Education is very expensive

I borrow the title from a fellow american marketer

I am in shock. What I’m thinking right now is:

“We’re an easy-going, cheap, fast and sexual culture.”

Oh hell, I don’t like it. It’s not enjoyable, after all these lies we’ve been told along the way to learn to like it. Speaking about the western civilization.

Let me give a little context around my thoughts. I just came back from a month in Asia, specifically from Malaysia and Singapore. My thoughts got confirmed: South-East Asia is a communally organized part of the world, they’re team players and close to their family. Without having to analyze their sociopolitical situation to explain whether this is a lifestyle worth living or not, I betake to the daily cues to give an answer (for myself): people are smiling. An original human smile never fails to reveal that something feels right about what they do.

Maybe it’s the cheap food that’s everywhere, maybe their absence of fear to talk with strangers and neighbours, maybe ‘they don’t know’, since they’re too ‘pure’ for a brand-dominated world, to the verge of being characterized as naive by westerners.

Back to Europe now, where I’ve spent my life when not traveling. Specifically back to London. Corporate, fast-paced world, things looking beautiful, sexualized. We think it’s proper to have Miley Cyrus in the news. Food is expensive and looks sexy too.

Here’s the thing I don’t like, and I think the western world is going to shit for that:

We’ve branded everything, from food to education. Against the common belief in marketing, branding sometimes amplifies than fixes the problem.

How is that all related to the reality of all musicians?

Today I read an article of Hugh MacLeod, a fellow american marketer, titled ‘Education is Expensive’. Taken from the actual text:

“For many reasons, basing your marketing on educating the consumer is one of the most expensive forms of marketing there is. It is a bad idea for lots of reasons a) Nobody cares about your product as much as you think they do. B) It requires an unrealistic expectation of engagement from the consumer and C) It is incredibly slow and time consuming.”

What’s more:

“By contrast, if you can target your product to an existing need, you’ll have a much easier time selling, with much lower costs. Here are two contrasting approaches. The first is based upon education, the second is based upon style, celebration and sex appeal - no education required.”

That’s my big problem. We’re an easy-going, cheap, fast and sexual culture. No room for organic liking, for behaviour-altering experiences. Only reinforcement of the already known: sex, style, brands sell and they’re cheaper to reproduce. Everything has to be marketed that way, we think.

I feel uncomfortable.This is not the innovative mindset that one should bear.

If you have in mind to please the stakeholders with quarterly profits, go this way, it will help you please them and keep your job.

But if you’re an individual that envisions a better world with changes and flux, your priority should be to create transformative habits, not to conform for the sake of efficiency. It’s more expensive, more time-consuming, probably less money-making too. But it’s transformative, meaningful, inspirational.

Part of innovation is discovering unprimed habits and educating people to follow them.

Take an example what Darker Music Talks is doing.

In order for the Musicpreneur culture shift to emerge, musicians need to understand why knowledge outside their music box (i.e. entrepreneurship, psychology, design attitude etc.) is important; and make it a habitual way of thinking. One can’t expect for these loops to arise by feeding the current needs/trends, following a ‘style, celebration, sex’ formula (although, at first, the message needs to be communicated in a way that people are familiar with, to avoid the information gap — innovation never comes overnight)!

Die For 9 is another example.

People are used to buying/streaming/freeloading musical content, which is not financially in favor of content creators — only iTunes makes money from selling digital music! — something that will only be reinforced if new habits are taught, through the educational approach.

I see a bright future in creating experiences, not merely Mp3s, that’s why I invested time in building Die For 9 — a theatrical, interactive rock experience, where the audience is part of the performance, which is different each time. Music is embedded in other forms of art, in other words, creating a richer experience, which is still based on our original music compositions.

Still, people have to be educated how to like this form of experience, since it will not be easy to digest the first time it’s encountered, though highly rewarding once they feel more comfortable around it.

The same thing can apply about music itself. Pop music is something we understand. Fusion jazz is a niche genre of music people have to learn how to like.

Conclusion

Hugh MacLeod didn’t get it wrong. He couldn’t get it wrong. It’s just that the approach doesn’t find me aligned, since it reinforces a broken, yet profitable, system — and I don’t find any point doing that (except for the monetary rewards), since our western culture could be much richer and meaningful (and organic).

A musician’s duty is to cause change (or describe the change) in habits and educate.

Don’t forget that.

What do you vote, to walk the hard road of education or to serve already existing needs?