I go to church. The church I go to would have people categorize me as evangelical Christian, although it’s not a label I would usually apply to myself. People are often surprised that I am a churchgoer. The way I dress, some of my laissez-faire viewpoints do not necessarily fit one’s “standard” idea of a Christian.
I am also in a history book club. At our last meeting we discussed Neil Maher’s book, Nature’s New Deal. We all really enjoyed the book, which looks at FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps through the eyes of the socio-political issues of the time, (1930s & 40s). It gave rise to some great discussions.
One guy who was attending, a friend of the author (who was also in attendance – how cool is our book club!) said during discussion, “How can evangelical Christians support Trump? He is against their beliefs.” Common, smart rules of discussion would have advised me to leave that comment be… But I said, “I am an evangelical Christian and I don’t support him.” Luckily we extricated ourselves from that rabbit hole before we went too deep, but it really got me thinking.
There is a book called, What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America that explores the idea that certain states the author feels should be voting Democrat (and used to reliably vote Democrat), are now solidly Republican. Part of what I realized from reading Neil Maher’s book was that these states originally used to be Republican, went Democrat as a (purposeful) result of the New Deal and now are moving back to the place from whence they came.
What does this have to do with marketing…?
Well, in the long and hard thinking about this that is my job and that Neil Maher’s book inspired, I really saw how often we decide for ourselves what groups other people should belong to. – At our peril.
The guy at book club thought evangelical Christians see themselves as that first and so should form their voting decisions based primarily on their religion. People who think Kansans should vote blue are deciding the citizens of that state should look at broad social-economic policy and decide that Democrats would offer more protection to populations living in areas in economic decline.
But more than ever before, we are seeing people feeling much more free to “identify” with groups that make sense to them but may not be the most obvious based on their surroundings, or gender or whatever.
The tools of this seminal change? The apps on our smartphones.
The most powerful force of social media is that it allows “me” to find other people just like “me” on a national and even global scale, whereas not too long ago, I’d have to decide whether I wanted to “belong” or “not belong” based on the people I would physically run into through the course of my day, week, year.
Now I can feel like I belong, even if the group I belong to is spread out very widely in a geographic sense. However, in a communications sense we can be talking and reinforcing each other 24/7.
The old rules don’t fit. People are, less and less, part of a geographically-based groups. They are members of communication groups. It is people’s shared experiences and opinions that make them part of any group. Or a voting bloc. And those groups are now being defined by Facebook and Snapchat, etc., not by zip codes.
So be careful in defining people-groups the way you used to.
People are becoming less “Kansans” or “Christians.” They are “them.” A small (or large) collection of self-defined important viewpoints that become honed and hardened by largely talking only with others of the same viewpoints. And feeling very comfortable with being hostile to those with opposing viewpoints. (Just check out the comments section on any news site, YouTube or wherever commentary is allowed.) The drift would seem to be that instead of the collage of views and personality that any person has when you meet them in real-life, a social media relationship may only consist of the viewpoints you and “they” happen to mesh upon.
The internet has the power to bring people of widely disparate views together for discussion, but more and more it seems that the “melting pot” is reverting to a bowl of separate ingredients. (That may react violently when combined.) This can allow powerful specificity for communications strategies, but must be pursued thoughtfully.
Anyone who has seen me talk has heard me talk about conversing with potential stakeholders in a “resonant format” – i.e., in a way that makes sense to that group and identifies you as someone sensitive to that group. That is only going to get more important. Hardened “micro-groups” mean it can be easy to find people that “like” you. But it is also getting increasingly easier to step on communications land mines and face focused wrath as a result.
— Simon Dixon