The Psychology Behind My NetFlix Watchlist

I live in Canada – which means I’m going into hibernation for the next 5 months. People tell me I should take up a winter activity. I tell them I have one. Bitching. About winter – specifically. You have your hobbies – and I have mine.

The other thing I do in the winter is watch movies. And being a with it, tech-savvy guy, I have cut the cord and get my movie fix through not one, but three streaming services: Netflix, Amazon Prime and Crave (a Canadian service). I’ve discovered that the psychology of Netflix is fascinating. It’s the Paradox of Choice playing out in streaming time. It’s the difference between what we say we do and what we actually do.

For example, I do have a watch list. It has somewhere around a hundred items on it. I’ll probably end up watching about 20% of them. The rest will eventually go gentle into that good Netflix Night. And according to a recent post on Digg, I’m actually doing quite well. According to the admittedly small sample chronicled there, the average completion rate is somewhere between 5 and 15%.

When it comes to compiling viewing choices, I’m an optimizer. And I’m being kind to myself. Others, less kind, refer to it as obsessive behavior. This is referring to satisficing/optimizing spectrum of decision making. I put an irrational amount of energy into the rationalization of my viewing options. The more effort you put into decision making, the closer you are to the optimizing end of the spectrum. If you make choices quickly and with your gut, you’re a satisficer.

What is interesting about Netflix is that it defers the Paradox of Choice. I dealt with this in a previous column. But I admit I’m having second thoughts. Netflix’s watch list provides us with a sort of choosing purgatory..a middle ground where we can save according to the type of watcher we think we are. It’s here where the psychology gets interesting. But before we go there, let’s explore some basic psychological principles that underpin this Netflix paradox of choice.

Of Marshmallows and Will Power

In the 1960’s, Walter Mischel and his colleagues conducted the now famous Marshmallow Test, a longitudinal study that spanned several years. The finding (which currently is in some doubt) was that children who had – when they were quite young – the willpower to resist immediately taking a treat (the marshmallow) put in front of them in return for a promise of a greater treat (two marshmallows)  in 15 minutes would later do substantially better in many aspects of their lives (education, careers, social connections, their health). Without getting into the controversial aspects of the test, let’s just focus on the role of willpower in decision making.

Mischel talks about a hot and cool system of making decisions that involve self-gratification. The “hot” is our emotions and the “cool” is our logic. We all have different set-points in the balance between hot and cool, but where these set points are in each of us depends on will power. The more willpower we have, the more likely it is that we’ll delay an immediate reward in return for a greater reward sometime in the future.

Our ability to rationalize and expend cognitive resources on a decision is directly tied to our willpower. And experts have learned that our will power is a finite resource. The more we use it in a day, the less we have in reserve. Psychologists call this “ego-depletion” And a loss of will power leads to decision fatigue. The more tired we become, the less our brain is willing to work on the decisions we make. In one particularly interesting example, parole boards are much more likely to let prisoners go either first thing in the morning or right after lunch than they are as the day wears on. Making the decision to grant a prisoner his or her freedom is a decision that involves risk. It requires more thought.  Keeping them in prison is a default decision that – cognitively speaking – is a much easier choice.

Netflix and Me: Take Two

Let me now try to rope all this in and apply it to my Netflix viewing choices. When I add something to my watch list, I am making a risk-free decision. I am not committing to watch the movie now. Cognitively, it costs me nothing to hit the little plus icon. Because it’s risk free, I tend to be somewhat aspirational in my entertainment foraging. I add foreign films, documentaries, old classics, independent films and – just to leaven out my selection – the latest audience-friendly blockbusters. When it comes to my watch list additions, I’m pretty eclectic.

Eventually, however, I will come back to this watch list and will actually have to commit 2 hours to watching something. And my choices are very much affected by decision fatigue. When it comes to instant gratification, a blockbuster is an easy choice. It will have lots of action, recognizable and likeable stars, a non-mentally-taxing script – let’s call it the cinematic equivalent of a marshmallow that I can eat right away. All my other watch list choices will probably be more gratifying in the long run, but more mentally taxing in the short term. Am I really in the mood for a European art-house flick? The answer probably depends on my current “ego-depletion” level.

This entire mental framework presents its own paradox of choice to me every time I browse through my watchlist. I know I have previously said the Paradox of Choice isn’t a thing when it comes to Netflix. But I may have changed my mind. I think it depends on what resources we’re allocating. In Barry Schwartz’s book titled the Paradox of Choice, he cites Sheena Iyengar’s famous jam experiment. In that instance, the resource was the cost of jam. In that instance, the resource was the cost of jam. But if we’re talking about 2 hours of my time – at the end of a long day – I have to confess that I struggle with choice, even when it’s already been short listed to a pre-selected list of potential entertainment choices. I find myself defaulting to what seems like a safe choice – a well-known Hollywood movie – only to be disappointed when the credits roll. When I do have the will power to forego the obvious and take a chance on one of my more obscure picks, I’m usually grateful I did.

And yes, I did write an entire column on picking a movie to watch on Netflix. Like I said, it’s winter and I had a lot of time to kill.

 

Why Disruption is Becoming More Likely in the Data Marketplace

Another weak, another breach. 500 million records were hacked from Marriott, making it the second largest data breach in history, behind Yahoo’s breach of 3 billion user accounts.

For now. There will probably be a bigger breach. There will definitely be a more painful breach. And by painful, I mean painful to you and me.  It’s in that pain – specifically, the degree of the pain – that the future of how we handle our personal data lies.

Markets innovate along paths of least resistance. Market development is a constantly evolving dynamic tension between innovation and resistance. If there is little resistance, markets will innovate in predictable ways from their current state. If this innovation leads to push back from the market, we encounter resistance.  When markets meet significant resistance, disruption occurs, opening the door for innovation in new directions to get around the resistance of the marketplace.  When we talk about data, we are talking about a market where value is still in the process of defining itself. And it’s in the definition of value where we’ll find the potential market resistance for data.

Individual data is a raw resource. It doesn’t have value until it becomes “Big.” Personal data needs to be aggregated and structured to become valuable. This creates a dilemma for us. Unless we provide the raw material, there is no “big” data possible. This makes it valuable to others, but not necessarily to ourselves.

Up to now, the value we have exchanged our privacy for has been convenience. It’s easier for us to store our credit card data with Amazon so we can enable one-click ordering. And we feel this exchange has been a bargain. But it remains an asymmetrical exchange. Our data has no positive value to us, only negative. We can be hurt by our data, but other than the afore-mentioned exchange for convenience, it doesn’t really help us. That is why we’ve been willing to give it away for so little. But once it’s aggregated and becomes “big”, it has tremendous value to the people we give it to. It also has value to those who wish to steal that data from those who we have entrusted it with. The irony here is that whether that data is in the “right” hands or the “wrong” ones, it can still mean pain for us. The differentiator is the degree of that pain.

Let’s examine the potential harm that could come from sharing our data. How painful could this get? Literally every warning we write about here at Mediapost has data at the core. Just yesterday, fellow Insider Steven Rosenbaum wrote about how the definition of warfare has changed. The fight isn’t for land. War is now waged for our minds. And data is used to target those minds.

Essentially, sharing our data makes us vulnerable to being targeted. And the outcome of that targeting can range from simply annoying to life-alteringly dangerous. Even the fact that we refer to it as targeting should raise a red flag. There’s a reason why we use a term typically associated with a negative outcome for those on the receiving end. You’re very seldom targeted for things that are beneficial to you. And that’s true no matter who’s the one doing the targeting. At its most benign, targeting is used to push some type of messaging – typically advertising – to you. But you could also be targeted by Russian hackers in an attempt to subvert democracy. Most acutely, you could be targeted for financial fraud. Or blackmail. Targeting is almost never a good thing. The degree of harm can vary, but the cause doesn’t. Our data – the data we share willingly – makes targeting possible.

We are in an interesting time for data. We have largely shrugged off the pain of the various breaches that have made it to the news. We still hand over our personal data with little to no thought of the consequences. And because we still participate by providing the raw material, we have enabled the development of an entire data marketplace. We do so because there is no alternative without making sacrifices we are not willing to make. But as the degree of personal pain continues to get dialed up, all the prerequisites of market disruption are being put in place. Breaches will continue. The odds of us being personally affected will continue to climb. And innovators will find solutions to this problem that will be increasingly easy to adopt.

For many, many reasons, I don’t think the current trajectory of the data marketplace is sustainable. I’m betting on disruption.

 

 

A Thought on Thoughtfulness

Writing this column (first for Search Insider, then here) has been a private social experiment for me. It’s one that has now lasted at least 14 years and is pushing 700 iterations, in the form of the number of columns I’ve written.  It’s been fascinating to see which topics seem to elicit reaction amongst the MediaPost readership. Granted, the metrics I have available are limited to two: how often I’m shared and how often I get comments. Still, based on this limited feedback, I’ve come to some conclusions.

I’ll be totally honest here. Just a few weeks ago I was considering packing it in. But I didn’t. I attacked advertising instead. Perhaps you could chalk it up to the mood I was in at the time.

If you don’t write for an audience, know that it’s a soul sucking thing to do. You metaphorically chop out little – or large – pieces of your brain and string them up to see what flavor the carrion eaters (that’s would be you, the readers) are favouring today. That sounds gruesome, but when it comes to sharing ideas, you want to be eaten alive. It’s a good thing. I have found – again, based on the limited metrics I have access to – that I’m not usually the most popular taste-du-jour. There are other writers here at MediaPost that are shared far more often than I.

I’m okay with that. That wasn’t why I was considering packing it in. I was considering doing that because I wasn’t sure I had anything thoughtful left to say. After 14 years of doing this, I’ve said a lot of things here on MediaPost, and I was worried the well might be running dry. For heaven’s sake, I don’t even work in the industry anymore! I haven’t for 5 years now. Who am I to be pontificating on advertising, media or marketing?

But then I reconsidered. And I did so precisely because I’m not the most popular writer here in the MediaPost stable. I don’t really care if you share me (okay..I care a little bit). I do care if I make you think. And I think I can still do that. At least, I can on a good day.

The reason I keep carving off chunks of my prefrontal cortex to share with you is because I love thoughtfulness. If I can contribute to the dissemination of thoughtfulness – even in a small way – I need to keep doing what I’m doing.

I believe thoughtfulness is in danger. We are all collectively suffering from FOMO – we are scared of missing something. And so we all flick from meme to meme. I call them cog-bits. These are the proliferate mental tidbits that are thrown at us each day. They may be top ten lists, videos, pictures, posts – even news articles. The one thing they have in common is that they have been crafted for attention spans of 10 seconds or less. If you’re not hooked, you move on to the next cog-bit. They are not designed to make you think – their entire purpose is to make you share, which requires just 0.05 seconds of rational thought.

I admit I am not immune to the charms of a cog-bit. I’m a sucker for them, just like I suspect you are. But I also believe our mental diet should be balanced with some long-form thought provoking content. Thinking shouldn’t always be easy and instant. The end result shouldn’t always be a knee-jerk jamming of the share button. We should mull more. We should roll thoughts over in our mind, picking them apart gradually. We should be introduced to concepts and perspectives we haven’t thought before. And it’s okay if – in this process – we find our own minds changing. We also need to do that more.

To me, my best day writing is when I provoke a conversation. I don’t mean a trolling comment. I mean an honest-to-goodness conversation, where the parties are open to thoughtfulness and are mentally stretching the boundaries of their own perspectives. When is the last time you had a conversation where you really had to think – where you had to pause to catch your cognitive breath? It’s been awhile, hasn’t it?

In looking back at the last 14 years of writing for MediaPost, I have found that while I hope I have introduced some new ideas to you, the real reward has been how this weekly exercise has shaped my own thoughts. Frankly, some weeks it’s a pain in the ass to come up with an idea for the Tuesday slot. But when I actually engage with the creation of a column, I always find my ideas shift, just a little. Sometimes, I throw ideas out there that I know will be contentious – ideas that will make you think. Sometimes they will be half-baked. You may agree, you may not. All I ask is that you think about them.

That’s why I keep doing this.

I’ll Take Reality with a Side of Augmentation, Please….

We don’t want to replace reality. We just want to nudge it a little.

At least, that seems to be the upshot of a new survey from the International law firm Perkins Coie. The firm asked start-up founders, tech execs, investors and consultants about their predictions for both Augmented (AR) and Virtual (VR) Reality. While Virtual Reality had a head start, the majority of those surveyed (67%) felt that AR would overtake VR in revenue within the next 3 years.

The reasons they gave were mainly focused on roadblocks in the technology itself: VR headsets were too bulky, the user experience was not smooth enough due to technical limitations, the cost of adopting VR was higher than AR and there was not enough content available in the VR universe.

I think there’s another reason. We actually like reality. We’re not looking to isolate ourselves from reality. We’re looking to enhance it.

Granted, if we are talking about adoption rates, there seems to be a lot more potential applications for Augmented Reality. Everything you do could stand a little augmentation. For example. you could probably do your job better if your own abilities were augmented with real time information. Pilots would be better at flying. Teachers would be better at teaching. Surgeons would be better at performing surgery. Mechanics would be better at fixing things.

You could also enjoy things more with a little augmentation. Looking for a restaurant would be easier. Taking a tour would be more informative. Attending a play or watching a movie could be candidates for a little augmented content. AR could even make your layover at an airport less interminable.

I think of VR as a novelty. The sheer nerdiness of it makes it a technology of limited appeal. As one developer quoted in the study says, “Not everyone is a gadget freak. The industry needs to appeal to those who aren’t.” AR has a clearly understood user benefit. We can all grasp a scenario where augmentation could make our lives better in some way. But it’s hard to understand how VR would have a real impact on our day to day lives. Its appeal seems to be constrained to entertainment, and even then, it’s entertainment aimed at a limited market.

The AR wave is advancing in some interesting directions. Google Glass has retreated from the consumer market and is currently concentrating on business and industrial application. The premise of Glass is to allow you to work smarter, access instant expertise and stay hands on. Bose is betting on a subset of AR, which it dubs Aural Augmentation. It believes sound is the best way to add content to our lives. And even Amazon has borrowed an idea from IKEA and stepped into the AR ring with Amazon AR View, where you can place items you’re considering buying in your home to see if they are a fit before you buy.

One big player that is still betting heavily on VR is Facebook, with its Oculus headset. This is not surprising, given that Mark Zuckerberg is the quintessential geek and seems intent on manufacturing our own social reality for us. In a demonstration a year ago, Zuckerberg struck all kinds of tone deaf clunkers when he and Facebook social VR chief Rachel Franklin took on cartoon personas to take a VR tour of devastated Puerto Rico. The juxtaposition could only be described as weird..a scene of human misery that was all too real visited by a cartoon Zuckerberg. At one point, he enthused “It feels like we’re really here in Puerto Rico.”

zuckerbergvrYou weren’t Mark. You were safely in Facebook headquarters Menlo Park, California –  wearing a headset that made you look like a dork. That was the reality.

It’s Not Whether We Like Advertising – It’s Whether We Accept Advertising

Last week, I said we didn’t like advertising. That – admittedly – was a blanket statement.

In response, MediaPost reader Kevin VanGundy said:

“I’ve been in advertising for 39 years and I think the premise that people don’t like advertising is wrong. People don’t like bad advertising.”

I think there’s truth in both statements. The problem here is the verb I chose to use: “like.” The future of advertising hangs not on what we like, but on what we accept. Like is an afterthought. By the time we decide whether we like something or not, we’ve already been exposed to it. It’s whether we open the door to that exposure that will determine the future of advertising. So let’s dig a little deeper there, shall we?

First, seeing as we started with a blanket statement, let’s spend a little time unpacking this idea of “liking” advertising. As Mr. VanGundy agreed, we don’t like bad advertising. The problem is that most advertising is bad, in that it’s not really that relevant to us “in the moment.” Even with the best programmatic algorithms currently being used, the vast majority of the targeted advertising presented to me is off the mark. It’s irrelevant, it’s interruptive and that makes it irritating.

Let’s explore how the brain responds to this. Our brains love to categorize and label, based on our past experience. It’s the only way we can sort through and process the tsunami of input we get presented with on a daily basis. So, just like my opening sentence, the brain makes blanket statements. It doesn’t deal with nuance very well, at least in the subconscious processing of stimuli. It quickly categorizes into big generic buckets and sorts the input, discarding most of it as unworthy of attention and picking the few items of interest out of the mix. In this way, our past experience predicts our future behavior, in terms of what we pay attention to. And if we broadly categorize advertising as irritating, this will lessen the amount of attention we’re willing to pay.

As a thought experiment to support my point, think of what you would do if you were to click on a news story in the Google results and when you arrive at the article page, you get the pop up informing you that you had your ad-blocker on. You have been given two options: whitelist the page so you receive advertising or keep your ad-blocker on and read the page anyway. I’m betting you would keep your ad-blocker on. It’s because you were given a choice and that choice included the option to avoid advertising – which you did because advertising annoys you.

To further understand why the exchange that forms the foundation of advertising is crumbling, we have to understand that much of the attentional focused activity in the brain is governed by a heuristic algorithm that is constantly calculating trade-offs between resources and reward. It governs our cognitive resources by predicting what would have to be invested versus what the potential reward might be. This subconscious algorithm tends to be focused on the task at hand. Anything that gets in the way of the contemplated task is an uncalculated investment of resources. And the algorithm is governed by our past experience and broad categorizations. It you have categorized advertising as “bad” the brain will quickly cut that category out of consideration. The investment of attention is not warranted given the expected reward. If you did happen to be served a “good” ad that managed to make it into consideration – based on an exception to our general categorization that advertising is annoying – that can change, but the odds are stacked against it. It’s just that low probability occurrence that the entire ad industry is built on.

Finally, let’s look at that probability. In the past, the probability was high enough to warrant the investment of ad dollars. The probability was higher because our choices were fewer. Often, we only had one path to get to what we sought, and that path lead through an ad. The brain had no other available options. That’s no longer the case. Let’s go back to our ad-blocker example.

Let’s say the pop-up didn’t give us a choice – we had to whitelist to see the article. The resource – reward algorithm kicks into action: What are the odds we could find the information – ad-free –  elsewhere? How important is the information to us? Will we ever want to come back to this site to read another article? Perhaps we give in and whitelist. Or perhaps we just abandon the site with a sour taste in our mouth. The later was happening more and more, which is why we see fewer news sites offering the whitelist or nothing option now. The probability of our market seeing an ad is dropping because they have more ad-free alternatives. Or at least, they think they do.

And it’s this thought – precisely this thought – that is eroding the foundation of advertising, whether we like it or not.

 

We Have to Dig Deeper for the True Disruption threatening Advertising

Ken Auletta had me at “disruption.” I’ve just finished reading his new book, “Frenemies, The Epic Disruption of the Ad Business (and Everything Else).” Regular readers will know that this title would be like catnip to me. Despite the hyperbole he employs, Auletta was speaking my language. As a bonus, Mr. Auletta does appear to be at least an occasional reader, as he did quote me twice in the book.

Frenemies bookThe majority of the disruption, according to Auletta, is happening within the ad biz itself. The “Frenemies” described in the book are the digital disruptors, Facebook, Google and – increasingly – Amazon. And their position of strength is the reams of data they collect. The disrupted are primarily the holding companies like WPP and Publicis.

Auletta’s narrative frame for his book is focused on the fortunes of Michael Kassan – who through his company MediaLink has managed to position himself as the über-connector between the traditional holding companies and the new digital disruptors. Auletta says Kassan is “advertising’s Dolly Levi.” For those of you on the south side of 70, he’s referring to the lead character from the 1964 musical Hello Dolly, a New York City matchmaker.  Auletta skips back and forth between the disrupted – represented by Sir Martin Sorrell and Irwin Gotlieb of WPP, Maurice Levy and Rishad Tobaccowala of Publicis and many of the other usual suspects – and the disruptors – in this case represented mainly by Carolyn Everson, a Facebook VP.

The other narrative device Auletta employs is the battle of Mad Men vs Math Men, which is a little too cutesy for my taste, not to mention hackneyed (the agency I used to work for trundled this same meme out at least 6 years ago). While the battle between the Big Idea and Big Data is an easily found target, I think what we’re missing here is the Big Picture.

Auletta’s take is too short sighted. The digital disruption he documents is indeed happening, but the bigger disruption is not between the holding companies and the new digital, data-rich platforms but between the market and the marketer. The entire advertising industry is based on an exchange that is no longer be valid. Other than one chapter which deals with ad-blocking and another about privacy concerns, Auletta spends little time exploring the consumer’s outright rejection of advertising.

If we’re talking about disruption in the ad biz, we have to borrow the infamously head-scratching quote from Donald Rumsfield:

there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones

Auletta’s book – understandably – deals with the first two categories. After all, it’s pretty hard to write a 358 page book on what you don’t know you don’t know. But as Rumsfeld said, it’s that category where you find your “gotchas.”

If we are really going to look at “epic disruptions” we have look at the foundations, not the increasingly shaky edifices built on those foundations. And the foundation of advertising is the exchange of a consumer’s attention in return for something of value to them. In the past, that has either been entertainment or information. And we – the consumers – placed value on those things because there was no other place to get them. Scarcity confers value. But that is no longer true. Our expectations have changed when it comes to sourcing both information and entertainment.

I’ve stated this before and it’s this quote that Auletta used – twice. While I’m grateful for that, I believe that this disruption in value exchange is not just an interesting aside. It’s the key to the whole thing. I don’t care if your advertising is driven by the smartest AI super-algorithm powered by munching on my personal data. If I didn’t ask to see your ad, I don’t want to see it. Period. I have many choices, and watching intrusive ads are way down my list.

If I’m right, I’m not sure what that means for the future. But this rejection of advertising by the market is the place where those things we don’t know we don’t know live. Yes, advertising holding companies are doomed. But I also think that Facebook’s future as an ad-financed platform is similarly doomed. And that’s certainly not something that made it into Ken Auletta’s book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Marketing is Increasingly Polarizing Everything

 

Trump. Kanye. Kaepernick. Miracle Whip.

What do these things all have in common? They’re polarizing. Just the mention of them probably stirs up strong feelings in you, one way or the other.

Wait. Miracle Whip?

Yep. Whether you love or hate Miracle Whip is perhaps the defining debate of our decade.

Okay, maybe not. But it turns out that Miracle Whip – which I always thought of as the condiment counterpart to vanilla – is a polarized brand, according to an article in the Harvard Business Review.  And far from being aghast at the thought, Kraft Foods, the maker of Miracle Whip, embraced the polarization with gusto. They embedded it in their marketing.

I have to ask – when did it become a bad thing to be vanilla? I happen to like vanilla. But I always order something else. And there’s the rub. Vanilla is almost never our first choice, because we don’t like to be perceived as boring.

Boring is the kiss of death for marketing. So even Miracle Whip, which is literally “boring” in a jar, is trying to “whip” up some controversy. Our country is being split down the middle and driven to either side – shoved to margins of outlier territory. Outrageous is not only acceptable. It’s become desirable. And marketing is partly to blame.

We marketers are enamored with this idea of “viralness.” We want advertising to be amplified through our target customer’s social networks. Boring never gets retweeted or shared. We need to be jolted out of those information filters we have set on high alert. That’s why polarization works. By moving to extremes, brands catch our attention. And as they move to extremes, they drag us along with them. Increasingly, the brands we chose as our own identifying badges are moving away from any type of common middle ground. Advertising is creating a nation of ideological tribes that have an ever-increasing divide separating them.

The problem is that polarization works. Look at Nike. As Sarah Mahoney recently documented in a Mediapost article, the Colin Kaepernick campaign turned some impressive numbers for Nike. Research from Kantar Millward Brown found these ads were particularly effective in piercing our ennui. The surprising part is that it did it on both sides of the divide. Based on Kantar’s Link evaluation, the ad scored in the top 15% of ads on something called “Power Contribution.” According to Kantar, that’s the ad’s “potential to impact long-term equity.” If we strip away the “market-speak” from this, that basically means the Kaepernick ads make them an excellent tribal badge to rally around.

If you’re a marketer, it’s hard to argue with those numbers. And Is it really important if half the world loves a brand, and the other half hates it? I suspect it is. The problem comes when we look at exactly the same thing Kantar’s Link Evaluation measures – what is the intensity of feeling you have towards a brand? The more intense the feeling, the less rational you are. And if the object of your affection lies in outlier territory – those emotions can become highly confrontational towards those on the other side of the divide. Suddenly, opinions become morals, and there is no faster path to hate than embracing a polarized perspective on morality. The more that emotionally charged marketing pushes us towards the edges, the harder it is to respect opinions that are opposed to our own. This embracing of polarization in non-important areas – like which running shoes you choose to wear – increases polarization in other areas where it’s much more dangerous. Like politics.

As if we haven’t seen enough evidence of this lately, polarized politics can cripple a country. In a recent interview on NPR, Georgia State political science professor Jennifer McCoy listed three possible outcomes from polarization. First, the country can enter polarization gridlock, where nothing can get done because there is a complete lack of trust between opposing parties. Secondly, a polarization pendulum can occur, where power swings back and forth between the two sides and most of the political energy is expended undoing the initiatives of the previous government. Often there is little logic to this, other than the fact that the initiatives were started by “them” and not “us.” Finally, one side can find a way to stay in power and then actively work to diminish and vanquish the other side by dismantling democratic platforms.

Today, as you vote, you’ll see ample evidence of the polarization of America. You’ll also see that at least two of the three outcomes of polarization are already playing out. We marketers just have to remember that while we love it when a polarized brand goes viral, there may be another one of those intended consequences lurking in the background.