“Stealth” has become another approach that is attractive to many players in the Marketing arena. Maybe it’s the use of the word “stealth” or it’s the buzz that has been created around this word, marketing organizations across the world are calling it the new Mantra that could work magics. The same thing was said about WoM communications, Integrated Marketing Communications and Advertising, when they were first introduced. But yet the “stealth” approach has to be applied correctly, without which there might be trouble with the approach. How? Please read on….
Any communication must have three things. First a “Sender”, second a “Channel” and third a “Receiver”. For a communication to be effective the receiver must trust the sender as well as the channel through which the message is being conveyed. In most “stealth” approaches marekters cover up the “Sender/Source” of the message and use a neutral “channel” which the consumer cannot link directly to the source. Take for instance “Word of Mouth” communications. WoM has great effectiveness because the channel (friends, community members, etc.,) cannot be directly linked to the source. Or rather, the source of the message is confused with the channel. The primary question that one has to consider is the effect on the consumer when the link is ultimately made.
For instance, I might videograph the different uses of my product and publish them on popular web video sharing sites such as You Tube. In the entire video I might not say anything about my company and its intentions. The video appears to be plain, harmless and devoid of any marketing connection to the source. It is available to be viewed by milliions of users and it can be shared across a community, which creates a buzz about the product and its uses. So far so good. What would happen if the buzzers come to know that they have been subject to a marketing campaign without their knowledge? When viewers share videos with friends, family and other buddies online, they do so without a commercial intention. What would happen to these users if they come to know that the videos they have been sharing with each other have been made with some or the other commercial intention?
Let us investigate the question with a Deontological perspective in mind. Here the intention of the creator of the video and the one who shares it do not match with each other. The sharer of the video has been kept in darkness about the creators intentions in making and uploading the video. Therefore, from a deontological perspective the practice might be unethical. If the sharing of the video has resulted in increased consumption of the intended (by the creator) product/service then even Teleologically the approach is inconsistent with ethical practices. That is to say that the sharer of the video was not fully aware of the consequences of the action that he was undertaking and hence the creator of the video becomes logically responsible for what (s)he has done. The real danger with such an approach of “stealth” is the probability that is associated with the “bad” usage of the technique. In a world which is full of “myopic” and “quick-fix” solution providers, any form of “stealth” is going to be a very risky approach.
From this perspective I would like to say that “stealth” may not stand in the long-run as a strategic approach to attract, retain and delight the customer.
Any communication must have three things. First a “Sender”, second a “Channel” and third a “Receiver”. For a communication to be effective the receiver must trust the sender as well as the channel through which the message is being conveyed. In most “stealth” approaches marekters cover up the “Sender/Source” of the message and use a neutral “channel” which the consumer cannot link directly to the source. Take for instance “Word of Mouth” communications. WoM has great effectiveness because the channel (friends, community members, etc.,) cannot be directly linked to the source. Or rather, the source of the message is confused with the channel. The primary question that one has to consider is the effect on the consumer when the link is ultimately made.
For instance, I might videograph the different uses of my product and publish them on popular web video sharing sites such as You Tube. In the entire video I might not say anything about my company and its intentions. The video appears to be plain, harmless and devoid of any marketing connection to the source. It is available to be viewed by milliions of users and it can be shared across a community, which creates a buzz about the product and its uses. So far so good. What would happen if the buzzers come to know that they have been subject to a marketing campaign without their knowledge? When viewers share videos with friends, family and other buddies online, they do so without a commercial intention. What would happen to these users if they come to know that the videos they have been sharing with each other have been made with some or the other commercial intention?
Let us investigate the question with a Deontological perspective in mind. Here the intention of the creator of the video and the one who shares it do not match with each other. The sharer of the video has been kept in darkness about the creators intentions in making and uploading the video. Therefore, from a deontological perspective the practice might be unethical. If the sharing of the video has resulted in increased consumption of the intended (by the creator) product/service then even Teleologically the approach is inconsistent with ethical practices. That is to say that the sharer of the video was not fully aware of the consequences of the action that he was undertaking and hence the creator of the video becomes logically responsible for what (s)he has done. The real danger with such an approach of “stealth” is the probability that is associated with the “bad” usage of the technique. In a world which is full of “myopic” and “quick-fix” solution providers, any form of “stealth” is going to be a very risky approach.
From this perspective I would like to say that “stealth” may not stand in the long-run as a strategic approach to attract, retain and delight the customer.
1 comment:
I would like to draw your attention to the new age promotions of the cigarette companies in the US. Philip Morris has very cleverly made its promotion sublime. This is in the wake of the MSA agreement and the ban on cigarette advertising in the media.
I agree with you. Stealth cannot be a strategic approach. In fact stealth marketing works as long as it remains stealth. But the fallout can be very suicidal for the company.
Post a Comment