• by George Simpson , Featured Contributor, April 1, 2011

Mike Wolfsohn, founder and chief creative officer at a Venice, Calif. marketing firm called High Wide & Handsome -- the name of which has something to do with buildings or car racing, and apparently nothing to do with his personal physical attributes -- wrote an interesting byliner for Ad Age in which he says the consumer isn't really in control. He cites lots of examples, from DVRs to social media, to arrive at the notion that "This oft-cited apothegm is just a convenient excuse for advertisers and agencies that are unwilling to do the work required to shepherd a brand in a more complex media environment."

Talk about a buzz kill. Here I was thinking that since I can use my DVR to fast-forward through ads, can deploy a countless number of online ad blockers to avoid increasingly annoying display ads that autostart, flash and blink and otherwise distract, never feel guilty about throwing out magazines I didn't get to because they cost about $5 a year, and finally could pick and choose and even write online content, that I really did have some control. Or at least more than I did 20 years ago.

But, Mike says, that only gives me control over my media habits -- not brand-messaging. Even if I organize a couple thousand pals to dump on a brand that pissed me off (Apple comes to mind) via social media, Mike says this can be mitigated by acknowledging and in some way addressing the "needs, requests and sentiment of consumers." He asserts that with some effort, brands can use online to "amplify a brand's successes." But at the end of the day, godamnit, he doesn't "buy the idea that the consumer is in control."

But one might argue that since brands tend to tie their messaging to media to a fair extent, and media is something I can now largely control, and part of that control may be eliminating or at least dramatically minimizing the impact the brand's message has on my purchase intentions, does it really matter that I don't directly "control" the brand? I mean, I can complain about my shitty iPod nano experience until I am blue in the face and maybe get one that actually works, but I don't think anything I do will alter the brand messaging that emanates about nanos. Perhaps if a million Camry customers tell Toyota that they ought to put a wiper blade on the rear window, they might do it next model year, but it probably won't change their fundamental approach to marketing.

But isn't it nice to know that even if it isn't real, that brands fear consumer control (all the nonsensical claptrap to the contrary that they welcome being "in conversation" with their customers)? Historically, consumers had little recourse if brands broke their promises, but thanks to the Internet, which allows you to research and send letters or emails to an entire board of directors, a state attorney general or all the legislative aides or members of a Senate committee (perhaps while waiting on hold to speak to a customer service rep who speaks enough English to understand your complaint and only thanks you 12 times in the space of two minutes for calling), consumers now have at least a small shot at being heard. By the way, I don't think you should only communicate with brands if they screw up. I have written lots of fan letters to brands that consistently met or exceeded my expectations. And I've been stunned by the number that didn't bother to respond even with a form letter.

Certainly the rapid advance of electronic communications -- especially the Internet -- gives us the illusion of more power. It gives us some pricing leverage we never had before, if nothing else. I kind of like pretending I have power over brands. I like the power of tuning them out of my consideration set. And I think it will be really hard for Mike and his buds to convince me otherwise.