Debating has become more of a performance than about understanding opposing perspectives — and marketing may be making a similar mistake. Venelize de Lange from media update considers how by comparing performance-driven debating to consumer-facing messaging.
Have you ever sat through a school debate moving your head from side to side like you're watching a tennis match? The two can be read as the same with its lobbying back-and-forth until someone finally hits a miss and has to concede a point.
Although many would refute the idea, most debates are not designed to change minds, but to perform for an audience eager to see who takes home the win. Like a sport, it becomes a competition of who can deliver the stronger argument — one persuasive enough to claim victory and win over the audience in the process too.
Yet, the origin of debates is found in Ancient Greece where they were used to solve disputes and essentially get to the truth in a structured way to make collective decisions without resorting to violence. The focus wasn't on winning, but on understanding so as to move forward as a society in a better way. It was honest and growth oriented.
This open-minded communication in debates leads to a stronger understanding of problems. It's the art of distinguishing between “arguing to win” and “arguing to learn” and requires humility to admit when you are wrong, instead of focusing on “not losing”.
In other words, it's a move away from performative problem-solving and instead towards collaborative growth.
Many brands fall into this trap too. They broadcast messages and put out advertisements designed to prove their value and are quick to evaluate performance metrics, but pay little attention to brand comprehension. It's a game of out-playing the competitor and performing for an audience that no longer knows who to listen to.
Recognising that you are building a brand and not playing a game is the first step towards changing this. Brands need to stop facing the competitor and turn back to the issue at hand: who and what your brand is, and why consumers should care. Companies that excel at personalisation generate higher revenue because they use behavioural data not just for targeting, but for improving relevance across the customer journey.
Data in itself is not insight. Impressions and clicks only describe what happened, not why. This is why more integrated intelligence approaches are being adopted by marketers — combining qualitative and quantitative analysis to understand their market position better.
Additionally, media intelligence and consumer insight analysis help brands identify how messages are being received across channels which allows marketers to adjust communication strategies before misalignment becomes a reputational or commercial issue.
Taking it all the way back to the debates of Ancient Greece, sometimes shifting your position is necessary, even if it feels like admitting defeat. And in both debate and marketing, progress belongs to those who value understanding more than being right.
Did you enjoy this article? Let us know in the comments section below.
*Image courtesy of Canva
**Information sourced from Debate Club, CNBC, Columbia Road and Medium