Not to sound like an old person, but we used to say (way back in the day) that the best art was created in the hardest times. Why? Because artists were the ones who could best reflect the struggles people faced, the complexity of the times, or point out the hypocrisy of those in power who kept others from their own pursuit of their dreams or happiness. You need only think of Dickens, Shakespeare, or even as recently as the films and music of the 1970s. The art that was created said something. It was done for the arts’ sake. Not for just money but to say something deeper, more meaningful – and it “sold” or was consumed for that very reason.[1]

Today, I wonder if the same thing is true. We still have artists, yes. But today we have a lot more of what I would call transactional artists – those that have come to the forefront simply because they follow a formula to “sell.” Ever notice today’s new artists – whether it’s on music, film, or even audio – are all good-looking? Can you make it today if you have an ugly band? It’s a serious question. Would 5’4” Ronnie James Dio ever get a record deal these days? Would Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young? Would their songs (sometimes about deeper or darker or even abstract themes) – and dare I say involving an actual bridge – ever make the radio today?

Money is not just our currency, it’s become a lot more of who we are. These days, our pursuit of it reveals our motives – and oftentimes, our justifications to take the shortest and easiest route possible to get it.”

And look, I’m speaking not just about art. It’s about everything in society these days. Money is not just our currency, it’s become a lot more of who we are. These days, our pursuit of it reveals our motives – and oftentimes, our justifications to take the shortest and easiest route possible to get it.

Doing things for the love of it? Helping people? Bring others joy? To some, that sounds so naïve. Who does that? Especially when your entire goal is to sell now – and quickly.

 

Layoffs, AI, Politics: What Isn’t a Transaction Now?

For example, ask the average CEO what he or she truly prioritizes most for his or her company. The answer in public might be long-term growth, but if he or she is being honest, the priority will almost always fall on hitting the numbers this quarter in the most frictionless way. And the people that work there? They either support that immediate goal or they’re not valued.

In other words, the business and the employees are just another transaction.

All those people telling you AI is great for mankind? That it’s going to free us up to do other wonderful things! Huh? We’ve lived well now for decades without it. And let’s be honest. The only reason it’s being developed as aggressively as it is right now is that it will help save companies on cost. That cost? It’s you and me.

We just had an election in this country. The country chose perhaps the most transactional person they could have, over someone who was certainly more thoughtful, less volatile, and more stable. So now that individual who occupies the highest office in the land (with his billionaire henchman) is siding with dictators, cutting people’s jobs in the federal government, cutting funding for universities, cutting research at non-profits, and cutting funding for certain industries (because none of it fits their own transactional agenda).

 

The Implications of a Transactional Society: Exhibit A, The Cleveland Browns

Here’s another example. I’m a Cleveland Browns fan. I grew up in Cleveland, rooting for the Kardiac Kids, Brian Sipe, and the great Bernie Kosar. I witnessed the heartbreak of “The Drive” and “The Fumble,” which ironically, looking back, were the franchise’s best years in recent history.

But what happened since then? I watched Art Modell take the team under the cover of night and move to Baltimore. For him, it was a transaction, that’s all. Browns fans? They didn’t matter.

After waiting out a season, the Browns franchise did come back. But it took more than two decades to get the team to the playoffs, after many miserable years.

Most recently, all of us have watched the current owners, the Haslams, insist upon signing Deshaun Watson to a $230 million contract, despite having more than 20 women come forward to accuse the QB of sexual assault. Forget character. Or leadership. Or role models. The idea was that Deshaun, with his talent alone, would bring Super Bowl glory. That’s what mattered. You only need to look at what happened to the Browns this past year to see how that transactional approach turned out.

 

The Implications of a Transactional Society: Product & Marketing

What’s the point? Inevitably, a transactional approach focuses only on money or success. It doesn’t focus on people. It follows a formula, zeroing in on the shortest way to a goal. The problem, of course, with taking this route is that it rarely produces anything of lasting value. Look at the artists of today. Will you remember any of them, like you will the Rolling Stones? Or take captains of AI, the owners of the Browns, and the current occupant of the White House. All of these individuals will make lots of money. But for the most part, it will ultimately come at the expense of the rest of us.

In marketing, which we focus on, you need only look at this year’s Super Bowl ads to see what’s becoming of our industry as result of this more transactional approach. The ads were bizarre, ridiculous and overall, maybe the worst in recent memory. But that was likely on purpose. The data, after all, shows you want to get people talking about your commercial. That’s what matters. So, creating something completely out there is one way to do it. Is it quality? Is it on-brand? What does it matter? As long as people talk about it. The shortest, most frictionless route to the goal.

 

‘If the American People Are Transactional, Shouldn’t I Sell Transactional?’

Let’s be honest: None of us are in the business of “not-selling.”  Our goal is to get people to buy more, that’s what we do. So, you might ask: “If the American people are more and more transactional, shouldn’t we be the same when we market to them, especially if a formula or data says that something works?”

I don’t know the answer. But I’d argue a few things. Data and formulas can reveal the truth but they can also lie in a way that an average person may not see. Human beings are dynamic in ways that data can’t always capture. Data may seem to indicate one thing, but it could be entirely different in practice. Maybe you don’t have enough data to have the full picture. Maybe your formula only works on certain types of individuals. So, interpreting it with nuance matters. And in our experience, those who interpret it by taking the shortest route to something will often not succeed.

The other argument: In a transactional world, I think what you’ll end up seeing is that soulless, formulaic approaches that are being taken today will eventually give way to old fundamentals of marketing such as establishing authenticity, meaning, and connection. Data and formulas have trouble quantifying this because they’re nuanced and, honestly, require a bit of creativity.

In a transactional world, I’d suggest people will crave this even more. From companies, family, friends, and the like. At least that’s my hope.

[1] OK, yes, not everything in the ‘70s was all that deep or meaningful, but artists even then did things because they wanted to, not because it sold.