Comments on: Cocreation and the real objectives of marketing

By: srp

srp — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:00:39 +0000

"People" instead of "consumers" or "customers" is unnecessarily ambiguous. "We need our people to do a better job of giving people good service." "This is a people product."

The problem with "consumer" or "customer," if anything, is that it's too general--better to talk about "video-game users" or "consulting clients" or "car drivers" as appropriate.

By: IshMEL

IshMEL — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:20:53 +0000

Heh, the Life Savers building has got nothing on the Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Palace

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:25:39 +0000

Sorry to bang on - but

If you keep calling 'them' consumers rather than people, then this will never change. The name consumer already implies the company owns its customer wholesale. It does not and never has.

'The consumer is king' was always a ridiculous self-justification of marketing doing good - somehow. A mere platitude.

By simply being respectful and calling people, people, you are already in the mindset to ask: "what can we do for people?" rather than "what people can do for us?".

It IS about the language. The language dictates the frame. The frame frames the relationship.

It amazes me that the word consumer is STILL being used by marketeers and academics (ahem!) in their slightly above-it-all ramblings. It's lazy. It's unnecessarily abstract. It isn't taken seriously by anyone on the outside. It causes books to silently sit on shelves hoping.

Stop calling them consumers, they are people!

By: srp

srp — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 00:05:59 +0000

Aren't jingle contests and recipe contests and such really old ideas? They bring to mind the 1920s-1950s period when such stunts were very common. We can relabel it "cocreation" and jazz it up with video on websites, but it is redolent of mailed-in boxtops and the Campbell's Soup Theater broadcast on AM radio to vacuum-tube radios. Old ideas may be good ideas, especially if they've been dropped for a while, but I don't think we should pretend that they're new.

By: John

John — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:52:56 +0000

I agree with you that cocreation is not a bad idea.

By: german dziebel

german dziebel — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:02:08 +0000

The recent book by Reich entitled "Supercapitalism" puts the problem with co-creation into a wider perspective. He argues that consumer is not the only public expression of the person. Citizen is another. Companies like Wal-mart co-opt consumers into co-creation by offering great deals to them. Then they reduce the wages of their employees and put pressure on the suppliers to lower their prices. The suppliers in turn are forced to lower the wages of their own employees. As a result, the consumer in us wins, while the citizen loses. One could add that in the case of Nike or Reebok the American citizen initially was winning, while the citizen of Pakistan was losing. Then the Pakistani started winning, while the American started losing. I just don't know who at the end of the day is going to compete in the finals.