Why?

We spend a lot of time talking about, and trying to understand, people's behaviors.  But the approach is wrong. The research that is conducted and the insights that are shared - about people's buying habits and media consumption, how they spend their time or who they associate with, about people's likes and dislikes, etc - are flawed, or at best, incomplete.  We can measure all sorts of activities and behaviors.  We can look at physical and emotional responses to certain situations.  But we never know for sure what causes them to occur. Everything we measure is quantiative.  The qualitative assessment is missing.  There isn't any attention paid to the motivations behind the behaviors, the reasons that someone took a certain action or think a certain way.  In short, nobody asks why.  And the why is where the impact really comes from.

I have been wondering why people do things a lot lately.  I wonder why people buy one product over another, and why they think someone is trustworthy or not.  I wonder why something that seemed likely to occur just a few days or weeks ago isn't even considered possible now.  I wonder why someone was willing to take a certain action before, or even several times, but won't now -- with not evidence to suggest that they learned, experienced, or tried anything in the interim that would have shifted their behavior.  There are so many things I wonder about.

I am thinking a lot this week about how we respond to disasters, and address causes in today's society - and what it means for the future, and how everything else we do is impacted as a result.  So, let me take one, specific, timely example -- the earthquake in Haiti.  The response to the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding before our eyes is, it appears, unlike anything we have seen before.  Much of the discussion so far has been about the record amounts of money that are being donated, in all forms, to support relief efforts.  But there is dramatic evidence that everything - how governments are responding, how individuals are organizing, how technology is being used, how the media is covering the story, that people's level of interest is greater, compared to past disasters, is different than before.  I want to know why.

Why are people willing to donate $10 via text message to support earthquake victims in Haiti, but didn't in the wake of the earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China in 2008?  The same technology was available, but the idea never caught on.

Why are people willing to collect blankets to be sent to Haiti, but refuse to provide the same support to a person living on the street just a few blocks from their home?

Why are companies donating millions of dollars in response to the crisis in Haiti, in some cases far exceeding what they have donated to other causes over the course of a year?

Why did most of the major media choose to fly its top anchors and talent to Haiti, but haven't (or won't) send them to Iraq or Afghanistan any longer?

Why are there dozens of nonprofit organizations competing for attention, and fundraising support, instead of collaborating and coordinating their efforts for greater impact?

Why is the level of commitment that the US Government is able (or willing) to make to support the people of Haiti different than, say, the level of commitment in response to a humanitarian crisis that happens in the United States?

Why is the story of the earthquake in Haiti dominatre our airwaves, when other, critically important things that occur every day can't break through?

Why is George Clooney hosting a telethon on MTV to support the people left homeless by the earthquake in Haiti, but didn't for other disasters.

There are lots of reasonable answers to any of these questions.  Maybe the technology wasn't available, or our knowledge and comfort using new technology wasn't as advanced.  Perhaps the scale of the disaster is greater - more people killed and injured, Haiti presents a more desperate situation because of its extreme poverty.  There could be political considerations, or logitical challenges that made the response to disasters in the past different.  The level of attention paid to this disaster by the media may have set up the challenge differently. 

Do any of those answers really explain why certain decisions were made, or actions taken?  Do we have any greater understanding after considering the answers that are, or will be given, that will help us to learn from this situation and prepare for disasters in the future?  Has anyone ever asked why, and pushed until a plausible answer was provided?  If the answer wasn't something that people wanted to hear -- a company gave money because it thought it would get them good PR, or a person donated to support earthquake victims in Haiti and not China because they have a bias against China -- have we ever followed up, and determined if that was an acceptable or appropriate reason to make a decision?

We are all part of one, global community -- we are all connected.  That means the decisions that people make in response to the earthquake in Haiti, and more importantly the reasons why they made one choice or another, impact us all.  It may not seem that way, but if an earthquake hits your town, and someone chooses to respond differently - to not text in a donation, to not share critical information - for whatever reason, it will absolutely matter.  And its not just limited to disasters.  Why we buy a certain product, choose to take the bus instead of driving, call someone on their birthday instead of posting a note on their Facebook wall... these things help us learn how people operate, how communities form and sustain, what marketers can do to serve our needs, what problems are most vexing and what solutions need to be prioritied -- and of course, what we need to do, or not do, to make sure that our society functions. 

I am thinking a lot this week about how we respond to disasters, and address causes in today's society - and what it means for the future, and how everything else we do is impacted as a result.  The first question that I am asking, of course, is why.