AdamWohl.com

Newton’s Laws of (E)motion?

Level-headed. Under control. Emotions in check. 

It’s not always an easy way to be, particularly when we’ve seen, read or heard something that has an impact on us, good or bad.  Our first instinct is to react.  To retreat from something hurtful or disappointing, to embrace the familiar and comforting. 

I was thinking about this the other night, after reading something that enraged me. I was able to quickly stifle my anger and move on, but I did consider that the thorn in my side could’ve easily pushed me to react, which reminded me of Newton’s third Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  So, I wondered: does that law apply to people and attitudes — do Newton’s Laws of (E)motion exist, creating specific, predicable reactions?  And more importantly, could these laws apply not only to interpersonal communication, but also to brand-consumer engagements?  So, I jumped in to see how deep I could dig an adjacent rabbit hole. 

A refresher course with proposed parallels:  

                                              Sir Issac Newton

Newton’s Laws of Motion/Possible Laws of (E)motion:

• First Law: Every body will persist in its state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is compelled to change by forces impressed on it. 

• (E)motion: Until affected by external forces or stimuli, one’s emotional state should remain relatively constant.

Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. 

• (E)motion: An emotional state e, subject to an external force or stimuli F  will undergo a change affecting the emotional state in a positive OR negative  direction, depending on the nature of the stimuli.

Third Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law with F called “action” and −F the “reaction.” 

• (E)motion: When an external force of a positive nature affects the emotional state, the tendency is for the state to continue in a positive direction (attraction). When an external force is negative in nature, the tendency is for the emotional state to withdraw, moving in the opposite direction of the stimuli (repulsion).  However, extreme positive stimuli (coddling) can result in repulsion.  In addition, regardless of positive or negative stimuli, the reaction of the emotional state is NOT equal in magnitude to force placed upon it, as level of emotional response is variable and cannot be predicted with the same accuracy as can a negative or positive response in general.

Clearly, the laws do seem to port over to a degree.  In simple, rudimentary language, one can expect an emotional withdrawal or break at both ends of the positive/negative spectrum; being coddled or berated usually leads to an emotional disconnection.  The sweet spot is where you’d expect it to be, when the subject’s emotions are engaged and inspired, but not in a patronizing or co-dependent way.  So, how does this translate to brand - consumer interaction?  Are brands’ actions generating the desired reaction (informed trial and conversion), or are consumers turning away, frustrated and/or exasperated?

Again, it seems simple, but clearly brands haven’t completely grasped it, as many consistently make the mistakes that cost them the very customer relationships they claim to covet. The rise of social media put brands on notice that they must treat current and future customers as “friends” by having a presence in social networks.  But being there isn’t good enough.  That’s like opening a retail store without any employees.  And unless a brand is prepared to engage and respond in real time, a social presence is a waste of time.  Brands smart and brave enough to communicate online must remember to do so utilizing the proper tone and point-of-view that represents the brand culture and caters to the customer base.  In a perfect world, that tone continues in-store, so the experience is seamless.  Regardless of social engagement [online or in-store], there still is only one chance to make a first impression.  The importance of that brand communication [action] and the customer’s response [reaction] cannot be overstated.  Remember, in the age of social networking, the results of simple interactions are exponential.  Fail a customer and you might not just lose him, but everyone that values that his opinion.

How to do it wrong.

As mentioned earlier, negative emotional reactions and the subsequent withdrawal come as a result of both overly negative and overly positive stimuli.  I think a cursory mention of the obvious, purely negative (poor product and poor service) suffices.  These undoubtedly send the buying public into the arms of any brand’s parity rival.

But what about coddling?  The overly positive-negative. A happy brand message that has the opposite affect than intended.  Yep.  It’s alive and well.  Example? GAP.  

This online and retail store tries too hard to be friendly, has good intentions, but ends up coming off like a needy, possessive boyfriend or girlfriend.  In the store, the sales people approach you like they’re piranha and you’re a baby lamb with a bloody stump out for a quick dip.  How many times have you sent away a third over-eager employee after you mutter, “Nope, I’m still just looking” under your breath?  The full-court press by the sales staff is enough to send a potential buyer out of the store and into a competitor.  

Today, fewer people shop the retail store, preferring to buy online at Gap.com. So you’d think this overly positive-negative issue would disappear.  Nope. The discount/coupon email has become the “it” tool of the co-dependent brand in the retailer - consumer dysfunctional online relationship.  Surely you’ve seen them: “30% off!  But only today.  You’re going to lose your chance!”  Then two days later, “40% off!” It all reeks of a teenage romance: She says, “Call me.”  When he doesn’t, she loses it: “Fine, don’t call me.  I hate you!”  Later that night, his phone rings: “I love you…”  The alternative might be worse; you do take advantage of the 30% off and a few days later the discounts increase.  Now you feel less special.  The upshot is that none of these actions put the brand in a power position; so why would they expect the reactions to be favorable?  Solution: be less desperate.  And give the customers what they want, the way they want it; find them where they can be engaged in an interactive way, rather than just talking at them.  Update: As if gleaned through ESP, the Gap has taken my last point to heart and to market, giving special discounts to those who engage on Twitter, or who check in on Foursquare in selected stores. Bravo. I’m sure GAP employees are still more or less blood-thirsty vampires and I got yet another frantic, fleeting 30% off coupon emailed to me yesterday and a 50% Gap-Groupon today, but baby steps, people.  An interactive, forward-thinking initiative that makes the customers feel special and part of the experience is a great way to start.

How to do it right.

Think great in-store customer service.  For many, especially those from the left coast, the first thought that comes to mind is Nordstrom.  This department store has the reputation of accepting nearly anything for return — even items the store doesn’t carry — just to make the customer happy.  The business has succeeded on the strengths of many pillars, but customer service is the most well known.  Knowing there won’t be a problem if something goes wrong and the item must be returned eases the burden for the consumer (read: makes a purchase more likely.) Now that’s a reputation. Brand rhetoric (action)? “No matter what, you as customer, will be happy.” Customer reaction: Happy, fearless, and most importantly, spending.

But,

Nordstrom’s edge is starting to show it’s age.  Fewer people are going to the physical stores, so there’s less of an opportunity to experience “service with a smile.” Nordstrom runs the risk of losing one of its biggest advantages.  How do they make up for this?  By recognizing that they must adjust their philosophy (just make the customer happy) to a customer who shops in a completely different way than fifteen years ago.  Is her greatest fear still not being able to return something?  Or is it a fear of wasting time searching for an item because the Nordstrom website UI sucks?  What does she really value (enough to pass along as a brand ambassador to those in her social network?)  Roomy department stores with men in black tie playing grand pianos?  Or discounts tailor-crafted for her, contests, and the ability to give feedback that will actually be acted upon?  You want to make shoppers from 1990 happy?  Save them money, shape their experience for them and wait on them hand and foot.  To make today’s shoppers happy, save them time, provide them with the tools to let them shape their own experience and leave them alone. 

Brands will find that providing consumers with additional power in the relationship and maintaining an on-going conversation will garner valuable insights from the very people who keep them in business.  In the best of all worlds, via creative technology and immersive applications and experiences, brands will be able to get this information as close to subconsciously, and certainly as painlessly as possible.  Existing customers are not only the best research groups, but the best employees.  They’re passionate and outspoken, likely know better than anyone else how to improve the products and services they use, and best of all, they’re free.  If nothing else, brands should pursue an action of treating them like good friends.  They’ll react with loyalty.