods ranging from 12 to 48 hours, or longer - what many in the research community refer to as a "deep ethnography" approach. In short, we need to figure out what it is consumers are actually doing, on, if necessary, a minute-by-minute basis, rather than simply listening to the all-too-familiar narratives and dialogues.

For as detached as these behaviors have become from the all-important "talk" currently framing public policy debates and discussions on the obesity issue, it is all the more important - both from a public policy perspective as well as a marketing perspective - to really understand precisely how people are behaving with regard to obesity questions. To move forward otherwise, without such informed knowledge, may well prove disastrous for all involved - be they marketeers, public policy analysts, health policy advocates, or any other interested parties.

Comment »