CI and Marketing - A Preliminary Framework

7/27/2019 CI and Marketing - A Preliminary Framework

1/15

David OGormanMemes, CI and Marketing: A Preliminary Framework

Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management Volume 3 Number 2 Fall 200529

Executive Summary It is well known that genes seek to replicate them-

selves. Not as well known is a new field of studycalled memetics that claims the existence of a secondreplicator called a meme. Memes can be likened to acultural virus that hops from one mind to another.

Although research on memetics is progressing in thesciences, its impact on marketing and competitiveintelligence has been minimal. This paper suggests anintegrated way to tie memetics to marketing and com-petitive intelligence. Included is an example of howmemes can be extracted from competitors publicdocuments and used for marketing purposes.

Suggestions for additional research on the relationshipof memes, marketing and competitive intelligence arealso included.

Key WordsMemes, memetics, competitive intelligence, mar-

keting, psychographics, decision making, Universityof Phoenix, Single Loop, Clare Graves, VALS, viralmarketing, competitor profiling.

About the Author David O'Gorman is a Professor of Business

Administration at the University of Illinois atSpringfield. Prior to entering academia, he worked inmarketing research at Bristol-Myers and in marketinginformation systems at Marathon Oil Company. Heholds a bachelor's degree in Marketing, an MBA, andan interdisciplinary doctorate (University of Pittsburgh). His recent teaching experience includesCompetitive Information Systems, Strategic DecisionSupport Systems, Marketing Communications, andExecutive Decision Making. His research interestsinclude the application of memetics to marketing andcompetitive intelligence, consumer psychographicsbased on the theories of Clare Graves, and building

Memes, CI and Marketing: A Preliminary Framework

David OGormanCollege of Business and Management University of Illinois at Springfield


2/15



complex adaptive organizations through intelligence-based decision making processes.

IntroductionTraditional competitive intelligence (CI) has

focused on identifying what competitors are doing.The framework presented in this paper will help illu-minate why competitors behave the way they do.

It is perhaps premature to write this articlebecause the new field of memetics is not well devel-opeda fledgling paradigm as Williams (2000) hasobserved. Additionally, the field of competitive intelli-gence is still in the process of finding its role in manycorporations (Subramanian and Ishak, 1998;Harkleroad, 1998; Ganesh, Miree and Prescott,2003). Another constraint is that the relationship of

CI to marketing is not clear. The field of CI had itsorigins in marketing research in the 1960s, but sincethen, CI has developed on its own, with significantphilosophical and operational differences between CIand marketing research (Walle, 1999a). The linkagebetween CI and marketing, especially the sales area, istenuous (Powell and Allgaier, 1998).

Although the memetics picture is fuzzy, there issufficient clarity to make some initial suggestionsregarding the relationship of memes, competitiveintelligence and marketing. The field of memeticscontinues to develop rapidly in the social sciences andthe biological sciences (Aunger, 2001 and 2002). Thefield of CI should not wait until the field of memeticsis fully developed (which may be many years) beforeaddressing the implications for CI. Similarly, mar-keters who are trying to survive and prosper in ahighly competitive environment need all the help theycan get sooner rather than later.

This paper offers some preliminary thoughtsabout the relationship of memetics, CI and marketing,with an emphasis on actionable intelligence, e.g.,how we can systematically gather information aboutcustomer and competitor memes and use that infor-mation to make smart business decisions.

We have quite a way to go, however. This papersuggests several areas for future research because (1)we dont know enough about memetics and its poten-tial uses in marketing and CI, (2) we dont know howmemetics relates to consumer psychographics, and(3) we dont know how memetics relates to the

problem of utilization of meme-based CI for decision-making purposes.

What are memes anyway?The most common definition is that memes

(rhymes with dreams) are ideas, beliefs or culturalvalues that replicate themselves from one brain toanother, somewhat like a virus (Brodie, 1996). TheOxford English Dictionary (2005) defines meme as:

Meme: An element of behavior or culture passed

on by imitation or other non-genetic means.The term meme was coined by Oxford University

evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The SelfishGene (Dawkins, 1976). Since then, the term hasgained popularity, and refinements of the concepthave emerged. One measure of the increased interestin memes is the number of times memetic has beenmentioned on the Internet. In 1998 there were about5,000 hits (Blackmore, 1999). In mid-2002, thenumber of hits on memetic was 20,000. By Octoberof 2003 it was 47,000, and increased to 140,000 bymid-2004. In January of 2005, there were 177,000hits (OGorman, 2005a).

Although Dawkins coined the term meme in1976, the notion of cultural transmission had beenaround in the social sciences for a long time.However, as Aunger (1999) points out, the notion of cultural selectionism as promulgated by biologistsand anthropologists does not include the key point of

Dawkins concept, i.e., that memes seek to replicatethemselves in a way analogous to the way genes do.Memes are a new replicator, a second replicator.

The notion that human behavior is shaped by tworeplicators, genes and memes, has profound implica-tions for our understanding of the human evolu-tionary processes (Blackmore, 1999; Dawkins, 1998;Dennett, 1991 and 1995; Lynch, 1996; Ridley, 2003).


3/15



By extension, memes drive much of the humanbehavior that we in business have an interest inunderstanding.

Why should a CEO use this framework?

The concepts presented herein can be used by anyorganization whether they have a pre-existing CIfunction or do CI informally. For the experienced CIshops, the framework outlined herein provides a log-ical extension of existing CI efforts. CI professionalswill recognize a similarity to the techniques of contentanalysis (Neuendorf, 2001), and remote profiling(Fahey, 1999; Vella and McGonagle, 2000; Walle,1999b).

For those organizations that do not have a formal

CI program, the approach described below will pro-vide a focused CI activity that can be executed bytheir sales force and marketing staff. Since it is likelythat sales reps are already being used as a source of competitive intelligence, the framework proposedhere provides additional structure for their CI activi-ties. The point is that with minimal effort, meme-based intelligence can be gathered and fed into theorganizations decision-making process.

Often CI efforts are criticized as theoretical exer-cises not directly connected to the real world(Subramanian and Ishak, 1998; Harkleroad, 1998;Ganesh, Miree and Prescott, 2003). Focusing onmemes almost automatically stimulates creative adap-tation in the form of the search for practical counter-memes or memetically-based strategies.

Developing a memetic profile of competitors top managers

Competitors memes are of interest on two levels:(1) the meme-set of competitors top management,e.g., their memetic profile; and (2) the meme-set sur-rounding individual products.

Competitor profiling is a powerful, but underuti-lized technique (Vella and McGonagle, 2000), and theaddition of memetics to already known profilingapproaches may allow the practice to be more widely

used. Profiling can be viewed within the larger con-text of social science research on understanding cul-tures (Walle, 1999b), and within the field of CI it canbe viewed as an exercise in the mental categorizationof competitors (Saxby, Nitse and Dishman, 2000). CIpractitioners ought to be particularly interested in

identifying the memes held by a competitors topmanagement team because, if memetic theory is cor-rect, their memes are replicated within their organiza-tions and become a major determinant of the strategyand tactics of the competitor.

The memetic profiling process consists of stepsadapted from Sathes (1985) cultural assessmentapproach. First, raw memetic inputs are collectedfrom speeches, interviews, or writings of top man-agers of competitors. For example, one source mightbe sentences or paragraphs from a Letter toShareholders in the competitors annual report. Next,dominant memes, called meta-memes, are inferredfrom the collection of the raw memetic inputs gener-ated in step one.

The memetic profiling process is not difficult. Areasonably intelligent person reviews speeches, tran-scripts of interviews, annual reports and other docu-ments of a competitors top management in order to

collect statements containing relevant themes(memes). This collection then becomes the raw mate-rial for developing a summary assessment of thememesthe meta-memes. The memetic profile con-sisting of these meta-memes then can be expected tobe replicated within the competitors organization as awhole. The memetic profile should then be comparedto the actual behavior in order to verify that the meta-memes that have been identified are in fact beingreplicated within the competitors organization.

Therefore, the memetic profiling process consistsof:

Identification of competitor memes from top man-agements statements in annual reports and other sources.

Based on the memes so identified, generation of meta-memes that are likely to drive the com-petitors organization.


4/15



Examination of evidence to see if the meta-memesare being replicated within the competitors organ-ization.

For example, if one were to review the speeches of Ronald Reagan prior to his becoming President, onewould find memes and meta-memes related to his

dislike of Communism. His meme-driven behavior asPresident shaped the policies of the United StatesGovernment which in turn contributed to significantchanges in Communist countries.

Example: A memetic profile of TheUniversity of Phoenix

In just ten years the University of Phoenix, part of the Apollo Group, has grown from a small privateinstitution to the largest private university in the

United States. The University of Phoenix has cam-puses throughout the country, and also is the largestprovider of entirely online degrees in the worldthrough its University of Phoenix Online subsidiary.This memetic profile of the University of Phoenixbegins with an examination of the Letters toShareholders from the Chairman, other statements bythe University of Phoenix top management team, andthe written history of the University of Phoenix whichmost likely was either written or influenced by topmanagement. Memes and meta-memes are comparedto the actual behavior of the organization to verifythat the behavior of the University of Phoenix wasconsistent with the memes and meta-memes.

Step 1: Raw memetic inputs.The raw memetic inputs shown in Exhibit 1 were

derived from Annual Reports of the Apollo Group, theparent company of the University of Phoenix.

Exhibit 1Raw Memetic Inputs (RMI) from Annual Reports

of the Apollo GroupRMI 1: Apollo is resolved to be the dominant force in higher education for adults both domesti-cally and internationally. We will do this by con-tinuing to provide the most current and relevanteducation in the most convenient and efficient

format possible. Our goal is to make Apolloknown and admired around the globe.

(Sperling, 1999, p. 1)RMI 2: Apollo is committed to strengthening itsleadership position in adult higher education, bothdomestically and internationally. We will do this

by constantly seeking better ways to answer theeducational needs of working professionals, con-tinuing to develop the most relevant curricula, anddelivering them in the most efficient way possible.

(Sperling, 1999, p. 3)RMI 3: Education must not only be relevant tothe demands of technology, it must be efficient interms of time and place. Thus the currentmantraAnywhere, Anytime Education. Manytraditional educational institutions are unable torespond to the demands of this market, but the Apollo Group companies respond rapidly and do itwith innovation and inspiration. The writings onthe chalkboard. In the 21st century there will betwo kinds of educational institutions: the quickand the dead.

(Sperling, 2000, p. 1)RMI 4: In fact, experts estimate that 90% of theInternet education market has yet to be tapped,

and University of Phoenix Online is uniquely posi-tioned to answer this enormous demand.(Sperling, 2000, p. 2)

RMI 5: The issuance of University of PhoenixOnline common stock (UOPX) raised over $70million. This capital infusion will enable us toenhance University of Phoenix Onlines infra-structure, increase staffing, expand its marketingand sales, and in so doing, leverage University of Phoenixs leadership position and further increaseits market share.

(Sperling, 2000, p. 2)RMI 6: Looking forward, we at Apollo Groupconfirm our commitment to provide higher educa-tion of unsurpassed convenience, efficiency, andvalue to working professionals. The dramaticspread of our innovative educational format, from


5/15



coast to coast and around the world, confirms the power of an idea whose time has come. Were atthe forefront of a new era in higher education, andwere just getting started.

(Sperling, 2000, p. 2)RMI 7: Over the years, hundreds of colleges and

universities have competed with Apollo by offering programs that incorporate various aspects of Apollos instructional systems. Most recently theyare offering courses and degree programs usingInternet and Web technologies that are designed tocompete directly with University of PhoenixOnline. Because all but a handful of these online programs are being offered by public and non- profit institutions, they can operate at a loss.Nevertheless, they have yet to pose a serious competitive threat to University of Phoenix Online.

(Sperling, 2001, p. 2)RMI 8: At Apollo Group, we intend to retain andstrengthen our market dominance and our leader-ship position in higher education in order toensure that, a decade hence, our courseware willbe educating more people faster, better, andcheaper around the globe.

(Sperling, 2001, p. 2)

RMI 9: But the big story this coming year will berEsource. With rEsource, all course materials arecreated digitally and delivered via the Internet.Students will have instant access to their coursematerials, syllabi, textbooks, assigned reading, powerful multimedia presentations, plus theUniversity Library and hyperlinks to relevantwebsites, all at a lower cost. At the same time, thecourse materials can be updated and re-config-ured easily, so content will be more current andmore relevant to the course of study. This innova-tive delivery method for course materials promisesto provide a competitive advantage that will fur-ther our lead in higher education.

(Sperling, 2001, p. 2)

RMI 10: At all Apollo Group subsidiaries, westrive to improve the quality and value of our programs and products. As a result, we continue toextend our competitive advantage, expand our markets, and increase profitability for our share-holders.

(Sperling, 2002, p. 3)RMI 11: All college enrollments are projected toexpand over the next decade. College enrollmentamong students that work full or part time isexpected to grow even faster. Whereas most col-leges and universities are not designed for thisworking population, Apollo Group is. At ApolloGroup, our completely scalable format utilizing practitioner faculty is uniquely qualified to answer this demand.

(Sperling and Nelson, 2003, p. 3)RMI 12: Sperling anticipated the confluence of technological, economic, and demographic forcesthat would in a very short time herald the returnof ever-larger numbers of working adults to formal higher education.According to Sperling,working adult students were invisible on the tradi-tional campus and were treated as second-classcitizens.As an institution, University of Phoenix

is unique in its single-minded commitment to theeducational needs of working adults.(Apollo Group, 2004b)

RMI 13: Indeed, we are keenly aware of the com- petition inside and outside of the industry, but itwill not dictate how we operate. We are theleaders in this industry and have developed astrategic plan to increase our distance from the packa fact that has been borne out by our increased geographic breadth and our rapidlyrising enrollment numbers.

( Nelson, 2004, p. 3)

Step 2: Extraction of meta-memesOnce the raw memetic material has been assem-

bled, the next step is to determine the meta-memesexhibited in the material. This step is analogous towhat organizational anthropologist Sathe has


6/15



described in a unit on deciphering a culture. Sathe(1985) said, The most subjective and tricky part inthe process of deciphering a culture is in distillingthe content of culture from its many manifestations.

Because of the subjective nature of both the selec-tion of the raw memes and the extraction of meta-

memes, it would be a good idea to have more thanone person involved in the process. The meta-memesfor the University of Phoenix are shown in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2

University of Phoenix Meta-Memes Derived from Raw Memetic Inputs

Meta-meme #1: The University of Phoenix targetsworking adults. (Based on RMIs 1, 2, 6, and 11)Meta-meme #2: The University of Phoenix shouldoperate in a highly efficient manner. (Based onRMIs 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 11)Meta-meme #3: The University of Phoenix shouldstrive for aggressive growth. (Based on RMIs 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 13)Meta-meme #4: Traditional higher education is adinosaur incapable of meeting the needs of working adults. (Based on RMIs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,11 and 12)

Meta-meme #5: The University of Phoenix viewshigher education as a competitive environment.(Based on RMIs 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13)

Step 3: Evidence of execution of the meta-memesIn this step, it is judicious to verify that the

memes and meta-memes are in fact being replicatedwithin the organization. In the case of the ApolloGroup, it appears that they are. Revenues at the

Apollo Group have grown from $125 million in 1994

to $1.8 billion in 2004 (Apollo Group, 2004a). Withenrollment in excess of 228,000 students, up from32,000 in 1994, the University of Phoenix is thelargest non-profit university in the United States, andon track to become the largest university in the world.Dedication to the needs of working adults remainsstrong, with professional degree programs such asinformation systems, business, nursing, and criminal

justice. No private or public university comes close tomeeting University of Phoenix Online enrollments,which confirms Chairman Sperlings view that tradi-tional institutions of higher education are mal-adapted to serving the needs of working adults.Operating efficiencies from a scalable course design

and the centralization of student services continue tobe implemented (Apollo Group, 2003 and 2004a).Overall, the University of Phoenix is executing itsmeta-memes.

Memetic sub-profiles for individualproducts

A memetic profile of top management such as theone shown above describes the meme-set that drivesthe overall behavior of an organization. However, cor-

porations typically have more than one product orservice. If that is the case, memetic sub-profiles can bedeveloped for each product or service. For the bal-ance of this paper, the term product will be used ina broader sense to include services.

The development of the memetic sub-profilesinvolves gathering and utilizing several sources of memes and meta-memes. The primary source of memes and meta-memes for a sub-profile are derivedfrom the memetic profile of the top management teamas described in the previous section. The question tobe explored is to what extent top managementsmemes and meta-memes influence the meme-set for aspecific product. Some products may operate with ameme-set that is virtually identical to that of top man-agement. In other organizations, there also may beinfluence from the following sources:

The memes of the founder(s) of the product. Thememes of the founder, or founding group, of theproduct in question could be in operation even if

the founder is no longer involved in the product. Although not specifically focused on memes, Schein (1983) has found that the founder(s) havea significant long-term influence on an organiza-

tions culture. Therefore, in the construction of memetic sub-profiles for individual products, it is


7/15



desirable to try to ascertain the extent that the founder(s) memes are present in the current oper-ations of the competitors product.

Industry characteristics. The memes associated with a competitors product could be shaped by the type of industry that it is in. Galbraith (1983), for example, has found distinct cultural differ-ences between downstream organizations (close to

the ultimate consumer) and upstream organizations (close to the raw materials). Downstreamcompanies are consumer oriented and place a

great deal of emphasis on meeting the wants andneeds of the consumer. Upstream companies, suchas in mining and manufacturing, tend to focus onbeing the low-cost producer. Not surprisingly,

there seems to be a relationship between the typesof degrees held by managers and the type of industry they are in. Upstream companies tend tohave top managers who have degrees in engi-neering, science or technology. Downstream com-panies tend to have top managers with degrees inbusiness, liberal arts, or the social sciences.Information about the industrys center of gravity and degrees held can provide clues to the memes

the managers hold.

Memes of managers and staff. The competitorssales managers and marketing staff also havememes they have acquired from their own experi-

ences. Therefore it is desirable to try to determine the backgrounds of those individuals in the com-petitors organization who are responsible for managing the product.

Other. There may be other factors that influence the memetic sub-profile of competitors, such asunique internal factors, external environmentalissues or memes picked up from articles, books,classes or seminars.

The following sections describe how the above

sources can be used to generate a memetic sub-profileof competitors products. The specific techniquesused to generate the memetic sub-profiles would varydepending whether the product is an industrialproduct or a consumer product.

Creating and using memetic sub-profiles for industrial products

For industrial products, it is the sales force thatwould be the primary collector of competitor memes.The marketing staff, and CI personnel if available,would also assist. The types of questions about thememes of the competitor that could be discretelyasked by the sales force (or other managers or staff)are shown below. These questions could be asked of customers, suppliers and possibly the sales reps of competitors. Tips for how to ask such questions canbe found in Nolan (1999), in which he describes howto elicit business intelligence in a conversational style.Some questions your sales force could ask are:

Who is heading up this product group at XYZCorporation?

What is their educational background at the bach-elors level?

What advanced degrees do they have? In what fields?

What company did they work at prior to joining their present company?

What part of the organization did they work in ini- tially?

What is the new product development process at XYZ?

If XYZs sales rep has an idea to improve something, how is that handled?

How is the XYZ organization doing? What factorsare affecting their performance?

What are the XYZ organizations strengths?

What does the XYZ organization not do so well?

How is the support in the XYZ organization for

sales and marketing? What are the XYZ products main selling points?

How do customers view XYZs main selling points?

In reporting the results of their inquiries, salesreps should be encouraged to add their own impres-sions of XYZs main selling points, as well asdescribing approaches they find are effective in coun-


8/15



tering XYZs selling points. Sales reps can also beasked for suggestions for modifying their own com-panys advertising and promotional materials to bettercounter competitor memes.

There are several options for utilizing competitormemes and meta-memes in the industrial personal

selling process. The competitor memes and meta-memes, once identified, can be used by marketingstaff and sales managers to formulate counter-memestrategies. In addition, the intelligence gatheringprocess described above should facilitate the identifi-cation of those sales reps that are particularly good atimplanting certain types of counter-memes. Onceidentified, these individuals could be established asspecialists in the same way that some sales reps areused as trainers. These counter-meme specialistscould then be made available to other sales reps thathave a need for that particular counter-meme strategy.

Creating and using memetic sub-profiles for consumer products

In contrast to the role that the sales force plays ingenerating the memetic profile for industrial prod-ucts, when it comes to consumer products, that taskshifts to the marketing staff, especially marketingresearch. The process for generating a memetic sub-profile for consumer products would, essentially, bethe same as for memetic profiles such as that shownfor the University of Phoenix. The difference is thatrather than using source materials such as annualLetters to Shareholders and speeches, the sourcematerial for memetic sub-profiles for consumer prod-ucts would be competitor advertisements, sales pro-motion materials, information gathered directly fromconsumers via marketing research and the like. The

set of memes gathered by examining advertising andfrom marketing research could be augmented byinformation from the sales force and marketing staff using the techniques for generating memetic sub-pro-files for industrial products as described in the pre-vious section.

In consumer marketing, advertising is the primaryinfluence in the establishment of memes in the mindsof consumers. Advertisers routinely assume that themessage they intend to implant in consumers is themessage actually received. This is not necessarily thecase, and marketing research is needed to determine

which memes have been received. The Beer Wars of 2004 (Ewing, 2004) illustrate some of the complexissues associated with attempting to implant adver-tising messages (memes) in the minds of consumers.

Beer Wars: The Bud Light-Miller Lite battle

Anheuser-Busch, for many years, has held thedominant position in the U.S. beer market withalmost a 50% market share. Budweiser and Bud Light

were their lead products. Miller products were a dis-tant second in the United States with about a 25%market share. Miller Brewing Company, as a result of its acquisition by South African Brewery in 2002,launched an aggressive advertising campaign targeteddirectly at Bud Light. Their advertising promotedMiller Lite as having half as many carbohydrates asBud Light. In May of 2004, Anheuser-Busch coun-tered with its talking-lizard advertising that saidMiller Lite was the Queen of Carbs (Ewing, 2004;St. Louis Post Dispatch, 2004).

Miller filed a lawsuit claiming that Queen of Carbs was a disparaging statement that was mis-leading consumers to believe that Miller Lite was highin carbohydrates. Miller sought an injunction to pre-vent Anheuser-Busch from using that line in theiradvertising (Cancelada, 2004).

Miller withdrew the lawsuit after seeing the salesof their products increase during the time the Bud

Light ads were airing. Miller executives said thatMiller Lite sales in supermarkets were up 17% overthe previous year for the two week period sur-rounding the Memorial Day holiday in late May whenthe Bud Light advertising was running (St. Louis PostDispatch, 2004).


9/15



The question illustrated by this example is, Whatmemes were being received by the consumer? Usingmemetic terminology, the assumption that callingMiller Lite The Queen of Carbs would implant ameme that Miller Lite was high in carbohydrates isnot necessarily the meme that was received by the

consumer. The increase in Miller Lite sales of 17%suggests that such a meme implantation approachmay not have been successful. Perhaps the meme thatthe Bud Light ads conveyed as a result of their adver-tising was something else, such as, Miller Lite is asgood as Bud Light. If so, it is surely is not what

Anheuser-Busch intended.In consumer marketing, the intent of the adver-

tiser is irrelevant. What matters is the memes receivedby the target consumers. For consumer products,marketing research can help track what is going on inthe minds of consumers. Marketing research andother memetic intelligence, especially from the salesforce, can then be fed into the marketing and strategicdecision-making process. The memetic informationcould be used not only for understanding a com-petitors current strategies, but to predict their futurestrategies with techniques like competitor scenariodevelopment (Fahey, 1999).

Future directions for researchMemetics is a new concept in the fields of mar-

keting and competitor intelligence. Several areas needadditional research if CI and marketing are to capi-talize on the potential of the emerging field of memetics. The following are three of the more impor-tant areas.

Relationship of memetics to the field of marketing

The effective use of memetics in CI is heavilydependent on advancements in the area of the use of memetics for marketing purposes. Because memeticsdeals with ideas and how they are transferred fromone brain to another, one would think that memeticswould be a major topic in the field of marketing, butit is not. More research is needed to accelerate the the-

oretical and practical aspects of using memes in mar-keting.

The theoretical research on memetics in mar-keting is scant and needs to be greatly expanded.Only two articles with a clear theoretical orientationhave been published (Williams, 2000; Marsden and

Bollen, 1999). Marsden is the originator of mememaps, which graphically portray the meme-sets of segments of a potential market (Marsden, 2002). Twoother articles include both theoretical and practicalaspects of memetics (Gelb, 1997; Marsden, 1998).

Although memetics has not been widely adoptedby marketing theorists, it has been embraced by prac-titioners and consultants, mostly under the heading of viral marketing. However, viral marketing has a ques-tionable linkage to memetics and lacks the conceptualfoundation that one would expect of a major move-ment in the field of marketing.

There are many articles and books on viral mar-keting, which practitioners have more or less discov-ered independently of memetic theory. Articles onviral marketing appear in Fortune (Kelly, 2000),

Advertising Age (Barlow, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2001;Beeler, 2000), B to B (Ward, 2000), MarketingMagazine (Sandler, 2001), Sales and Marketing

Management (Zimmerman, 2001), Marketing (Mazur,2002), Brandweek (Taylor, 2003), and US News & World Report (Streisand, 1999). None of these articlesmention memetics per se, but all mention that com-panies are rapidly adopting viral marketing. An articleby Walker (2000) is an exception in that he links viralmarketing to memetic marketing. Additional researchis needed to clarify the relationship between viralmarketing and memetic marketing.

The field of marketing, to date, has been slow inrecognizing the potential of the concept of memeticseven though it has been around for a quarter of a cen-tury. More research is needed to accelerate the theo-retical and practical aspects of using memes inmarketing.


10/15



Linkage of memes to psychogaphic typologies

One of the promising ways to link memes andmarketing is in the area of consumer psychographics.Marketing has used psychographics for many years.One of the leading approaches to psychographics is

Values and Life Styles (VALS) which describes severaldistinct clusters of consumers based on life style andpsychological characteristics (SRI BusinessIntelligence Consulting, 2004). VALS has not as yetbeen linked to memetics. Neither has the popular per-sonality technique, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.However, Nolan (1999) has linked competitive intelli-gence to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Quenk,1999) by suggesting a variation of the Myers-Briggs

could be used to generate a psychological profile of the leaders of competitor companies. Searches of theInternet and library databases by the author reflect nolink of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to memetics.

A psychographic categorizing system that hasbeen linked to memetics is the research of the late Dr.Clare Graves (1970). Graves describes seven levels of psychological evolution, each with its own uniqueway of thinking and acting. While Graves workoccurred before Dawkins introduced the concept of

memetics in 1976, some of Graves disciples havesubsequently attempted to make such a connection.In their book Spiral Dynamics, Beck and Cowan,(1996) have relabeled the Gravesian types asvMemes, which the authors say is short for valuememes. However, this categorization seems to be onlypartially correct, as each Gravesian type most likelyreflects the action of both genes and memes, ratherthan just memes as the designation vMemes implies.In addition, Beck and Cowans work is not businessoriented, so additional research would be necessary tomore specifically describe how Gravesian psycholog-ical types and memetic theories are related, and toclarify implications for marketing and competitiveintelligence.

Utilization of meme-based CI An important area for future research is how

meme-based intelligence would be utilized in thedecision-making process. The issue of effective utiliza-tion of any type of intelligence has been illuminatedby the business intelligence benchmarking study con-

ducted by the American Productivity and QualityCenter (Prescott and Herring, 1998). In spite of sev-eral examples of effective utilization of CI in someorganizations identified in the study, CI is underusedand/or misused in many organizations.

The problems related to the use of intelligencehave been described in both business and govern-ment. In business CI, several authors have raised theconceptual question of how CI could or should beeffectively used in decision-making processes(Ganesh, Miree and Prescott, 2003; Hall, 2001).Similar issues regarding the ineffective utilization of available intelligence exist in governmental organiza-tions (Feder, 2000; Herring, 1999).

Practitioners have illustrated some of the prob-lems of intelligence utilization in more concreteterms. Clarke (1999) has observed that, Decision-makers are always more comfortable with intelligencethat confirms the conventional wisdom. For example,

when confronted with information that does not con-form to an image set, a decision-maker may tend tomisunderstand it, to twists its meaning to make itconsistent, explain it away, deny it, or even ignore it.Cullen (2000) says, Our decision makers may listen,but often we get the feeling they dont embrace theinformation. They may be skeptical, dismissive, impa-tient, or they may just miss the point.

Business is not alone when it comes to poor uti-lization of available intelligence. Government hasessentially the same problems (Feder, 2000; Herring,1999) with one major difference: Many of the govern-ments intelligence failures are more public than sim-ilar failures in the private sector. One example of poorutilization of available information in a governmentalagency can be seen in the public accounts of the


11/15



Columbiashuttle disaster of early 2003 ( Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003).

The space shuttle Columbiawas launched on January 16, 2003 for a 16 day stay in space. Manyengineers at the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) and its contractors thought

that a wing of the Columbiaprobably suffered sub-stantial damage as it was launched. The engineersraised those concerns early in the flight, but NASAsmanagement dismissed those concerns claiming therewas no hard evidence that the shuttle was damaged.In an attempt to gather information that would clarifywhether there was damage to the wing, several daysinto the flight one of the NASA engineers requestedthat the Department of Defense use one of its satellites(as it had on a previous shuttle flight) to take picturesof the Columbiato ascertain if it was in fact damaged.However, when management learned of the requestfor the satellite photos the request was cancelled onthe grounds that they, NASAs middle managers, didnot believe there was damage to the shuttle.

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (2003)found that, in fact, the wing was damaged on liftoff,which caused the Columbiato disintegrate uponreentry. All seven astronauts on board were killed.

The investigation boards report was very critical of NASA managements extremely poor handling of theavailable information about likely damage. The Boardconcluded that had management acted in a timelyfashion on the available engineering informationabout probable damage, a rescue mission using the Atlantis shuttle might have been possible.

Perhaps the biggest public failure to use intelli-gence in our lifetime was the inability of the CIA andFBI to connect the dots regarding the impendingattacks of September 11, 2001, on the World TradeCenter and the Pentagon. The report of the commis-sion that investigated the attacks indicated that if available information had been effectively utilized,there was a good possibility the devastating attackscould have been prevented (National Commission onTerrorist Attacks, 2004).

The problem of utilization of intelligence is preva-lent in both business and governmental organizationsbecause all organizations use essentially the samedecision-making process that is rooted in a linear-rational meme-set that is not well suited for the task.

While that meme-set is good for some purposes, such

as operating a top-down organization, it is not welladapted to accepting and processing intelligence. Itappears that this linear-rational meme-set is anextremely good replicator that virtually locks organi-zations into behavior that is inimical to their long-term survival.

One stream of research that explains the organiza-tional behavior that leads to poor utilization of intelli-gence is the work of Argyris and Schon (1978). Theirresearch indicates that over 90% of organizationsoperate in a single loop mode, which is character-ized by poor ability to surface and validate assump-tions, a my mind is made up, dont confuse me withfacts attitude, the camouflaging of bad news so as notto upset higher management, punishing trouble-makers who dont adhere to the party line, a win/loseethic, and the inability to admit that such behaviorexists in their organization (Argyris and Schon, 1978;

Argyris, 1977 and 1996).

Research is needed on what to do about this per-vasive single loop meme-set that impedes the collec-tion and utilization of competitive intelligence.

Argyris himself reports only moderate success withhis efforts to change single loop cultures to doubleloop, e.g., the ability to openly question underlyingassumptions and to use facts rather than subjectiveopinions for decisions (Argyris, 1977; Argyris, 1996).One approach for dealing with single loop culturesthat has been explored by OGorman (2005b) is touse a technique developed by Mason and Mitroff (1981) called Strategic Assumption Surfacing andTesting. Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testingdoes not attempt to change the single loop meme-set,but to only temporarily implant a pocket of doubleloop behavior within the single loop organization fora specific decision (OGorman, 2005b).


12/15



More research is needed to determine if it is fea-sible or desirable to change the linear-rational singleloop meme-set to a double loop meme-set, orwhether it is better to develop decision-making tech-niques and processes such as Strategic AssumptionSurfacing and Testing that would effectively utilize

intelligence, but within the overall culture of a singleloop organization.

In summary, more research is needed on thesethree areas. Unfortunately, the field of CI cannotexpect that other business fields will forge ahead witha research agenda that will be of assistance to CI. Forall practical purposes, marketing theory is ignoringmemetics. Neither is the field of psychology likely tobe of any help in linking memetics to usable psycho-graphic typologies. Similarly, the field of organiza-tional behavior seems to be itself so steeped inlinear-rational single loop concepts that it is unlikelyto be of much help in doing something about dys-functional decision processes that inhibit the effectiveuse of intelligence.

But as the saying goes (a meme, by the way),Every problem is an opportunity. Perhaps this is theright time for the field of CI to launch a significantresearch agenda focused on memetics.

ConclusionThere is growing evidence that human behavior is

a function of genes and memes (Aunger, 2001 and2002; Dennett, 1991 and 1995). In the field of CI, weare interested in the memes of competitors top man-agers because we know those memes will be repli-cating and driving the behavior of their organizations.This memetic perspective helps illuminate whycompetitors behave the way they do, and provide

insights into how they will behave in the future.This paper suggests an integrated way to tie

memetics to marketing and competitive intelligence.However, more research is needed to elucidate therelationship of memes, CI and marketing, especiallywith a focus on the how memetics relates to the psy-chographics of consumer behavior. Research is alsoneeded on the utilization of meme-based intelligence.

Since other fields of business and the social scienceshave little interest in memetics, this paper recom-mends that the field of CI institute a major researchagenda focused on memetics.

However, it will take years before that research isavailable to practitioners. In the interim, this paper

has presented specific activities that could be usedtoday to generate memetic profiles of competitors.The memes and meta-memes embodied in competi-tors top management would be extracted by CIanalyses of speeches, annual reports, media inter-views, and the like. Memetic profiles would also beprepared for key competitior products, with the spe-cific methods determined by whether the product isan advertising-centric consumer product or a salesforce-centric institutional product.

For consumer products, marketing research would take the lead in identifying competitor memes in the minds of consumers. Sales reps would provideadditional insights regarding competitor memesand meta-memes that exist within the product dis-

tribution system.

For industrial products, it is the sales force that would be the primary collector of competitor memes. If the organization has a CI function, it

would coordinate with the sales reps regarding the

identification of competitor memes and meta-memes using focused questions of customers, and where possible, of competitors sales reps.

The memetic profile of competitors, successes incountering competitor memes, along with other com-petitive intelligence, would form the basis formemetic action plans at the corporate as well asproduct levels. The net benefit is that those organiza-tions that excel in identifying competitor memes andimplementing effective counter-meme strategies willhave a competitive advantage in the market place.

References Apollo Group. (2003). Apollo Group Annual Report.Phoenix, AZ: Apollo Group.http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/2003.pdf.


13/15



Apollo Group. (2004a). Apollo Group Annual Report.Phoenix, AZ: Apollo Group.http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/2004.pdf.

Apollo Group. (2004b). Apollo Group History.http://www.apollogrp.edu/History.aspx.

Argyris, C. (1977). Double Loop Learning in

Organizations, Harvard Business Review (September-October): 115-125.

Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable Knowledge: Intent Versus Actuality, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,32(December): 441-444.

Argyris, C. and D.A. Schon. (1978). OrganizationalLearning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Aunger, R. (1999). Culture Vultures, The Sciences 39(5):36-42.

Aunger, R. [ed.] (2001). Darwinizing Culture: The Statusof Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Aunger, R. (2002). The Electric Meme. New York: TheFree Press.

Barlow, R. (2000). The Net Upends Tenets of LoyaltyMarketing, Advertising Age (April 17): 46.

Beck, D. and C. Cowan. (1996). Spiral Dynamics.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business.Beeler, A. (2000). Virus without a Cure, Advertising Age(April 17): 54.

Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Brodie, R. (1996). Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme. Seattle, WA: Integral Press.

Cancelada, G. (2004). Fight Between A-B, Miller Spillsinto Court, St. Louis Post Dispatch (May 28): C2.

Clarke, J.L. (1999). Why Good People Make BadDecisions - - Despite Great Intelligence! CompetitiveIntelligence 2(4): 15-18.

Columbia Accident Investigation Board. (2003). Columbia Accident Investigation Board Final Report,http://www.caib.us.

Cullen, S.E. (2000). Communicating Complex Issues tDecision Makers: A Patent Example, CompetitiveIntelligence 3(3): 23-30.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston:Little Brown.

Dennett, D. (1995). Darwins Dangerous Idea. London:Penguin.

Ewing, J. (2004). Beer Wars Come to a Head, BusineWeek (May 24). http://www.businessweek.com/maga-zine/content/04_21/b3884086.htm.

Fahey, L. (1999). Competitor Scenarios: Projecting aRivals Marketplace Strategy, Competitive IntelligenceReview 10(2): 65-85.

Feder, S. (2000). Overcoming Mindsets: WhatCorporations Can Learn from Government IntelligenceFailures, Competitive Intelligence Review 11(3): 28-3

Fitzgerald, K. (2001). Viral Marketing Breaks Through Advertising Age (June 25): 10.

Galbraith, J. (1983). Strategy and OrganizationalPlanning, Human Resource Management

22(Spring/Summer): 63-77.Ganesh, U., Miree, C. and J. Prescott. (2003).Competitive Intelligence Field Research: Moving the FForward by Setting a Research Agenda, Journal of Competitive Intelligence and Management 1(1): 1-12.

Gelb, B. (1997). Creating Memes While Creating Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research 37(6): 5759.

Graves, C. (1970). Levels of Existence, Journal of Humanistic Psychology 10(2): 131-155.

Hall, C. (2001). The Intelligent Puzzle, CompetitiveIntelligence Review 12(4): 3-14.

Harkleroad, D. (1998). Ostriches and Eagles II,Competitive Intelligence Review 9(1): 13-19.

Herring, J. (1999). Key Intelligence Topics: A ProcessIdentify and Define Intelligence Needs, CompetitiveIntelligence Review 10(2): 4-14.


14/15



Kelly, E. (2000). This Is the One Virus You Want toSpread, Fortune (November 27): 297-300.

Lynch, A. (1996). Thought Contagion: How Beliefs Spreadthrough Society. New York: Basic Books.

Marsden, P. (1998). Memetics: A New Paradigm for Understanding Customer Behavior and Influence,

Marketing Intelligence and Planning 16(6): 363.Marsden, P. (2002). What Healthy-Living Means toConsumers, International Journal of Market Research44(2): 223-234.

Marsden, P. and J. Bollen. (1999). Help AdvertisingEvolve: Clone Consumer Thought Patterns, AdMap34(3): 37-39.

Mason, R.O. and I.I. Mitroff. (1981). ChallengingStrategic Planning Assumptions. New York: Wiley.

Mazur, L. (2002). Firms Cant Do Viral Marketing: It IsDone to You, Marketing (June 27): 16.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. (2004). The9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the NationalCommission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.New York: Norton & Company.

Nelson, T. (2004). Letter to our Shareholders, The Apollo Group Annual Report. Phoenix, AZ: The ApolloGroup. http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/2004.pdf.

Neuendorf, K. (2001). The Content Analysis Guidebook.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nolan, J. (1999). Confidential: Uncover Your CompetitorsTop Business Secrets Legally and Quicklyand ProtectYour Own. New York: HarperCollins.

OGorman, D. (2005a). Is the Meme Meme ReplicatingItself? Unpublished research.

OGorman, D. (2005b). Strategic Decision-making:Problems and Prospects, Proceedings of the North American Management Society Conference 2005.Chicago, IL: North American Management Society.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2005). http://www.askox- ford.com/?view=uk.

Powell, T. and C. Allgaier. (1999). Enhancing Sales andMarketing Effectiveness Through CompetitiveIntelligence, Competitive Intelligence Review 9(4): 29-41.

Prescott, J. and J. Herring. (1998). LeveragingInformation for Action: A Look into the Competitive anBusiness Intelligence Consortium Benchmarking StudyCompetitive Intelligence Review 9(1): 4-12.

Quenk, N. (1999). Essentials of Myers-Briggs TypeIndicator Assessment. New York: Wiley.

Ridley, M. (2003). Nature Via Nurture. New York: HarpCollins.

Sandler, R. (2001). How to Create an Infectious ViralCampaign, Marketing Magazine (February 19): 14.

Sathe, V. (1985). Culture and Related Corporate RealitieHomewood, IL: Irwin.

Saxby, C., Nitse, P. and P. Dishman. (2000). ManagersMental Categorizations of Competitors, CompetitiveIntelligence Review 11(2): 31-38.

Schein, E. (1983). The Role of the Founder in CreatingOrganizational Culture, Organizational Dynamics(Summer): 13-28.

Sperling, J. (1999). Letter to Shareholders, Apollo Gr Annual Report. Phoenix, AZ: Apollo Group.http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/1999.pdf.




Sperling, J. and T. Nelson. (2003). Letter toShareholders, Apollo Group Annual Report. Phoenix, A Apollo Group. http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/2003.pdf.

SRI Business Intelligence Consulting. (2004). About VA.http://www.sricbi.com/VALS/.

St. Louis Post Dispatch. (2004). Beer Wars, (June 16)C-10.

Streisand, B. (1999). The Price of Good Buzz, US Ne& World Report (September 27): 48.


15/15


Subramanian, R. and S. Ishak. (1998). Competitor Analysis Practices of U.S. Companies: An EmpiricalInvestigation, Management International Review 38 (1):7-23.

Taylor, J. (2003). Word of Mouth Is Where Its At,Brandweek (June 2): 26.

Vella, C. and J. McGonagle. (2000). Profiling inCompetitive Analysis, Competitive Intelligence Review11(2): 20-30.

Walker, R. (2000). Got a Replication Strategy, MC Technology Marketing Intelligence (April): 102-104.

Walle, A. (1999a). From Marketing Research toCompetitive Intelligence: Useful Generalization or Loss of Focus? Management Decision 37(6): 519-525.

Walle, A. (1999b). Corporate Configurations andCompetitive Intelligence: Understanding Organizations asa Distance, Competitive Intelligence Review 10 (4): 55-64.

Ward, E. (2000). Viral Marketing Involves Serendipity,Not Planning, B to B (July 17): 26.

Williams, R. (2000). The Business of Memes: MemeticMarketing Possibilities of Marketing and Management,Management Decision 38(4): 272-79.

Zimmerman, R. (2001). Catch the Bug, Sales andMarketing Management (February): 78-82.

CI and Marketing - A Preliminary Framework

Documents

Transcript of CI and Marketing - A Preliminary Framework