Organizations as Evolutionary Entities
the simple yet complex task of curbing unwanted behavior
Posted Apr 4, 03:01 pm in business, business models, economics, human nature, marketing
In two separate incidents yesterday, I was conversing with friends who were lamenting about how awful the press is, with their sensationalist headlines, sordid gossip-mongering, and terrible invasions of privacy. “It’s awful,” my colleague remarked, “They are ruining the world. Why don’t they take it upon themselves to be more constructive and positive?”
I don’t disagree that the press is ridiculous sometimes. But at the same time, anyone who understands marketing has to understand that corporations, including the press, are mirrors of our society. They must be to survive. If sensationalism didn’t sell, no one would be publishing such stuff; it just wouldn’t make business sense.
I think of organizations as animals operating in an evolutionary context. Give a dog a treat when it acts in a certain way and it will instinctively continue to perform that action in the future in order to get more treats; it’s a simple matter of self-preservation. If you can secure your food source, you are less likely to die. Punish the dog for an action, and over time it will eventually stop; clearly, you don’t want to piss off the hand that feed you.
We like to complain about tabloid newspapers, environmental destroyers, and otherwise irresponsible companies, but when it comes time to punish them for what we claim to disdain, we do the exact opposite and throw them a treat— whether that is by buying their products, rewarding short-term profits on Wall Street, or by throwing up our hands and disavowing our own role in the process.
The concept is very simple. Money is the lifeblood of organizations. Withhold it from them and they’ll stop what they’re doing.* It just makes economic sense for them. And while that may be a hollow victory to some who want companies to acknowledge some moral responsibility for their reformations, this is probably the best they’re going to get on any global scale for now. And besides, even though it may only be for economic reasons, scientific inquiry has repeatedly shown: economics is one of the primary drivers of behavior in modern social settings— and it would be foolish indeed to ignore that.
* Take for example this article, which talks about how an angry internet mob banded together to stop buying Tropicana orange juice because they were angry about the redesigned package. In my opinion, a ridiculous, laughable reason to get outraged; but nevertheless, they got the company to revert to their old design by causing a 20% drop in sales! Now imagine if people were outraged about things that really mattered…
Yo Dude,
1. changing OJ packaging is simple and easy for a company to do.
2. internet mobs don’t cause 20% drop in sales, shitty packaging causes 20% drop in sales.
Fucking internet mobs hi-fiving and shit.
— Yo Dude · Jul 16, 01:17 am · #
Point 2 is well taken. Perhaps it was the new design itself that caused consumer behavior to change. However, I personally did not think the change was all that bad or even notable. I did notice it, but it really would not have affected my behavior.
— Rahul · Jul 16, 11:24 am · #