Brands in the age of behaviorism

A couple of nights ago I enjoyed a call with Chuck Young of Ameritest. Always a provocative conversationalist, Chuck threw out a comment to the effect that we are living in an age of behaviorism and questioned what that meant for brands. I am not sure that I have a good answer to that question, so I am sharing some thoughts here in the hope that doing so provokes some discussion.

When Chuck referred to behaviorism, we were talking about the influence that tech giants like Google, Facebook and Netflix have on the world's view of brands and marketing. To my mind, these companies often seem to act as if the people using their services have no volition of their own, they simply respond to a stimulus and that is that. It is a mindset that seems to be pervading business in general, including the practice of marketing. It is the pinball model of marketing. Consumers are the ball; you just need to flick them in the right direction to make a sale.

To some degree tech companies are right to think that people can be programmed to respond in the same way as their technology. Think of the notifications on your phone. On the iPhone a little red blob shows up to indicate a new LinkedIn, Facebook or Twitter notification, triggering the instinctive desire to see what is going on. "Cool! Another distraction from the real world." Positive reinforcement, the treat of finding new content, keeps people behaving the same way over time, a process which might be referred to as "operant conditioning." See red blob, click, enjoy. Repeat.

The basic objective of companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix is to keep users using their platform so that they can monetize eyeballs and data. TikTok does so by making clever use of AI to serve up a stream of content that people might like watching and so keep them on the platform. But for the big, ecosystem companies the scope is much wider. Not content with offering enough value to keep you using one platform they now seek to lock you into their ecosystem. The thinking is that if they can make themselves an integral part of people's lives, users will not consider going elsewhere.

And, as Chuck and I discussed, this sort of enforced loyalty can work all too well. Much as I find my iPhone a useful tool, I have little attitudinal allegiance to Apple. Rather, I am wedded to the Apple ecosystem. I would consider an Android phone, but the perceived barriers to learning a new system and swapping over content – barriers which may or may not really exist – are so off-putting that when the time came to choose a new phone I went with the easy choice, another iPhone.

In a world of behavioral, and sometimes enforced loyalty, what value does a brand offer? Is it simply the banner that declares what the offer is and promises a great experience? After all, if everything a company does builds its brand, then surely, offering and delivering a service tailored to meet people's needs is all you need to ensure a user's affection. Actions speak louder than words, right?

Right. But I believe many tech brands are one-dimensional. They rely too much on satisfying functional needs and expecting users to be grateful. But my phone is just a tool. Yes, the facial recognition is great, the phone is easy to use, the screen sharp and clear, but when things go wrong will I forgive and forget, or hold a grudge? Does Apple remind me just how easy the phone is to use, reinforcing my positive impressions and glossing over weaknesses? Does it portray itself as constantly trying to improve the user experience? In other words, does Apple create a brand halo that enhances the user experience, rather than simply relying on that experience to create an emotional connection?

Of course, it is perfectly legitimate to ask if Apple needs to enhance the user experience this way. Isn't the experience so great that Apple can rely on users feeling grateful and enthused? The simple answer is that attitudinal reinforcement probably is unnecessary, provided Apple can stay one step ahead of the competition or blunt their advantages by buying or copying them. The same applies to Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon. They cannot afford to let the competition gain an advantage in terms of user experience because there is little attitudinal loyalty to their brands. They have to offer the latest, greatest experience or lose out.

And the things about tech brands is that when they lose out, they tend to lose out big time. Once huge tech brands disappear rapidly when a better mousetrap comes along. Think Nokia (once the world's leading mobile phone manufacturer), MySpace (which once had more visitors in a month than Google's home page), or AOL (once used by half of US households to access the internet). The instant availability of the internet, the quick dissemination of word of mouth and network effect mean that when the tipping point is reached tech brands often implode.

I know that many reading this post will believe I have lost track of reality. Of course, tech brands are strong brands, look at all the money they make. But I suspect they are mistaking market power for brand strength. But perhaps more important than exploring whether tech brands are strong brands, or simply the product of their scale and investment clout, is to ask whether the same rules of competition apply to a can of soup, furniture polish or a soft drink. Given a repeated but uniform experience, is there more or less role for marketing to help users enjoy the experience?

What do you think? Are tech brands under-leveraging the power of their brands? And is a can of soup more reliant on enhancing the user experience or less? Please share your thoughts.