Going by an email clipping that went viral on Dec 9th, 2024, ‘YesMadam’ fired employees who reported being stressed at work in an internal survey. A day later, on Dec 10th, 2024, the company clarified that the previous post was a “planned effort to highlight the issue of workplace stress”.
Last month, Zomato CEO Deepinder Goyal’s job posting for ‘Chief of Staff’ turned controversial too. Particularly the bit that required candidates to pay Rs. 20 lakhs. A former employee even doubled down on the posting, asserting, “if you’re looking for a career in Management Consulting / Strategy, this is worth waaaay more than ₹20L!”.
Following a backlash, Goyal clarified that the Rs. 20 lakh requirement was merely a “filter” and not a precondition. A week later, Zomoto’s official handle made light of the episode and switched the conversation towards Zomoto Gold. The post read: “Update from CEO: No need to pay us Rs. 20 Lakh. Just pay us Rs. 30 for 6 months of Zomato Gold”.
Where’s the agency in marketing?
The bad rap that marketing receives is in part its own making. For too long, the marketing function has been divested of its core practitioners, because, marketing, apparently, “is an art”.
Which it is. But that’s only half the story.
As my marketing professor was fond of saying: “Marketing is a fine art and inexact science”.
Sure, it’s not an exact science in a way physics or chemistry is. But it’s still founded on principles, and benefits profoundly from the wisdom across ages.
Sure, it urges us to explore and experiment. But it’s still a living branch of the big marketing tree. Bereft of its roots, it can quickly devolve into gimmickry.
Consider this: coders are told “what to do”, not “how to do it”. Accountants might be given guidelines; they’re not admonished for “not thinking afresh”.
Marketing might hold the dubious distinction of being a rare function where the practitioners are lectured by non-practitioners. It’s one place where experience doesn’t add to your expertise.
Why foundational principles are important
To a big extent, this is because digital technology has transformed how marketing is done. The medium changes how things work.
Copywriting wisdom comes from a world of print media, direct marketing, and outdoor banners and boards. It’s only natural that attracting and holding the attention of a digital audience requires some fine-tuning of the strategies that worked for the era gone by.
Where I draw the line is when people say there are no time-independent principles on persuasion. More than two millennia ago, Greek philosopher Aristotle revealed the trinity of persuasion:
1) Logos: Appealing to Logic
2) Pathos: Appealing to Emotions
3) Ethos: Appealing to Ethics, Morals and Character
While the body of human psychology works has expanded lately, the ancients were familiar with its core.
Dr. Robert B. Cialdini built a new layer atop this foundation in his, “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion”. He adds 6 persuasion principles that he considered universal. Indeed, Charlie Munger (of Berkshire Hathaway) is believed to have gifted more copies of this book than any other. Briefly, here are the principles:
- Reciprocation
- Liking
- Social proof
- Authority
- Scarcity
- Consistency
Two thinkers, separated by two millennia, thought in similar lines. Of course, Dr. Cialdini’s theory is more layered since it’s about modern people. But notice how it’s in line with and builds on Aristotle’s thought.
Which among the above principles do you think were used in the above-cited instances?
I would like to think that most marketing practitioners would look at the precedents of such tactics before they embarked upon one. As a cursory glance through the relevant literature shows us, deception is not a part of persuasion.
It’s well within the ambit of marketing to selectively amplify certain messages for greater impact. To connect only those dots that tell the story effectively. To overlook parts that don’t add to the selling of the story.
But none of them involve deception.
Why are such gimmicks problematic?
- Did these instances go viral? Yes.
- Did it make people notice the brand? Possibly yes.
- Will it make people recall the brand in a favorable light? Well, let’s see.
There are several problems with taking this road.
First, people won’t be triggered by such tactics indefinitely. The law of diminishing returns attests to the downhill spiral the trend will soon experience. If anything, people hate to be played.
Karthik Srinivasan , a communications consultant, expressed skepticism at the veracity of the claim given how “obviously preposterous it is” (well before the reveal).
Second, it undermines the credibility of any similar tactics by the company in the future. While it may not affect them immediately, people will be less willing to give companies a benefit of doubt in the event of a communications crisis. Employing shock and deception may catch the eyeballs today. But the story doesn’t end today.
In a comment to YesMadam’s ‘reveal’ post, Srinivasan writes: “Imagine… if Yes Madam can lie so openly, brazenly in the name of a marketing campaign, what else would the brand lie to us, the consumers (to whom this lie was aimed), about.”
In a newsletter on writing content to game the search engine algorithms, I ask:
You got the machine’s attention. Now what? What about the human who eventually stumbles on our writing? Here’s where the real question comes into play: did the reader find the content valuable?
Likewise, the tactic achieved viral success for the time-being. Now what?
- In the future, how will people recall your brand? Yes
- Will they recall the marketing tactic? Yes.
- What will they recall about the event? Most likely that they were fooled.
Musings by Madhav 
Leave a comment