Group dynamics and conflicts.

Okay, these are social times, it’s all about tribes, connecting people and whatnot.

But Marketeers are always interested in the Disney, hands across America, Up with People kinda group dynamics. It’s all very nice and friendly and sweet.

Also incredibly boring.

And every time marketeers come up with a new schtick it causes a land rush. Which means that there will soon be such an enormous amount of brands enabling me to connect with other people that it’s bound to become static. Just like mass media advertising became static.

They have a way of doing this them marketeers, creating static.

Now the pendulum swings both ways. So I’m looking at the other extreme. But I don’t think anti-social brands are the answer. (actually as I write this I kinda start to like the idea : )

What could be worth exploring though is group conflict.

Which, if applied rightly, can be constructive.

It seems to be especially effective when it’s done without asking, when you don’t ask people which side they are on, but tell them what side they are on.

A wonderful example of this is the classic “divide the crowd in half” trick rock bands do. (marketeers less rock ‘n roll than I am would refer to this as segmentation )

Here’s a memorable example from last year’s Pukkelpop.

Now if Gary Lightbody would have asked the crowd to sing along, it would have sung along.
But what he did was set one side up against the other one.

Bam! they’re in a competition.

And if you watch the video above it’s pretty clear they’re taking the competition seriously. Every time one side sings it’s a lot louder than what the other side just did. It’s just friggin’ amazing.
They didn’t ask for it, but now that it is that way, they’re not going to be outdone.

The amount of engagement created instantly by creating two rival groups is enormous.

There are some marketing examples out there too. Of course Seth’s got one.

Nike has been been sponsoring Run London, a 10 km race, for years. But what they did in 2006 was massive: They divided the whole of London in two teams: North and South. This not only got engagement up, as you can tell from this quote:

This Londonista has joined the Nike 10km Run London event and will be running for the North London team. Who is with me? And more importantly… who is against me?

(source: Londonist)

But it was also a very smart way to promote Nike+, as the result was based on the collective Nike+ times both teams did. So to win, you didn’t only have to run fast, you needed to have your run count by having Nike+ equipped shoes.

So smart it hurts.

Another interesting phenomenon is the Spanish and Dutch lotteries. In Holland it’s called postcodeloterij (zip code lottery) and in Spain El Gordo (The Fat One).

The difference with the regular lottery is that it’s not one person that wins.
It’s every participant in the village that issued the winning ticket that wins.

So the way that works is it divides the village in two groups. A group that might end up being filthy rich. And a group that will not but will have to continue living among filthy rich neighbors.
That’s a pretty scary thought.

A pretty scary thought you can avoid having to have by buying a lottery ticket.
So they’re not playing to win, they’re playing to not lose.
Completely different dynamic that a lot more people buy into.

It’s not called The Fat One for nothing.

Divide et impera.

Tags: divide et impera