I've taken a bit of a breather on blogging right now. Not sure why - a combination of post vacation stress and nothing to say.
However, I did just finish reading Mark Earl's Herd which, as is the case with everyone else, I thoroughly enjoyed reading.
My big thought after reading it was that there is potential to see advertising in a more realistic light. Not as a tool of persuasion, but as a way of modelling and social communication. This is a thought not fully formed, but if I understood some of Mark's premises correctly, human learning is predominantly social. This is partly in order to survive: we feel me must fit in with the acceptable behavioral norms in order to be accepted as part of the/a larger group.
We have lots of culture mechanisms which are transmissions of that "correct" behavior: magazines, newspapers, TV shows, books etc. Why not advertising?
This way of looking at advertising matches up (somewhat) nicely with a few other theories or facts floating around. Ehrenburg's conclusions about advertising was that salience was the dominant factor in how it worked. This fits with a modelling view: the more salient the brand the more it is seen as an acceptable form of behavior. Another factor fitting in is the correlation between perceived quality and awareness noted by many (Aaker is just one example).
So how to consumers model when there are competing brands in the marketplace telling them different things? The obvious thing to do is to ignore the ads, listen and watch. But the other factor that come in (secondarily) might be relevance: is this ad modelling the behavior of my group?This also explains why cultural marketing can be so effective - changing the rules of culture creates new models for behavior and a different path to follow.