Semantics for Real

I recently listened to a presentation by Steven Pinker on language and the human brain. He is a neuroscientist who has specialized in the way people use and respond to language. There are some very interesting, innate behaviors associated with this that transect race, class and culture. I was there because I had a sneaky feeling that the subject would shed some light on the changes going on in the world of branding right now. My hunch was right and this is what I came away with.

People engage in different types of relationships and, for the purpose of linguistics, these are divided into 3 categories.

Dominant
Reciprocal
Communal

Dominant relationships are ones in which one person is clearly in control. It could be your boss or the maitre de at the restaurant you want to eat at. Reciprocal relationships are transactional; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Buying a used car from a stranger or chatting with a store attendant would fit here. Finally there are communal relationships. This would be your spouse, family and friends.

So, not surprisingly, there are a completely different set of linguistic rules and norms at play in each of these categories. You wouldn't adopt the same conversational style with your brother as you would with a colleague or a server in a restaurant. In fact, we experience discomfort and unease in situations where the conversational style does not fit the relationship type. Have you ever been made to feel uncomfortable when somebody you had a reciprocal relationship with started talking to you about a personal problem? That conversation is out of place outside of a communal relationship and it makes you feel weird.

This starts to be relevant to consumer behavior and branding when we look at the history of marketing over the last 50 or so years. People used to look up to corporations and trust them. Corporations basically told people what to do and they did it. Marketing messages were directive and commanding. Buy Clorox! Drive a Chrysler! This is language that is associated with dominant relationships and worked at a time when people were comfortable being led by corporations. As consumers evolved they moved into reciprocal relationships with brands and the messages became more of an appeal than a command. It was a case of persuading the consumer to enter into an exchange. The language of branding moved into the category of the reciprocal language that we all innately use to communicate within this type of relationship. This is definitely simplistic but you get my drift…

Now this is where things get really interesting. I would suggest that what is underway right now is a transition towards communal type relationships with brands. We want to know who companies are, if they share our values, if they conform to our perspective on the world and so on. We are demanding relationships with companies and brands that go far beyond the transaction, and a level of engagement that is more akin to what we expect from our friends. We expect honesty and openness. Demand responsiveness and recognition of ourselves as individuals. We seek engagement through dialogue of some kind and a collaborative environment in which to explore our options. Basically we are looking for communal relationships with all the complexities involved.

In order to survive this shift, companies need to understand the semantic and linguistic rules that define communal relationships and employ them in the way that they speak to their customers. People are a long way from wanting to be told what to do and traditional, persuasive branding that has no relationship with the actual values and behavior of the company is wearing thin. Communal relationships will only be fostered by companies able to speak the language that engenders them and then ensure that they have an authentic and sustainable engagement with their customers. We, as humans, innately sense deception within communal relationships so they can't be faked. This is the reason for the growing emphasis on authenticity in branding. Nobody woke up and decided it was time to get real. Companies are unable to practice deception in the context of a communal relationship without coming across as insincere and tinny. The best thing about all of this is it's science. It's measurable and quantifiable and easily demonstrated by everyday examples to which we can all relate. It's also a great argument for the huge importance in continuing investment in marketing strategy during this time of transition. Mr. Pinker has written a couple of pretty popular books on the subject if its something you want to know more about.