Category: 2019

To be different these days is to live life to the fullest.  Individuality is seen as the best way to optimize the short time we have on Earth.  While lessons of the past are noted, they are often seen as too distant to apply to where we are now so we must forge our own way.  In a lot of ways this is true – how technology allows us to relate is very different from when the only way to send a message between towns was via a carrier. Where this falls short though is in how we fundamentally think – humans have desired and craved the same things over time such as love, connection and power.

I recently watched the two Fyre Festival documentaries on Netflix and Hulu.  They blew my mind.  Aside from being shocked by the creator of Frye Festival’s actions, the power of social media was astounding.  The social media campaign was very well coordinated but essentially relied on several models posting pictures of a promo trip.  The posts introduced the Fyre Festival (with a call to action to a website), and it was off to the races!  People started spending tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a festival on which they saw one website with barely any information. 

The fact that people want a certain lifestyle so badly that they would book a trip with little information was shocking… or is it?  The reality is marketers have been using this trick for decades.  Cigarettes became popular because of promotions by huge actors like John Wayne and Lucille Ball, yet are clearly not a good thing.  So why is it we still fall for the same thing?  The movie Groundhog Day shows the trauma that comes with continually reliving the same moment.  So why do we keep reliving the same moment when it comes to celebrities and advertising?

One of the most obvious reasons is that we idolize them.  To idolize something is to have “extreme admiration or reverence for” or “to have blind or excessive devotion.”  We are devoted to our celebrities and as a result, we follow their lead blindly.  This then leads to us trusting their judgment whether right or wrong.  People typically follow a celebrity because they find them relatable or admirable.  We find they represent an exaggerated or more exciting version of who we see ourselves as. These feelings foster a feeling of trust so when a celebrity endorses something, we assume that if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us.  

Another interesting element at play is that emotional content is said to actually physiologically arouse us.  Say what? A study by the Association for Phychological Science said it activates our autonomic nervous system which makes us have an emotional response.  It’s kind of like how when you are around someone in a good mood, you end up leaving in a better mood.  In the case of Fyre Festival, the feel good nature of the images makes us feel and want that feel good response hence leading us to participate in it.  In addition, it also makes us more likely to share it with our friends, which in this case made the festival go viral.  

Lastly, there is a lot of power in social proof.  Social proof is a psychological concept that says we humans will act as a herd especially when we don’t know how to behave.  What’s interesting here is that it may not always be that we trust the celebrity, but the fact that they have millions of followers who are liking and participating in a post makes us want to do the same.  We conform because we think others know more than we do in a situation and override or skip over internal logic.  

So whether it’s a celebrity or a brand you love, be smart with social media.  Bill Murray got pretty desperate in reliving his days in Groundhog Day,and no one wants that for you!  Remember that social media is a marketing platform… or you may end up in the Bahamas with a cheese sandwich.

I grew up thinking that an ideal world was one in which there is no famine, everyone has shelter, and everyone gets along.  Maybe I watched too many Disney movies, but it never occurred to me that people would enjoy dissonance.  At Columbia Business School, we had “clusters” – assigned groups of 60 – 70 people with whom we would take most of our first year classes.  In addition to getting to know each other from our like schedules, there were competitions across clusters to foster the bond through a common enemy.  Clusters were introduced (I was told) when the school had a lot of sabotaging in the 80s. The school thought that using this known psychological approach would help decrease the negative competition overall.

While trying to beat out someone in a physical battle or through academic wits definitely connects you with teammates, it also surfaces the evil that lives within each of us when there is a scarcity mentality (i.e. only one person can win).  Anger and pride and can bond us just as easily as problem solving and resolve, yet it then does the exact opposite of what creating a common enemy sets out to achieve.  Hannah Gadsby says it well in her standout performance in Nanette:  “Anger, much like laughter, can connect a room full of strangers like nothing else, but anger, even if it’s connected to laughter, will not relieve tension… It is a toxic, infectious tension.  And it knows no other purpose than to spread blind hatred.”

When I set out to write this article, I didn’t realize how much leveraging a common enemy is promoted: divorce counselors, office environments, and parent/children dynamics to name a few.  I’m not a psychologist, but what I read points to this approach as a short-term solution: it relieves some of the initial tension but doesn’t ultimately address the issue that made people disagree or the underlying issues lurking within each person.  For example, when two children are fighting and a parent yells at them, it makes them bond together to defeat the parent.  The children don’t address or try to solve their differences.

The longer term, more effective approach to uniting people is known as a superordinate goal – a goal that rises above and unites people through some ultimate goal, like world peace. This can only happen though if this is something we all truly want, which I’m starting to question.  Our political situation in the US has become so divisive that people are not always rational, only siding with people because that person is AGAINST someone else.  The “Us vs. Them” environment promoted throughout our culture breeds this idea that you have to take a side rather than trying to rise above a situation for some ultimate good.

But it’s never too late – luckily each day presents us with the opportunity to change and turn down a different road.  We can stop focusing on banding together to fight against someone and instead fight together for something that benefits us all.  How do we find this superordinate goal in an environment that seems so divided? As Ina Garten’s cookbook says, we go back to basics.  We respect our commonalities as humans who all were created outside of ourselves.  We dig deep within ourselves and bond over the rights we find each human desires.  We… love.