This episode explores the courage it takes to walk your own path, from embracing authenticity in personal and professional life to fostering responsibility in how we communicate and interact with others.
In this episode of Talking About Marketing, we explore the delicate balance between staying true to yourself and navigating external expectations.
We begin with Johnny Cash’s iconic song Man in Black, delving into how moments of clarity can redefine purpose, both in life and in business.
Next, we discuss the concept of altruism, inspired by filmmaker Penny Lane’s bold decision to donate a kidney to a stranger, examining the tension between genuine acts of goodness and societal scepticism.
Our problem segment highlights the dangers of spreading unchecked memes, urging us to verify before sharing in the fast-paced world of social media.
Finally, we tackle the evolving sensitivities around language and metaphor, pondering how intent and context shape how expressions are received.
Get ready to take notes!
Talking About Marketing podcast episode notes with timecodes
01:15 Person This segment focusses on you, the person, because we believe business is personal.
The Mirror Audit: Lessons from Johnny Cash on Authenticity in Life and Work
In this segment, Steve and David delve into the power of authenticity, inspired by Johnny Cash’s iconic song Man in Black. The discussion begins with an anecdote about Johnny Cash’s struggle to reconcile public expectations with his true self, culminating in the creation of a song that not only defined his legacy but also served as his personal manifesto, as explained in the book, Johnny Cash: The Life In Lyrics. The conversation reveals that Cash wrote Man in Black in just three hours during a moment of clarity, illustrating the creative power that can emerge when one embraces their true identity.
Steve and David reflect on how society often pressures individuals to conform, especially after achieving success. They highlight the courage it takes to resist this pressure, as seen in Cash’s decision to remain true to himself despite external demands. The discussion broadens to explore how this principle applies to everyday life and professional settings. Drawing from personal insights and teaching experience, David emphasises the importance of being a consistent, authentic version of oneself, rather than attempting to fabricate a professional persona. They suggest conducting a “mirror audit” to assess whether one’s behaviour aligns with their true self while balancing the nuances required in different social or professional contexts. Ultimately, they celebrate the value of individuality, noting that it not only leads to greater personal satisfaction but also makes a person more memorable and impactful.
13:00 Principles This segment focusses principles you can apply in your business today.
Do-Gooder Derogation: The Double-Edged Sword of Altruism and Social Media
In this segment, Steve and David explore the thought-provoking concept of “do-gooder derogation,” a term introduced by filmmaker Penny Lane in her reflections on altruism on one of Steve’s favourite podcasts, Econtalk. Lane, who documented her personal experience of donating a kidney to a stranger, provides insights into the human tendency to disparage those who take morally courageous actions. This psychological phenomenon arises as a self-protective mechanism, where observing someone’s altruism triggers feelings of inadequacy or judgment in others. Lane compares this to reactions toward vegans, who often face criticism for their lifestyle choices because they inadvertently highlight others’ shortcomings.
Steve connects this idea to marketing and social media dynamics, particularly on platforms like LinkedIn, where humblebragging and self-congratulatory posts often provoke similar reactions. Together, Steve and David unpack the nuances of this behaviour, suggesting ways to approach online content with authenticity and humility. They advocate for shifting the focus from self-promotion to gratitude, learning, and acknowledging the contributions of others. By grounding personal achievements in relatable contexts and recognising the role of luck and goodwill, individuals can foster genuine connections while mitigating the negative effects of do-gooder derogation.
24:00 Problems This segment answers questions we've received from clients or listeners.
The Problem with Memes: Verify Before You Amplify
In this problem-focused segment, Steve and David examine the tempting but often problematic nature of memes in modern media. Steve shares his experience encountering a humorous yet false meme about Stephen King allegedly being kicked off X (formerly Twitter) for calling Elon Musk “the first lady.” Though the meme was untrue, Steve reflects on its resonance due to the grain of truth it carried about individuals who dish out criticism but cannot handle it themselves. This highlights the dual-edged nature of memes: their ability to encapsulate sentiments while risking the spread of misinformation.
The discussion underscores the responsibility that comes with sharing content, particularly in an era where algorithms feed us information tailored to spark our emotions. David advises a straightforward mantra for navigating this landscape: “verify, verify, verify.” He stresses the importance of taking a few seconds to fact-check claims, especially before sharing them on personal or professional accounts. Steve agrees, emphasising that businesses must be particularly vigilant, as reputational stakes are higher for organisations. Together, they advocate for a more thoughtful approach to consuming and sharing media to prevent the further degradation of online discourse.
28:30 Perspicacity This segment is designed to sharpen our thinking by reflecting on a case study from the past.
Blind Spots in Language: Navigating Sensitivity and Artistic Expression
In this reflective segment, Steve and David discuss the evolving sensitivity surrounding language, particularly metaphors and expressions involving sight, through the lens of Billy Field’s haunting ballad, I Was in Love with You. Steve recounts how the lyrics struck him differently in 2024 compared to their release in the 1980s, largely due to heightened societal awareness and his own personal connections. David asserts that such expressions, when used thoughtfully in artistic contexts like songwriting, are powerful tools for conveying complex emotions and ideas, and should not be off-limits. However, he contrasts this with careless or thoughtless usage in everyday speech, which often adds little value and can inadvertently cause harm.
The segment delves further into the fine line between intent and impact, illustrated by a comedic BBC Scotland series, Scot Squad, that exaggerates apologies for insensitive language. David highlights that the emotional intent behind words often outweighs the words themselves, yet acknowledges how this can sometimes be misjudged. The discussion leaves listeners with an understanding of how cultural and personal contexts influence the reception of language, as well as the importance of thoughtfulness in both creative and casual communication.
Transcript This transcript was generated using Descript.
A Machine-Generated Transcript – Beware Errors
TAMP S05E08
[00:00:00] Caitlin Davis: Talking About Marketing is a podcast for business owners and leaders, produced by my dad, Steve Davis, and his colleague at Talked About Marketing, David Olney, in which they explore marketing through the lens of their own four P’s, person, principles, problems, and perspicacity. Yes, you heard that correctly.
[00:00:27] Apart from their love of words, they really love helping people. So they hope this podcast will become a trusted companion on your journey in business.
[00:00:39] Steve Davis: David, I want to tell you something. Is that alright? That is absolutely fine. I keep a close watch on this heart of mine. And I keep my eyes wide open all the time. And I keep the ends out for the tie that binds. And because you’re mine, I walk the line.
[00:00:59] David Olney: I’m glad there was no reference to a burning ring of fire.
[00:01:02] I’m glad
[00:01:04] Caitlin Davis: there was no reference to a burning ring of fire. To realise one’s nature perfectly. That is what each of us is here for. Oscar Wilde.
[00:01:23] Steve Davis: We’re starting a little bit country in this episode. David with Johnny Cash. You’re familiar with Johnny Cash?
[00:01:30] David Olney: I am familiar with Johnny Cash because when I was a wee little human, my English step grandfather, Lent me all his Johnny Cash audio cassettes. And as about an eight year old, I had to get my head around, San Quentin, you’ve been held to me.
[00:01:47] Which was a pretty weird thing to get my head around at age 8,
[00:01:51] Steve Davis: but I worked hard at it. Interesting you mention he’s English and he was into Johnny Cash because Roger Miller, who wrote King of the Road, also wrote a song called, it’s either England Swings or London Swings, I think it was England Swings.
[00:02:03] Uh, he, I’m also listening to the Willie Nelson autobiography, which we might talk about next episode. He He actually told Willie about England. England LOVED country music, especially in the 60s. How about that? I would never, if you told me to pick a country on this planet that, outside the US, that would like country music, England would not have been my choice.
[00:02:26] David Olney: One of the strange things I learned being a guitarist is, blues and country are a lot closer than anyone appreciates. And that the line between them was really blurred until both things went mainstream. And when young British musicians got into both things in the 60s, it was to jump out of the staid culture of the UK, which both things did.
[00:02:51] You know, in a really exciting way.
[00:02:53] Steve Davis: I suppose, and you think about early Rolling Stones too, that blurred between blues and country, a lot of their stuff. Very much so. Then sort of morphed into more orthodox rock, but those roots were there. Anyway, this is a marketing podcast, so I’m going to take us back into the line, um, with Johnny Cash.
[00:03:10] So, I’ve just been listening, the book is called Johnny Cash, The Life in Lyrics, which is a fascinating book. Um, It looks at Johnny’s life, but it goes through song by song. From memory, it’s something like 150 song lyrics, uh, as shared, and then we get the contextual story. His son is one of the people, uh, John Carter Cash, who, uh, is also, uh, voicing some of the book and sharing some of his insights.
[00:03:36] Fascinating. But what caught my attention was a song I’ve always loved by Johnny Cash called Man in Black. Let’s just refresh our memories with a smidgen of that.
[00:03:52] Content: I wear the black for the beaten down Living in the hopeless hungry side of town I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime But is there because he’s
[00:04:17] Steve Davis: Something about that song always just bonded to my soul and I think from an Aussie perspective of having that inclination for the underdog, I think that that’s partly true. What it is, but I didn’t realize that Johnny was in a pretty lost state when he wrote that song cause he, he had had this amazing spring into stardom and then everybody wanted a piece of him and here’s a little snippet from the book now in which we learn about where this song came from.
[00:04:56] Content: It was 1971 and he had found that being lead dog was not always the prime position. No one, it seemed, was satisfied. He was too pro this or not enough anti that. He talked to the wrong people. He should. He should not. If he was that guy’s friend, he couldn’t be mine. He tried walking the line, but that was not working out.
[00:05:19] Being Johnny Cash was becoming torturous. Everybody wants a piece of me, but I just don’t have enough to give, he told friends. They all want to tell me who I should be. One afternoon at his house as he met with his TV show staff to plan a special episode, Here toward young people, Johnny admitted that he was nervous.
[00:05:40] The kids want something real. I want them to see and hear the real me. Not the guy somebody else says I am. Someone in the group spoke up. Then you tell them who you are. Tell the world who Johnny Cash is. Johnny retired to his bedroom upstairs to contemplate that ultimate question. Three hours later, Man in Black was written.
[00:06:05] Introduced just days later to an Opry house packed with college students who did listen. Johnny’s ultimate statement of purpose remains as relevant and vital as ever a half century later. He spoke of peace in the poor, of the lonely and forgotten, of Jesus and lost souls. It was as if his whole life had been spent preparing for this moment.
[00:06:29] He was up to it. This was a bolder Johnny Cash than had been heard from since Bitter Tears. There was nothing political about Man in Black, but in America, everything was political.
[00:06:46] Steve Davis: Unbelievable, don’t you think? In three hours, he wrote a song that became a standard for him, that is going to live well past his legacy. Isn’t that amazing,
[00:06:58] David Olney: David?
[00:06:58] Steve Davis: It’s
[00:06:58] David Olney: the incredible thing of once you have clarity, and someone who is so adroit at putting words together to convey big ideas, once he worked out what he needed to do.
[00:07:09] It’s incredible what songwriters like him could do in a short period of time.
[00:07:14] Steve Davis: And I think from our perspective, the reason I’m mentioning it in the person segment is, and he talks about this in his book a little bit too, um, it’s easy without knowing. To censor some of yourself, to conform more. Uh, even in the Willie Nelson book, which we’re not going to get into this part of it next week, but he talks about there’s a certain phase in his life, I think it was the late 70s, it could have been early 80s, where suddenly, instead of presenting himself as Mr.
[00:07:46] Neutral, he, uh, fell in with a crowd, Leon Russell was one of the singers who were considered quite, um, hippie in the time, and he just went on stage with his long hair, and his jeans, and a t shirt, and it was the Metamorphosis of Willie Nelson as we knew him in later years because he just let himself be his self.
[00:08:11] Isn’t it sad, David, that it takes courage in this society to trust that instinct and to let yourself show?
[00:08:20] David Olney: Particularly when you’ve had some success and you’re like, wow, whatever I did worked. I better do more of that and the more people want of you, You know, the more you can get morphed out of shape, and it seems that almost all of these amazing songwriters, and particularly in the world of country and western music, you know, the fame bends them away from loving the songwriting, and being able to connect with people, and pulls them in these other directions, and they all seem to pay a price for it.
[00:08:48] Steve Davis: How many times do we need to read great novels? Do we need to read autobiographies? Do we need to hear people telling their stories, in which they’ve said, It was the moment when I decided, to heck with it, I’m just going to be me, that things change. Not always a hundred percent glossy, sometimes there’s some rough price to pay for that, but overall, it tends to be on the positive side of the, uh,
[00:09:17] David Olney: Yeah, it’s the only sustainable choice you can make because everything else means having to remember what you said.
[00:09:24] You know, in the early 2000s, I had a friend in Michigan whose tagline on all the internet forums used to say, Telling the truth means not having to remember what you said. Yeah. And that line has stuck with me for over 20 years as a simple reminder. Be who you are, and be who you are reasonably consistently, because it makes life infinitely easier on you, and it makes life easier on everyone else, because they know what they’re going to get.
[00:09:50] If they don’t like it, well, that’s their problem, but they know what they’re going to get.
[00:09:54] Steve Davis: And of course we do this podcast As much for ourselves as for anybody listening in. And the idea just crystallized for me that maybe from time to time we need to have a mirror audit. Where we take a look at ourselves and go, you know what?
[00:10:10] How much do I change when I’m out of my sanctuary and I’m in dealing with others? And, and I think, I’m not going to be naive about it, there are, I think it’s legitimate to present yourself slightly differently to be in keeping with the mores of different groups to a degree. I think it needs to be a small degree of nuance, rather than a hundred percent change of character, because at the end of the day, you’ve got to live with yourself, and if the fear of doing that means we’re going to miss opportunities, We’re probably going to miss them anyway, but at least we will miss them on our own terms.
[00:10:46] That’s not necessarily the best consolation prize. We will probably pick up more than we lose, because we become more memorable. And what did Oscar Wilde say? Only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about. What are your thoughts, David, for a mirror audit? If you, if I said, what is one or two things that we should bear in mind?
[00:11:05] If we’re going to take this, take stock.
[00:11:08] David Olney: To me, it goes back to all my years of teaching where people I was teaching were about to transition from university into their professional lives and they’d be like, Oh, I have to learn to act like the professional I want to be in this profession. I’m like, no, you don’t.
[00:11:22] You need to find the bit of you that can be consistently you every day that is appropriate to where you want to go, but it’s still you. So be you every day, just a small, reliable piece of you, so that you never feel lost. You’re you, but you’re comprehensible to the world, and you’re appropriate for the professional setting.
[00:11:44] And I think it’s really the same in all professional settings. It’s a slightly different bit of yourself, depending on the setting, but as long as you know that who you are being in the moment is someone you could be again tomorrow, the way you were yesterday, and that people can predict your behavior.
[00:12:01] Um, you can be pretty comfortable that you’re gonna feel comfortable in the moment and that people are gonna feel comfortable enough to include you. And that’s about the best position you can be in to take advantage of opportunities, um, and to get to know new people.
[00:12:18] Steve Davis: I suppose if we take it to the extreme, if nobody ever, had the courage to modify the world and to change and to be themselves.
[00:12:26] We’d still be speaking with thee, thy, thou. We’d be wearing puffy, um, tops and we’d be dressed at the moment in tights, David. So I think there’s something for all of us to ponder.
[00:12:41] David Olney: Yes, I think life without a codpiece is a much better world.
[00:12:49] Caitlin Davis: Our four P’s. Number two, principles. You can never be overdressed or over educated. Oscar Wilde.
[00:13:03] Steve Davis: David, as I process that last comment you just made, what about life without a kidney? Because I believe we’re born with a couple of them.
[00:13:13] David Olney: Two is useful. Two is best. Having ruptured one, I like the fact it healed. Did you really rupture one? I did. It’s the most extreme pain I’ve ever been through. And the reason it took them hours to work out what had happened, is it’s meant to be so painful you’re meant to go unconscious.
[00:13:30] And because I didn’t trust them, I wasn’t willing to go unconscious. So I stayed coherent despite almost vibrating off the table in pain. Which is a fun way
[00:13:39] Steve Davis: to be in casualty. Um, I think Oscar Wilde would say, to rupture one kidney is accidental. To rupture two would be carelessness. You didn’t rupture both of them though, did you?
[00:13:50] No, I was very grateful to only rupture one. Um, well the reason I’m talking about it is I just heard another amazing episode of one of my secret favourite podcasts called Econ Talk. Uh, with filmmaker Penny Lane, who has just given away a kidney to a stranger. Uh. Because she felt cold, well, cold is probably too strong a word on it.
[00:14:12] Uh, there was a motivation within her to do this as a way of truly being altruistic in life. She gives, you know, a certain amount of her income away to different charities, but she always felt that was Sanitized, a bit sterile, a bit removed, and she wanted to do something visceral and real, so she got herself onto the kidney donor register, and donated a kidney, and made a movie about it, um, I think it’s titled something about the Good Samaritan, because she draws some analogies from that scriptural story from the, um, the Christian Bible.
[00:14:52] Would you ever do that, David?
[00:14:54] David Olney: I think I would do it. be okay about something smaller than a kidney, but having ruptured one, the idea of already having one that’s been through that, putting the other one at risk, but yeah, this idea of giving away money, well, if you’re not using it, and it just popped in your account, and you never spent it, is it really, important or powerful what you’re giving away, but this idea of giving away a physical part of yourself that keeps you alive and healthy, that is a very powerful sense of altruism and a very powerful question of, you know, how much do I care about other people, strangers, the world?
[00:15:37] What do I want to contribute? What do I want to be remembered for?
[00:15:41] Steve Davis: It’s a big set of ideas. It is, and as Penny Lane’s about to explain from this episode, it also comes with the risk of negativity.
[00:15:53] Content: So I think a lot of people think it’s more dangerous than it really is, and they’ve never heard of the idea, and it just sounds But if you look at the history of organ transplantation, and we get into this in the film, every stage of that technological advancement was met with the same moral objections.
[00:16:14] So at the very beginning of the era of transplantation, which would be the 60s, surgeons started to figure out they could do it between identical twins, Because, uh, the organs wouldn’t be rejected, um, because of the match, genetically. Even then, if you go back and you look at the news coverage, the contemporaneous discourse, this was so controversial.
[00:16:38] People, in general, thought this was a terrible idea, and that doctors should not do it, and that there was something probably wrong with the brother who wanted to give his kidney to his twin to save his life. I know you’re making a face, but this is true. It’s true. And you flash forward a bit more as that technological advancement goes wider and wider.
[00:16:58] So now you can have more distantly related people, mothers, cousins, whatever. Same thing. Oh, this seems that there’s something wrong. Mothers shouldn’t want to do this for their son. What’s wrong with them? Maybe they’re, you know, suffering and maybe they’re like psychologically off in some way. So, so I do think there’s a historical contingency part of it where it’s simply a new idea.
[00:17:20] And people are weirded out by new ideas. The third thing that I think is happening there with the people, with the reaction of the negative reaction, is something that in psychology is called do gooder derogation, which is such a great phrase. Do gooder derogation, you know, and it’s this idea that, you know, The studies have mostly been done with vegans.
[00:17:43] People hate vegans. They hate vegans, why? They hate vegans because there’s something about the idea of looking at someone who’s doing good in a way that feels like a judgment against themselves. And I do think that’s a factor as well. We say we like do gooders, but when we come across one, Certainly the intellectual part of us is meant to, you know, kind of question, critique, you know, what are they really doing this for?
[00:18:09] Are they really good? And I think that’s a self protective defense. And I just want to say, like, I think I do that too, just in different areas. I think we probably all do. see someone who’s doing good in a way that, that we don’t do, or that we don’t know how to do, or that we think we never could do, and that maybe we have a little bit of, like, judgment against them as a protective measure.
[00:18:35] Steve Davis: I was fascinated to learn about this term do gooder derogation, which is when a person is morally motivated to do something, to do something moral, and, and high, and, and pious in a real way. The rest of us has a self protective mechanism, so we don’t feel bad about not having those ideals, we pick holes in them, we actually treat them as a bit of an enemy, they get under our skin, and I think this is, the reason I wanted to bring this up in the principles segment, is when we’re spouting forth in social media, or any other form in our marketing, Particularly LinkedIn.
[00:19:20] LinkedIn is when this happens the most. You get so much humble bragging. So many people who put posts out there that just show how absolutely wonderful and clever and novel they are, even if they try and douse it down a bit with a little bit of false humility. I do find that I do experience this do gooder derogation.
[00:19:46] Isn’t this a fascinating dynamic of humankind?
[00:19:50] David Olney: It really taps into the whole Australian thing of tool poppy syndrome. It’s nice to see someone do well, but if they’re doing better than us, we suddenly get uncomfortable. And certainly the humble bragging on LinkedIn. You know, I get frustrated with the disingenuousness.
[00:20:05] Just say you had the most amazing day, and you’re really glad you were given the opportunity. Don’t humble brag, just go, Wow, I had this great opportunity and I learnt this or I contributed this. Like, to me, people should just be more upfront about their experience and it would probably be more bearable.
[00:20:24] But then you get that second part of, Oh, what have I done that has an impact? So there is that thing that seeing really amazing behaviour can make you feel inadequate and that’s probably sometimes a good motivator. Yeah. And sometimes Just an uncomfortable waste of time.
[00:20:44] Steve Davis: Either do something or don’t. It is a double edged sword, isn’t it?
[00:20:47] Because there is a motivation that comes from that. Uh, but there is, as we know with social media, a dent to many people’s self esteem. They just suddenly think, everybody, Is glowing and gliding about the place, and I’m not, so I must be, you know, a worthless piece of crap, and I’m never gonna succeed, and I’m a failure, and all those things.
[00:21:13] So, let’s just lay down, let’s think through some principles we might want to consider when we’re covering this sort of content online. I mean, you’ve started painting a little bit of a picture. I would almost Wonder if, and this is, I’m talking to myself as much as anybody else here, do we pull back from those bragging self congratulatory posts and just focus on learning moments that happened?
[00:21:41] Um, leave it for others if they want to heap praise or they want to do something? I think just
[00:21:47] David Olney: start the post with thank you X for the opportunity to present at your, you know, Your conference or thank you why for the opportunity to talk to your team like start with a thank you Start with well, how could you’ve done if you weren’t given an opportunity?
[00:22:04] Put the the thank you first and then the bit about you And at least you’ve acknowledged someone else first. Like, to me, when I see those things on LinkedIn, I’m like, Ah, okay, at least they acknowledged they couldn’t have done it without someone else. I
[00:22:18] Steve Davis: wonder if there’s scope also to reflect on how that came to be.
[00:22:23] Would it be useful to someone to say, Thank you, X, for letting me talk to your company. I’m glad because I actually learned from your people a couple of insights that have broadened what I know now. And in thinking back how this happened, It actually all started with me being willing to have a few coffees in the early days and spend some time, and one thing led to another, just to show other people that you’re not a golden child who’s been collected randomly.
[00:22:48] David Olney: It took time and effort, and you’re willing to acknowledge, hey, this comes down to a little bit of courage. To do things without a clear positive end in sight, but just better to give things a go and be involved and get to know people.
[00:23:01] Steve Davis: Or even if it was as simple as, you know what, I know there’s a lot spoken about the old school tie and this was one of those situations when it did pay off for me.
[00:23:11] It was a fellow student or a parent of a fellow student who opened the door for me. Just to ground it, because so many of these stories we read of these super entrepreneurs conveniently skip the luck and the advantage they had along the way. Yeah,
[00:23:28] David Olney: and the goodwill from other people. Like, if you include the goodwill from other people, then you will be perceived as having goodwill, rather than just boasting.
[00:23:37] Steve Davis: Well, I never thought this conversation would go that way, but I hope that’s been useful, just to sort of pick this apart. And I guess the ultimate takeaway is for us to be mindful of the do gooder derogation and maybe we can all now be alert when we find ourselves falling victim to it.
[00:23:59] Caitlin Davis: Our four Ps. Number three, Problems. I asked the question for the best reason possible, simple curiosity. Oscar Wilde.
[00:24:13] Steve Davis: In the problem segment, I want to draw attention to memes, David. Every now and then there are memes you see that go past you that you go, that’s hilarious, or this makes a political statement I want to make. And I saw one, um, a few days ago at the time of recording, and it grabbed my attention. There’s a big picture of a screen grab in which someone Stephen King, the great author.
[00:24:41] Stephen King got kicked off X this morning for calling Elon Musk the first lady. Once again, I realize just how much I love Stephen King. Now that is a great meme. And everything inside me said, yes, I want to reshare this because I have not been impressed by Elon Musk’s abuse of his power. I mean, it’s his choice to do whatever he wants, but sigh.
[00:25:04] There is a degree of responsibility, I think, call me naive, um, when you’re an editor of a major newspaper, or the proprietor of a media organisation, even though Rupert Murdoch has abused his power, I still like to hold those people to some higher standard, and he certainly used X to do his partisan bidding.
[00:25:24] Um, how did that rub with you, David?
[00:25:27] David Olney: I just wish he’d get on a spaceship and go to another planet.
[00:25:30] Steve Davis: Okay, that’s succinct. Um, anyway, I wanted to share, but before I did, I thought, you know what, I’m going to fact check because I do have a reputation of, you know, trying to be authentic and honest with things, and as it turns out, the meme is not true.
[00:25:48] Stephen King firstly never said that, and secondly is still alive and kicking on X. Sorry. Why did I still share it? I shared it because I put it in context and there was something that, this is what I wrote actually, I said, this meme is not true but it resonates because in my experience the loudest mouths who tell us or tell others to suck it up or, or label others snowflakes typically have the thinnest skin of all.
[00:26:17] It’s the grain of truth that gives oxygen to memes like this but it’s our responsibility to check their validity and provide commentary if we share them. This is especially so before the First Lady. Poisons the global well, um, this is the problem, uh, we get tempted to share these, and I, people do come down a few notches in my estimation, when I see them just sharing stuff that’s wrong, whether or not I agree with it, I just think it’s worth it.
[00:26:46] It took me literally 30 seconds to do a quick test. In fact, I went to Perplexity AI and I said, did Stephen King say this? And I, by using the pro version, it does a live search and it came back with all the details about how it was not the case. David, this problem, what’s your advice? What would you do?
[00:27:08] suggest when you’re tempted to want to share something. This
[00:27:12] David Olney: is the problem of new media and the fact that we are being bombarded with things that fit our particular variant of the algorithm. Everything seems so true because it fits with our interests or sparks our attention or sparks our outrage. But the simple rule of modern media and of new media in particular is verify, verify, verify.
[00:27:34] If it looks too good to be true, take 30 seconds and do a search, use your favorite AI, and work out, is this a credible source, has it got any, you know, validity, can you verify it, and if not, don’t participate in making new media even worse than it already is.
[00:27:54] Steve Davis: Yeah, and I think that it’s one thing to do with your personal account, now I don’t have too much differentiation between mine, but secondly, I would never, I would never, ever risk my business account sharing anything that hadn’t been checked or tested.
[00:28:09] I think the stakes are too high there, reputationally, for you and if you’ve got staff, for them as well.
[00:28:19] Caitlin Davis: Our four Ps, number four, Perspicacity. The one duty we owe to history is to rewrite it. Oscar Wilde.
[00:28:33] Steve Davis: David, I hope I never have to say this to you. You ready? I’m ready. I was in love with you, but you weren’t in love with me. Uh, it’s a beautiful song, but I appreciate your sentiment. Uh, it’s a song by Billy Field, which I think came out in the 80s. He had bad habits, was I think his breakthrough hit. Uh, but this follow up song, if my memory serves me correct in the order, Um, I loved, it was a beautiful, haunting ballad, and I, it just popped up in my feed the other day and I had to listen to it and I loved it, and then I heard a couple of lines in it that made me go, hmm, I’m listening to this differently in 2024 than I did in 1984, let’s just refresh the memory.
[00:29:16] Blind
[00:29:24] Content: Freddy knew that, blind man could see, I was in love with you, but you weren’t in love with me. Blind Freddy
[00:29:40] Steve Davis: knew
[00:29:45] that, blind man could see, I was in love with you, but you weren’t in love with me. Never gave it two seconds thought when I heard it first time around David in the 80s. Um, it was an illusion that many writers have alluded to in trying to, you know, make a powerful image and representation. But today, I don’t know if it’s just where society is with more sensitivity or whether it’s because you’re in my life and I’m conscious when, um, images or wording related to sight Uh, evoked, that I go, oh, interesting.
[00:30:22] What do you, how do you unpack this? What do you think of this in, in poetry and communication as an illusion, as a metaphor, as a wordplay?
[00:30:32] David Olney: I think particularly in a situation like this, where it’s in a song, it’s been carefully chosen. That in art, these kind of illusions have, you know, a really important place and we shouldn’t ever, you know, stop them from being used to help build.
[00:30:48] These, you know, these worlds of ideas and emotions. When people throw lines around in general speech and they haven’t given it thought, well, then there’s a bigger issue. It’s normally they’re not thinking. But when a songwriter chooses it like this, I don’t have any problem.
[00:31:03] Steve Davis: Because I’m now thinking of other sayings about being Blind, drunk, etc.
[00:31:10] David Olney: Yeah, well, we made that joke at the maid a couple of weeks ago with the owner, and he just about lost it laughing.
[00:31:16] Steve Davis: That is true. That is true. So, I just thought from a perspicacity perspective, where we look at how things have been used in the past, and we just ponder how they’ve aged, whether they’re still relevant, you’re saying, done with thought, done with care, then
[00:31:33] David Olney: Done for a greater done to be part of something bigger.
[00:31:38] I don’t have any problem.
[00:31:39] Steve Davis: Can we think of an example where it would be
[00:31:42] David Olney: off? Well, we just drove back and out there in the world, there was someone driving really poorly. And I suppose at that point to say, what are they blind? That’s just about in the moment, wanting to be angry at another person. And well, clearly they’re driving a car.
[00:31:57] They’re not blind. They’re just useless at driving a car. So that’s probably a less okay usage. And that to me is where it’s kind of a thoughtless. Doesn’t really add any value. Well, the problem isn’t that they can’t see, the problem is that they don’t care how they’re driving. So that kind of misuse of the idea, I would have a bit more of a problem, but still not a major
[00:32:15] Steve Davis: problem.
[00:32:16] That was brought to bear in a BBC comedy program. Um, I just saw that during the rounds. Just have a listen to this. It’s um, a, the head of the Scottish police force having to apologize for using such terminology.
[00:32:33] Content: Feelings are important. It’s important. I’m surprised, actually, that our diversity officer didn’t make that clear to me. Honestly, sometimes around here it’s like the blind leading the blind. I would like to apologise to Scotland’s blind community. I hear your concerns, and I promise you they will not fall on deaf ears.
[00:32:50] I would like to apologise to the deaf community. I would like to say sorry. When I realised what I’d said, I honestly, I had a fit. I apologise unreservedly. to all of the epileptics in Scotland for my use of the word fit. I, I completely understand
[00:33:07] Steve Davis: So, David I appreciate the way that you had that example before. That made sense, it landed for me. As that skit just shared, it’s a fine line, isn’t it? In terms of phrase that we’re used to, that we don’t often hear, and when they could cause offence. Now some of those were clearly comedic, and others would have caused offence.
[00:33:31] David Olney: Yeah, it’s a, it’s forever going to be a grey line between where something helps paint an illusion and make meaning clear, and something has a degree of thoughtlessness or venom in it. And really it’s that thing of emotional intent is almost more important than the words. But of course you’re never entirely sure what the emotional intent is.
[00:33:52] I guess sometimes
[00:33:53] Steve Davis: we can’t help ourself. Bad habits. Running wild, out of control. Bad habits.
[00:34:04] Caitlin Davis: Thank you for listening to Talking About Marketing. If you enjoyed it, please leave a rating or a review in your favourite podcast app. And if you found it helpful, please share it with others. Steve and David always welcome your comments and questions, so send them to podcast at talkedaboutmarketing. com.
[00:34:25] And finally, the last word to Oscar Wilde. There’s only one thing worse than being talked about, and that’s not being talked about.