Blog

Marketing

Advertising

Promotion

Public Relations

A good old fashioned working class Yorkshire lad goes in our local pub. I’ll call him anti-Paul. Paul isn’t his real name (although he will never read this), but the “anti” comes from him being negative towards just about anything. He is a regular typhoid Mary of that hardcore mindset, stalwart in his own opinions, but cannot see how they are self-limiting. I suppose that is true for most of us to some extent, but this one borderes on characature. He is actually a good guy, but I use the hopefully not too offensive name anti-Paul to innoculate myself from accepting anything he says at face value. He and his ilk (ie my own Dad) might well be considered as an unquaranteened reservoir species of Z memes. I’ve been picking some out.

One of my favorates is that of “useless knowledge”. As I self-identify as an engineer, and judging from some of the wishy-washy studies I have read, I sympathise to some extent. However, in difference to pure research that hasn’t attracted an application yet, I believe, as a Z meme, “useless knowledge” is meant to imply valueless knowledge. Academics and philosophers would provide arguments about the value of such knowledge (which engineers would find largely impractical.) While Paul’s opinions appear to be based on practicality, and I’m sure that is true in his eyes, there is likely to be something going on there, a whole self-sustaining memeplex, which as a Z meme is both limiting and dangerious. Identifying and eliminating maladaptive memes is a practical aspiration incedentally – but I’ll waffle about it here.

 

 

Drilldown: //Grand Framework 0.1.0/Cliome/Meme/Noam/Sigma

In Brief

The processes of direct selling and multi-level marketing are analysed using the cliological frameworks.

Details

Cliome

Meme

 

 

 

Both the set of customers and the set of vendors are demes. A deme is sub-population within a species of adherents in a culture as defined by the cliomes that they adhere to: the adaptive meme complex or memeplex, that they have in their brains (cliomes are built from a framework of communicable noams ie. memes, which are behviour related components). The customer deme are the set of people (or companies) who have the cliome of wanting a solution to their situation, be that some product or service. In framework terms, they are situationally aware of their frontline engagement, but are frustrated by lacking the potential response, and therefore invoke aquisitional engagement. They don’t currently possess the know what, know how, or resources or tools to solve their problem so are in the market for some product or service which can help them. An unkempt lawn can be annoying to a proud gardener; they want to do something about it. The vendor deme are the set of traders (possibly companies) that have a cliome of being able to provide a solution, in the form of products or services, to others who are in some particular type of problematic situation.

The concept of a cliome is almost synonymous with that of a memeplex, a coherent cluster of memes, or placed in framework terms, a cluster of communicable noams (noting that not all noams are necessarlity communicable; those which are become memes). Here then we have interactive engagement between the noams of a customer in one deme, and the noams of the vendor in another. The interacting noam of the customer is aquisitional and in the service of their fronline engagement noam – two essential noams in this situation. To say that a noam is either aquisitional or frontline, is somewhat relative, but aquisitional noams are those that act in the service other noams, whether those other noams are frontline, or further aquisitional noams, or whatever. In the lawnmower example, the frontline noam is concerned with dealing with long grass, the aquisitional noam is concerned with obtainng the tool of a lawnmower that would service the frontline noam of cutting the grass.

An interactive noam could be frontline, or aquisitional, but the key feature is that it interacts with the noams of others. A sales transaction between a customer and a vendor is an interaction between noam in a customer deme and a noam in a vendor deme. The act of buying a new lawnmower is one of aquisition, whcih requires interaction with someone who is selling such a device. Conversly, the act of selling a lawnmower might be termed “provident“, as they are providing something to someone. Again, the terms are reletive. From another perspective, one person is providing money; the other aquiring it for some later frontline purposes, such as buying things that they need. The customer-vendor relationship usually indicates the flow of the fungible resource of money. When examined this way, the frameworks not only show the “value chain”, but also that the chain is really a network topology of a circuit, not dissimilar to an electrical one.

[diagram of interactive noams and value circuit]

So, in this model the customer has an aquisitional noam interacting with the vendor’s provident noam. Actually, these noams are memes, as they are culturally aquired, the individuals involved have learned how to buy and sell. However, to simplify the modellinig, the replicating component (psi) is suppressed and left inferred as it is not essential to the examination of a direct sales case. Looking at the interaction between the direct sales case will inform the MLM case.

Direct interaction at noamic level

Lets think about these in more familiar terms. Someone who is proud of their home sees that their grass is getting long; they are not satisfied with this situation and want to do something about it. It becomes apparent that a lawnmower would be useful, but they don’t have one and so have to do something about that first: go and buy one. That person then pays a visit to the garden centre where they see a range of products, talk to the salesperson about their requirements, listen to recommendations, choose a model, and purchase it. They then go home and cut their lawn, then sit around in their garden.

So, to that person, their underlying value is pride in their home. Their situational awareness is that the grass is long. This situational awareness clashes with their values leading to dissatisfaction and therefore corrective motivation, but this is frustrated through lack of means of currently possessing a lawnmower. This is the frontline noam of the customer. Such frustration leads to the aquisitional noam with an underlying value of having the means for cutting grass.  The situational awareness of not having such means (as already given) clashes with the value here, and so indicates corrective motivation. This is not frustrated though as, while they might not presently have a lawnmower, they do have the means to obtain one, and that action is invoked. The aquisitional noam is now satisfied as the value of having the means for cutting grass has been met, and no further corrective aquisitional behaviour is required. Notably, aquisitional behaviour doesn’t affect their pride in their home, and the grass is still growing, so there is still a clash. What it does do is allow the corrective motivation to be channeled into action, the homeowner can now mow their lawn, and when they have done so, they will have short grass. The situational awareness then becomes that of having a neatly mown lawn, which satisfies their values pf having pride in their home – bliss. To summerise, frustration in the frontline noam calls for an aquisitional noam, which can be satisfied in this case. Satiosfation of the aquisitional noam then provides the means to go back and satisfy the frontline noam reacing a state of unistable-equilibrium. These are the two essential noams in a cliome that define a customer deme.

V_a^V_f)

An ineraction occurs when two people communicate with each other.  When the homeoner walks into the garden centre, a interaction begins. The sales staff will watch them browse around the lawnmowers, looking at prices and specs, and at some point will give signals that they need assistance. They can approach with an “are you being served?” opener and get into a conversation. The values of the vendor, through the sales staff are selling goods, customer service, and utlimatly making a living and a profit. Their situational awareness is the presence of a customer, which presents a prospecive sales opportunity. A quiet day for sales is not so satisfying compared with a good day and the presence of the customer is motivation to use their sales skills. This is the frontline noam of the vendor, and is satisfied when a happy customer leaves the shop with thier new lawnmower.

V_p)

The essential noams in this scenario, and there could be others, then are the customer’s frontline (stimulated by seeing long grass), and their aquisitional (of not having a lawnmower); and the vendors frontline (of spotting a customer). The customer’s aquisitional interacts with the vendor’s frontline.

V_p^ V_a^V_f)

MLM interaction on top of direct interaction

This all might seem like labouring the point to shoehorn something obvious into  some mathematical system, but of course, this isn’t a guide to selling or buying lawnmowers. Of course, sales people are welcome to find ways of applying it,  such as identifying and addressing the clash between a customer’s situation and values; essentially this model is an extension to FAB selling. The point here though is to identify the general pattern of dynamics in the sales transaction and understand the behavioural components of similar scenarios. With a model of the basic direct sales pattern, we can now move on to see how MLM builds upon it by introducing viral components. A more systematic understanding of the viral dynamics could well be used to help sales directors harness the power of referral in human social networks; a move away from “unicorns and rainbows”, and towards a contextual behavioural science of going viral.

 

[MOVE MOST OF THIS TO FRAMEWORK EXAMPLE

In the frameworks: noams consist of two fabula elements, and fabula elements consist of two toulmin elements; a noam is therefore four Toulmins. The two fablua elements of a noam are represented by the two oblique sides of the inverted triangle (each side is therefore two Toulmins.) The left-side represents motivation or otherwise, while the right-side is about satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction arises where the situation clashes with values thereby inducing a need, or motivation, do do something about the situation. Consequently, the right-hand side fablua element of the noam (dissatisfaction) drives the left-hand side fablua of the noam (motivation). Let’s disassemble the customer’s left-side of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a situation, in terms of direct sales, first.

V)

Fabula was inspired by FAB selling and is therefore a useful way of examining direct sales. FAB sellinig referrs to Features, Advantages (or sometimes Attributes), Benefits, and really offers the sales person, who is thinkiing on their feet, a nmumonic for a sales structure. Feature dumping can easily bamboozle a customer. This is where they are told specifications of the product, but the problem is that they might not know what these things mean. The classic example is a tech geek bragging about processor clock speeds to a senior customer who just wants to be in contact with her grand-daughter in Australia. Because of the FAB selling model’s limitations, it has been extended to FABULA which considers both the vendor and the customer, or rather their mindsets, and the bridge between them. The FABULA framework is described in detail, but is summerised here.

A FABULA (or FABVLa, see the page) element is of the logic structure of Toulmin framework arguments – or logical reasoning. One argument links a product’s features (ie specifications) to the advantages that it could confer to someone (the FA argument). A second argument links the values of a particular customer to the things they might like; the kind of property that would satify their values (the VL argument). A third argument is that of bridging wherein the advantages of the product are associated with what the customer likes. So there is a Toulmin framework argument on both the product and customer side, and also one that brings them together (the B argument).

[move some of this?]

Without going into depth about Toulmin arguments here, the essence of their present application (and there are some other aspects relevant to the fuller framework) is that they have a claim, the truth of which is yet to be determined, and a grounds, the truth of which is known, or at least agreed upon. The truth of the claim is based on the grounds, but deducing the claim also calls for a warrant: the warrant is a rule that links the agreed truth of the grounds to the assessment of the claim. They resemble a material implication in logic, however there are some philosophical differences. They are structured

• w= g->c;   the warrant is a rule that if the grounds is true then the claim is true; it explains how the two are connected.
• g; the grounds is true, or at least agreed
• w; the warrant is plausable,
• ∴ c; the grounds and the warrant are agreed, so the claim can also be accepted

So, back to the product firstly – the FA argument linking the products features to advantages. The specification is essentially uncontestable, they are printed in black and white on the spec sheet, but how these translate into advantages (or attributes) may not be self-evident and therefore need explaining. A warrant might not always be required in practice, or might consist of a chain of arguments, but the structure is:

• features = grounds
• advantages = claim
• explanation = warrant = g->c = features -> advantages

So given

• the features are easy to confirm
• the explanation how the features translate into advantages makes sense
• ∴ advantages can be accepted

So, the vendor can explain to the customer what the advantages are. For example, a lawnmower may have a 30 litre grass box, which is larger than most competing models, and so more time mowing and less time emptying.

purely down to the product But this ignores the custoemrs needs. the VL side of the argument linking the customer’s values to what they want, need, or would like. Again, what a customer says they value is gospel as the customer is always right. What they need, or think they need, is a different matter.This is a distinction [covered in a differnt section] between what is deeply important to them, and the method of satifying that underlying value. How the values that the cherishes, can be serviced through aquiring what they need may also require some explaining which also carries the structure of a toulmin argument. Establishing what the customer values and finds important is down to communication with them, which is an art in itself.

• values = grounds
• liking = claim
• explanation = warrant

So given

• the customer’s underlying deeper values are understood
• the explanation of how they would probably like something based on their values, makes sense
• the things that are likely to satisfy them can be accepted

So, the vendor, once they values have been elicited then suggesting what may suit them would be of the form, “So if you value that, then you probably would like this”. It could be that the customer is proud of their lovely garden. Then it could be hypothesised ) that they would like to spend more time enjoying the fruits of their work. This can be confirmed quite easily by putting that to them.

So, from the two essentially uncontestable grounds of product features and cutomer values, we can establish the claims of the advantages that the product offers, and what the cusomer is bound to like. The final part is bridging those claims: showing that the product offers what the customer wants and is therefore of benefit to them, the B. If the sales pitch is done with finesse, then the customer is likely to join the dots themselves. This could be put in toulmin form, but for simplicities sake, is just a case of associating the likings of the customer with the products advantages. If these don’t match then a sale is unlikely, for example, if the customer lives at the top of a block of flats, then they are unlikely to appreaciate the merits of a lawnmower, however great they might be.

Put together, this gives us a fablua structure bridging the both grounds of product features and customer values. Moving back up to the noam framework, this gives us the right-oblique side of the inverted triangle: the link between the situational awareness (sigma) and the values (nu) which are evaluated (pi) for satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

 

 

Noam

FABULA

Toulmin

/

[noam pi analysis explanation in direct sales]

Someone who is aware that a situaion and their values are in conflict, in these terms, is a potential customer. They may value their home and garden, but they can see the grass is long – this forms a conflict, a sense of dissatisfaction, and therefor the urge to do something about it. The features are long grass, the values are homely pride

A noam is of the structure: V)

Hence a noam, in fabula terms is rendered as two fabula elements:

COBRA analysis

[fabula reduction]]

 

 

Help me find a music publisher and you could win pounds! Join this memetic experiment

 

 

I’ve been messing around with computers and synths for about 85% of my life. I’m a total studio rat and code geek.

Frankly, I’ve done plenty of high-brow self-indulgent crap which I thought was quite clever. Well, we all have an ego to feed. But now, being a memetic engineer (or better still a “cliologist”), I’ve turned my attention to the viralization of contemporary popular music. In the name of science of course.

In my list of possible users of cliology, I put in megalomaniacs. I claimed that this inclusion served as a reminder that the tool-kit of cliology was ethically agnostic, but it really is quite transparent that I’m talking about myself there. The viralisation of contemporary popular music then is about abusing these cliological weapons so as to mass contaminate minds with sticky ditties and make me dirty stinking rich. Well we can always dream, but I still have an ego to feed.

I put all of this personal production work under the umbrella term Saccharine Choir. That is overly sweet and synthetic – and the fact that I ate a packet of sweeteners when I was a kid and it made me sick. Anyway, I like to use tons of airy pads and heavenly choirs as furnished by Native Instruments. That and the multitracking and pitch correction, offered by Steinberg Cubase, which even makes my singing not entirely like torture.

Under the Saccharine Choir banner is my Ohrwurm (earworm) programme of weaponizing pop music through the technology of memes. I’m not aiming at clever, or even good music here, just insanely popular: sickly sweet, but at least its not fattening. I’m after the ultimate killer hook, the ultimate in sorbitol laced chewing gum for the ears, the ultimate in heavy radio station rotation.

Of course synth choirs are a matter of convenience. I can pull up a sample library any time of day or night and get whatever I’m mumbling on dumped down for future reference. This isn’t something I can access with a few hundred real people. All this SaccChoir stuff is there to give me a mock-up demo. With that, I want to find real musos to get out a proper demo, then maybe approach a publisher with some thing they can commercialise. After that, its upto them to attract the superstar producers and A list artists. More dreams and ego fodder.

But let’s put it this way, I’ve probably made enough mistakes to realise the old time served maxim that ”it’s not what you know; it’s who you know” (or to be more cynical: it’s what you know about who you know). In practice I do know tons of folks; and I want to know tons more. The world is small, but massively fascinating. This is the principle of Milgram’s “small world problem” otherwise known as “six-degrees of separation” (or 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon) as scrutinised by network science. Network science has much to offer memetics and cliology as it also considers biological and ideological epidemiology: how thoughts spread through society. The upshot then is about getting a message from A to B where it is impossible to go direct, or for that matter know the path the message will take. The case here being getting a demo to the right publishers and getting a track to market. Hence, cliology is not just about fabricating the music, but also about its popularisation.

Here it is, after 30 years of Further Education and dedicated memetic research, I present the pinnacle of memetic re-engineering:

The LOL Chad

What is this miracle of modern technology? you ask.

Well, it is the successful hybridisation of two traditional meme forms:

• The Chad which predates the internet, which features a stylised cartoon character looking over a wall with the phrasal template (snowclone) of “WOT, NO X?”. Easy to copy, and express your own grievance at the lack of some essential resource.

 

• The LOLCat, an inexplicably popular digital age image macro featuring a super-kawaii kitty annotated with some misspelt phrase in the impact font.

 

Both memeplexes have their pedigree:

 

 

However, the most advanced research techniques (a few pints of beer) have allowed meme fragments to be scooped from these wild strains of LOLcat (Adviceanimalis lolfelis) and Chad (Chaddus quiznahilis). These fragments extracted were then recombined and spliced to produce the memetically modified chimaera: the LOLChad.

The was and the “WOT NO X?” phrasal templates have been retained from the chad, whereas the hands have become paws, while adapting the phemotypical traits of cats ears and nose and pupils. The variable, X, in the phrasal template also introduces the category selection restriction that it must be in relevant LOLspeak.

 

Ethics and dangers

Some would argue that meddling with memetics is against nature: If Ceiling Cat wanted Mr Chad to have cats ears, he would have created it.

More pressing, however, are safety concerns. Such hybrids have not been shown to be risk-free, and until scientifically proven and should be confined to the laboratory.

The dangers have been highlighted in the documentary The Epidemic which shows the hazards of an outbreak of unmodified chads. Their cultural effects are unknown. It is also quite possible that these engineered variants would have a significantly higher basic reproduction rate (R0). Consequently, they could and pose a threat to the cultural ecology were they to be introduced into the wild.