Recently, I’ve noticed a trend in our society that is irritating me: celebrity bias. I’m not referring to celebrity endorsement, although that certainly falls within this trend. I’m referring to random quote dropping.

It is becoming too prevalent in the persuasive articles written today. Rather than using logical or scientific reasoning (for example: If A, then B; if B, then C; therefore, if A, then C), people use a quotation as their unequivocal proof.

Writers using quotes in their articles will mention some book, by some author, either of which you may or may not have even heard. It’s also very likely that even if you have heard of said author or book, that you probably have not had time to read the book in question. Yet this quote will be the persuader’s “final argument” to prove his or her point.

While it is possible that the persuader honestly believes that the quote perfectly illustrates or aligns with his/her point, unless the quote is “common knowledge” and the author is one that every average reader can reasonably be expected to recognize, these quotes should not function as the proof of the argument.

It worries me on three fronts.

First, it makes me wonder whether anyone writing articles today is capable of defending a point of view just based upon logic? Why do you need someone else to back it up? If what you are writing about has Truth to it, can’t you just provide the argument through reasoning and believe that the reader will understand? Do we have so little faith in the cognitive capabilities of our readers that we have to sink to some kind of endorsement for our point of view in order for the reader to deem it valid? And if the only acceptable reasoning is pointing out that someone else thought it before, doesn’t that imply that there can no longer be any new thinking?

Why do these endorsements mean anything to us anyway? Just because we can prove that one person on the planet agrees with us, that does not make it true. Anyone can write a book. Anyone can self-publish a book. Just because someone has written a book does not make him or her an expert. So why are we looking at author’s quotes rather than the argument itself?

Second, in a world where we all have fewer and fewer free-time hours, do we really want participate in this kind of quote-dropping? Not that we shouldn’t read more – we should. But there is an implied, “I’m smarter than you because I’ve read this book that you haven’t and therefore I must be right,” tone that quote usage tends to generate.

I’m sure that this is not the intent of most of these authors. (Or not, and I’m giving them too much credit. Either is possible.) I’m sure they really just enjoyed the books they’re quoting and they believe that if you have an interest in the topic they’re writing about, then you might enjoy it, too. But we don’t have the time to read everything that’s out there. There’s just too much. I prefer it when the author synopsizes, lists the source in the footnote and gets back to the argument without making me feel even guiltier about spending my free time reading for pleasure rather than strictly for education. (I will always defend that pleasure reading educates as well as entertains. But that’s a topic for another time.)

The third worry is that this misuse of quotes is causing us to become inured to the well-placed quote. Occasionally, a quote IS helpful in illustrating a point, but if we’re used to seeing quotes that are basically meaningless, we’re going to become more likely to ignore the quote altogether. If I am making a statement about the benefits of a democratic republic and I quote Thomas Jefferson, it will most likely be a valid representation of reasoning and meaningful in context. But if the quote I provide is from Robert Jordan, most likely only those who are avid readers of science fiction are going to get any meaning from what I’ve written.

Or, to quote Lord Peter Wimsey in “Gaudy Night” by Dorothy L. Sayers*, “A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.”

The point I’m trying to make is simple: authors of articles should be able to express their arguments logically. If they rely on using someone else’s words to form the crux of their argument, they should reconsider writing the article in the first place.

- K. Oliver-Kreft

*For more information on Dorothy L. Sayers, see her Wikipedia entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_L._Sayers.

According to Wikipedia, there are 35 popular brands of toothpaste in the United States. That’s just the brands. That doesn’t include the various product types within those brands. Colgate has 15 different product types within its brand. And I’m not even going to go into the variants on flavor. So if I want to buy a product to clean my teeth, I have to make a choice from between 200 – 500 different options. 

Now think about the fact that each brand, each product is bellowing for your attention, clamoring for your dollar. How can anyone hear anything among all the market noise?

Lately, it seems the “solution” has been to find new, “emerging” media to catch consumers’ attention in new ways. Spam, online banners and display ads, opt in text message ads, and now, we have “Outdoor 2.0.” This new technology will allow out of home displays (such as poster ads lining the halls of the mall) to send messages to your Bluetooth-enabled phone.

Is there anyone who wants to receive random ads on their phones? Really?

With all the clutter out there, does anyone want more? Seriously. As a marketing professional, I think it’s time we all took a step back and thought about what we’re doing here. By adding to the clutter, we simply make it more difficult to connect to our potential clients. 

“Three Rules of Work: Out of clutter find simplicity; from discord find harmony; in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” - Albert Einstein  

As a marketer, I’d rather spend more funds thoroughly defining who my key target is and then finding a way to connect intimately with him/her. I would rather find ways to get my target to opt in to receive my message so that s/he has invested in my brand and therefore is more likely to feel some loyalty.

I’d rather not spend money at all than spend it just to do what everyone else is doing, contributing to the noise. I’d rather stick to traditional media, which our targets have already gotten quite comfortable tuning out than use new digital methods in a manner that might irritate them and turn them against my brand.

Sure, advancing technology is great. It also provides an added capacity of metrics that you can’t get through other media. But we need to ensure that the interactive media we choose are the best ones for our clients and their customers. We have to be smart about our emerging media use rather than vomiting out a message and hoping it hits with the 1/1000 of a percent of the mass populace that is our audience and resonates with them.

Through strategic planning and research into our target audience we can determine the best methods of reaching our audience in a way that is meaningful. 

Of course, that means we have to actually conduct that strategy and research before we actually have a final communication that goes to the target. This will make the budget for marketing be heavier at the onset. But the ROI of reaching those who truly want to hear our message will show the wisdom of these expenditures.

The alternative is trying to scream louder than everyone else.  It is said, “He strains to hear a whisper who refuses to hear a shout.” I think it’s about time we started using some well-placed and thoughtful whispers.

 - K. Oliver-Kreft 

Where do you draw the line?

Are you willing to do anything? Is nothing beneath you?

Of course not.

But where do you draw the line?

The List of Non-NegotiablesWhat’s on your list of non-negotiables? These are the things that you simply refuse to compromise. You won’t bend on these standards.

Another way to come up with this list is to imagine what, on your deathbed, you simply must have accomplished.

What’s On My List?Thanks for asking. I’m touched that you care.

For me, the idea of teaching is generating a couple non-negotiables:

1. Each month, I must be in a classroom teaching.
2. Each day, I must be a teacher less formally.

I just don’t want to be 95 and wondering why I never was a teacher.

My promises are also part of my list of non-negotiables.

What’s on your list?

- A. Isaac