Reverse Psychology Marketing: The Death of Traditional Marketing and the Rise of the New “Pull” Game

Citation

Cook, G.R. (2010), "Reverse Psychology Marketing: The Death of Traditional Marketing and the Rise of the New “Pull” Game", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 191-192. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011027286

Are traditional marketing techniques, tactics and strategies, passé, out of date, not in touch, overworked, abusive, dull and boring? In some cases, a new type of customer may think so, at least according to our authors.

This is a very interesting book, only seven bite sizes chapters and a mere 197 pages in length and I think one that will engage traditional marketers and perhaps encourage them to think about the traditional marketing approaches that we have used for many years as to whether or not, time has passed them by?

One would surely agree that we are in a world of extreme product proliferation (too many me too products) that ultimately lead to consumer confusion, bewilderment and frustration in the consumer product and service selection and decision making process and dilution of the brand in the process.

Our authors contend that perhaps the average American consumer is literally tired and fed up with manufacturer's and seller's vociferous and exaggerated claims as to why their products and services are better, more valuable, vastly superior and totally differentiated from others in the marketplace and that it is impossible to live without them!

Are consumers ready for a major change in terms of the way they are marketed to and/or has this change already started?

We know that the average consumer displays unpredictable behavior in the marketplace from time to time in this rapidly changing business world and presumably this begs the question for marketers today: “ Can we still effectively utilize the traditional marketing tools and tactics that have worked so well in the past – The 4Ps, segmentation, positioning, and lavish and perhaps overwhelming advertising and promotional campaigns to reach and effectively market to today's consumers? My intuition is that the answer is still a resounding yes but perhaps with some minor tweaks as the author suggest in the book.

The authors contend that there are really three different consumer segments, or as they call it a 3‐Tier Market Structure, discount, standard and premium. They express strongly that the middle tier is disappearing and that only the discount and premium tiers remain … thus targeting and segmentation become more of a challenge today. Service, however, is still in the mix and depending on the buying situation, consumers require some level of service with their purchases. We know that the discount stores are in fact “pulling” a sizeable customer base with their low prices, wide assortment, the ability to perform one stop shopping at least at some level and yes a level of service albeit it low for the most part. Consumers, are willing to “trade off” some things for a value price.

Wal Mart, whose continued success is well known, seems to be on the fast track with regard to the Discount tier referred to above. Their discount prices, wide variety of goods and services and an acceptable level of customer service has propelled them into the Fortune 500’s no. 1 position surpassing Exxon Mobil. Wal Mart has not advertised extensively and tends to rely, I believe, on Pull Marketing and Customer Buzz to a great extent.

The authors express a concern that the high profile brands marketed by (Tiffany's, Nordstroms, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales, Saks, etc.) have indeed lost some of their luster and prestige due in part to overzealous Marketers and the overexposure and brand proliferation of the past. High profile brands have been overextended in many cases to the extent they have lost some of their exclusivity and former high levels of prestige.

I think it goes without saying, however, that the premium or luxury tier will always exist in the consumer marketplace for the upper echelons of society but I think that vendors in this area need to step back and re‐review their marketing strategies and tactics.

What the authors are indicating I think is that marketers have vastly overdone and overused traditional marketing tactics in search of higher market share and profits. Greed if you will! Push marketing has worked in the past but has it run its course?

The authors would contend that pull marketing would now seem to be a more appropriate and effective marketing strategy in today's consumer marketplace.

While not new, pull marketing may be more important that ever before. Words like enticement, painting a picture (for the consumer), teasing them a bit, creating a buzz by good word of mouth from current customers and thus creating a pull effect might be the best way to go.

Even Starbucks has not had to advertise or formally promote their products, at least not until recently, but they are now utilizing full‐page advertisements in the Wall Street Journal and other well‐known publications. They initially counted on the Buzz and solid positive word of mouth from current customers to pull new customers to their stores. this of course begs the question, does buzz wear off and pull sometimes needs to be traded off for push? Or is push and/or pull marketing effective in different situations? At Starbucks I think we know by now that perhaps it is not just the product or service but the “experience” that counts to the consumer base that frequents Starbuck stores. Of course, we all know that as the competitive landscape changes, we need to revise our marketing strategies.

From a traditional marketing point of view, we still have to pay attention to the diffusion process meaning that we have to first excite and engage the innovators and if successful they will in turn pull the early adopters into the buying process and on down the line assuming we are innovative, creative, and convincing in our product and services offerings and the way we market them.

Our authors refer to the new marketing Zeitgeist which relates to a “spirit of the age” or a world view that is prevalent at a certain period in time. They refer to three different thought processes – “What could have been”; “What can be”; and yet a third “I want to live for today!” Their thinking is more along the lines of “No need to save for a rainy day and who knows what tomorrow will bring?” They contend that there are three key elements within the so‐called marketing Zeitgeist that address so‐called crying consumer needs – simple, traditional and natural. There seems to be a new focus on: simple, easy to use, functional products and devices and “getting away” from highly complex, bells, whistles and gadgets! Traditional and nostalgia seem to be making a comeback in this regard. Natural and organic foods, bottled water, vegetarian diets are all receiving a high level of attention these days. Perhaps we are coming “full cycle” in terms of products and services, or at least moving in that direction. If so, marketers need to take heed and revise their strategies and tactics accordingly. Is it possible that push marketing is a “dying breed?”

In the past, it seems that no one has even bothered to question whether or not all of the added so called “high tech” product functions and complexities deliver a real significant and incremental value and whether or not the targeted consumer really cares or really even needs them! Push marketing at work!!

Thus the author's term “anti marketing”. Is it “Marketing in reverse” – will it work? Or is it just a new way of marketing and selling – non‐pretentious, non flamboyant, and less spin?

Offering less seems to be one of the key elements in the anti marketing thought process. It involves less choice, less advertising and sales promotion, less marketing hype, less availability and yes perhaps less (fewer) locations for potential customers to frequent. The thought process tends to evoke the “perception of scarcity” in terms of playing to the old adage, people want what they cannot get. Within the anti marketing theory, the authors tend to promote the idea that marketers should

“Pay less heed to what the customer wants, but to do what the Company thinks is right for its own self or for certain select customers!” Obviously this is in direct contrast with the traditional theory of marketing in terms of “Finding a need and filling it!” While this may work for some select consumer segments, will it work for most consumer segments? Today, time is of the essence and perhaps the average consumer may not want to take the time to locate goods and services marketed under the anti marketing concept.

Managing buyer expectations comes up in this context and keeping buyer expectations low (i.e. limited service and availability) and then attempt to do somewhat better so that people leave with a feeling of a pleasant surprise. This sounds much like the former service delivery concept – under promising and over delivering.

Still, it may be true in today's complex marketplace, there is room for marketer's to “Lighten up a bit” on advertising, selling, sales promotion and general overall marketing activities. Perhaps the average American consumer is ready for a “softer sell!”

In summary, the book and the author's premises give us food for thought. The marketplace is changing and perhaps there is an overabundance of product and service options and we would have to say – too many “me too products!” Perhaps there is too much marketing hype in the form of colossal advertising campaigns that attempt to push their value, option, features and unbelievable consumer benefits at us. Perhaps a change in marketing tactics and strategies is needed if we are to more effectively market our goods and services and convince the consumer that we truly have something of value for them. The consumers may well be sending us a message that we should heed and incorporate into future marketing, advertising and promotional campaigns, else we may find ourselves with an overabundance of inventory setting on our shelves in the warehouses – unwanted!