I hate Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The pyramid is too simplistic a representation of human need states. The theory can’t be tested empirically, I haven’t recognised the hierarchy in any person I have met (and I have met a few) and when you really think about it, it just feels wrong. As an example, babies and children need to have food, safety and human connection to thrive. Then, as they grow older, their need for achievement, recognition, respect and self expression join all the other needs that still exist.
It is worth noting that Maslow’s theory wasn’t intended to be presented as a pyramid with a hierarchy of need states that had to be met before one could move up the pyramid. It was, in fact, a management consultant in the 1960s by the name of Charles McDermid who introduced the idea of the pyramid.
So, apologies Abraham Maslow.
I have worked in marketing and advertising for more decades than I care to admit, and since I first started my career, Maslow’s pyramid has held a prominent space in many communication strategy decks (some of which I’m ashamed to admit I wrote) and business text books. And here’s a tip for those planning on presenting a pitch deck to me any time between now and when I die, if you mention Maslow I’m likely to excuse myself to go to the toilet and never come back.
Why is Maslow’s hierarchy so popular in marketing and advertising?
Advertisers and marketers like to position products as solving problems. If you can identify the people for whom your product solves a problem they face on a daily basis and you make them aware of what you have to offer, you should be very successful. That said, it helps if your pricing is competitive, your availability reasonable and marketing compelling.
However, Maslow’s hierarchy really came into its own when competition and oversupply within markets became an obstacle to the simple, problem/solution approach to advertising.
Harvard marketing professor Theodore Levitt said; “people don’t want to buy a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.” Problem – I need a hole. Solution – drill bit (and drill if you don’t already have one). Now consider if there are six companies offering quarter-inch drill bits to solve that for that non-existent hole problem. All of a sudden your drill-bit is just one of the solutions on offer. And, what happens in these situations is – the cheapest solution drill bit wins.
However, what Maslow’s hierarchy allowed marketers and advertisers to do is identify and create myriad problems that their products could solve. Maslow opened the door for products to solve more than just practical problems. In the middle of the 20th Century Abraham Maslow’s bastardised theory gave advertising agencies and marketers the language and the ‘science’ to convince their CEO’s that their drills, cars and washing machines were more that just products. These objects were capable of giving people’s lives meaning and allowed them to become ‘self-actualised’. Shoes, cigarettes, perfume, whiskey, frozen dinners and anything else you can think of, could now be advertised as capable of solving problems around self esteem, confidence, achievement, security, friendship, sexual attractiveness and identity.
This is all beside the point
I have been thinking about Maslow, need states and advertising.
Many companies start with a product, find an audience for the product and then identify a need state for which said product could be a believable solution. However, I thought, if we start with a need state at the top of the hierarchy and worked our way back to a product, what products would we potentially develop?
Consider that at the top of hierarchy there’s self-actualisation. Self-actualisation is the fulfillment of one’s potential, the realisation of one’s talents and the accepting of one’s purpose. Maslow thought of self-actualisation as more growth orientated than scarcity driven. In other words, the ability to express oneself creatively, to understand ones values and live by them, and to understand one’s place in the world. Or as our friend Socrates would say, to ‘know thyself’.
So what products would need to exist in order for people to truly attain self-actualisation? I like Alain de Botton’s The School of Life. It offers a variety of courses intended to help people lead more fulfilling lives. Psychotherapists, counselors and coaches also help people lead more meaningful lives. Throw motivational speakers into the mix along with a few self help books, art, music, literature and maybe religion. A few architects also deserve to be recognised here. However, I pretty quickly, run out of institutions and offerings that genuinely want to improve how people think about their lives.
But what if?
What if we had the best R&D people from various corporations working on developing products that genuinely help people lead better lives?
Might we see tour operators offer travel experiences that immerse people in foreign cultures for extended periods?
Would we see more art displayed across our cities?
Might we see executive programs that teach creative expression and spirituality?
Will there be an app that could further human connection and belonging?
Would there be recruitment companies matching people with work that truly fulfills them?
Could there be a watch the helps a person accept life’s brevity and death’s inevitability?
Might we design cities that allow strangers to meet one another; or introduce seats on public transport where people can sit to indicate they are open to having a conversation with a stranger?
Could we have parks dedicated to helping people feel more loved and less alone?
Would we design an AI that introduces joy into people’s days?
Might we have televisions that help us be better parents?
We have been told for so long that buying ‘stuff’ will bring meaning to our lives. And we are all starting to realise that we’ve been sold a lie. But what if it were true and the actual problem is that we just haven’t bothered to design or develop products capable of making us happy?