The survey involved nearly a thousand participants ages 16 to 24, and the good news for us as online marketers was that 75% of respondents said that they “couldn’t live without the Internet.” Wow, that’s a bold statement indicating that the Web will continue to be a central part of that generation’s lives, and will be essential to how they research, form opinions, make decisions, and buy.

Maybe it’s not “bad news,” but the challenge this presents is: How will our generation of digital marketers and online businesspeople keep up with the attitudes and expectations of a new segment that doesn’t remember the absence of the Web?

"Kurt & Smitty" | Image from AMCTV.com

I can’t help but think of my latest TV series obsession, Mad Men.  The fictitious ad agency, Sterling Cooper, hired two young upstarts, Smitty and Kurt, to help them figure out what the youth of the early 1960s was thinking.  They informed their hopelessly old employers that the youth “don’t want to be told what to do or how to act. [They] just want to be.“  Sound familiar?  It sounds corny, but Sterling Cooper did the right thing by bringing in outside perspective to help them better empathize with their target audiences.

So, what are we going to do? Should all marketing teams have their own “Smitty and Kurt” to help them grok how Digital Natives want to interact with businesses?  Should we spend more time spying on our children and grandchildren as they network their always-available lives at lightning speed?  Let us know in the comments what specific tactics you’re using to keep up with what “the kids are into these days.”

The Neuromarketing blog tells of recent a study in the New Scientist in which male participants played “The Ultimate Game” while their testosterone levels were measured.

The Ultimatum Game gives one player money and lets that player divide it between himself and another player. The second player can accept or refuse the split. If the second player refuses the allocation, neither player receives any money. While pure self interest would predict that the second player should always accept the split in order to receive some money instead of nothing, in reality offers perceived as low or unfair are often declined. In this case, the first player was given $40 and the option of offering the other player either $25 or $5.

What the study found was the highest testosterone levels were more likely to refuse the $5 offer. They felt it was unfair.

[The researcher] thinks the high testosterone males decline “unfair” offers not to punish the other player but to avoid appearing socially submissive.

But here’s something else they found:

Interestingly, the high testosterone males were more generous with their own offers.

Wow, I didn’t see that one coming. “Generous” is not an adjective I would normally apply to an “alpha male.” But that’s the whole problem with stereotypes. So, how does this affect marketing?

A high-testosterone customer might pay a high price for an item if it would seem to enhance his social standing – ordering a pricey premium vodka, for example, when with a group of friends. On the other hand, that same buyer might decline to buy something expensive that might make him look weak or foolish. To confound marketers, it’s possible that the social setting could produce a different result.

Lots of interesting stuff. Read the whole article…

Check out Romantic Revulsion in the New Century: Flaw-O-Matic 2.0 by John Tierney

ABSTRACT:

In this meta-analysis of online dating and speed dating, we propose a corollary to the Flaw-O-Matic theory of romantic revulsion. Current research reveals that the Flaw-O-Matic, a mechanism in the brain that instantly finds fault with any potential mate, can be reoriented positively in certain conditions through a newly identified process, the Sally Field Effect.

I enjoyed tidbits like this one:

They found that a 5-foot-8 man was just as successful in getting dates as a 6-footer if he made more money — precisely $146,000 a year more. For a 5-foot-2 man, the number was $277,000. [For more of these trade-offs, see nytimes.com/tierneylab.]

Let me know if you enjoy the article. I know Guy Creese found some link love

Don’t miss the New York Times article that reports on a study where odors smelled during sleep can help people remember what they learned. Read: Study Uncovers Memory Aid: A Scent During Sleep by Benedict Carey

“But if you want the word to spread, if you expect me to take action I’ve never taken before, it seems to me that you need to do something that hasn’t been done before. It might not feel safe, but if you do the safe thing, I guarantee you won’t surprise anyone. And if you don’t surprise anyone, the word isn’t going to spread.”

I’m confident he didn’t know it, but what he just described is called “Surprising Broca.” Roy Williams first wrote about this technique in his 1999 bestseller Secret Formulas of the Wizard of Ads. Broca’s Area refers to the region of the brain involved in processing language and, perhaps more importantly, passing it along to the motor cortex (i.e., getting you to do something).

Leap into Roy’s magical world for a moment:

Although none of the neurologists I’ve consulted can positively confirm or deny it, I am convinced that while a speaker uses Broca’s area to arrange his words into understandable sentences, the listener uses Broca to anticipate and discount the predictable. When your listener hears only what she has heard before, it’s difficult to keep her attention.

When speaking or writing, visualize Broca’s area as a theater stage upon which your play will be performed in the listener’s mind, and think of Broca as the theater critic- the judge who will determine whether or not to walk out on your play. If you will present your play on this mental stage and gain the smiling approval of the judge, you must electrify Broca with the thrill of the unexpected.

I suspect Seth and Roy would enjoy having lunch together.