Labeling Theory of Disinterest: What Businesses Can Learn From Mindhunter (and Durkheim)
If you are anything like me, you have already binge-watched your way through all 10 episodes of Mindhunter, researched this Durkheim fellow everyone keeps talking about, quickly regretted not taking Introduction to Sociology in college, scoured several Wikipedia pages, Googled a picture of the real Ed Kemper, and fallen down a potentially inescapable wormhole of sociology and serial killer history...
Sound about right?
Or maybe you are a little bit different. Maybe you did take that Sociology course and are now thinking to yourself "how does this schmuck not know of the incomparable émile Durkheim??"
I apologize for nothing...
Minus the numerous adult-centric responsibilities I have neglected as a result of watching this show.
As the workweek unwinds, it is not uncommon for my work thoughts to intertwine with my non-work, Netflix-based thoughts. Rarely does this convergence of thought patterns promote productive ideas though. This is most likely for the best as I know far too much about money laundering as a result of plowing through Ozark in a 26-hour frenzy.
However, Mindhunters had a different effect on my psyche (pun highly intended).
And if you have a spare moment, allow me to indulge you in my almost certain-to-be cliched attempt at tying Mindhunter and the Labeling Theory of Deviance (originated by Durkheim) to your business.
For the newly initiated, Mindhunter is a Netflix series based on the true crime book Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit written by John E. Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Set in 1977 — in the early days of criminal psychology and criminal profiling at the Federal Bureau of Investigation — Mindhunter revolves around FBI agents who interview imprisoned serial killers in order to understand how such criminals think and apply this knowledge to solving ongoing cases. Got it? Now a quick aside.
Since slotting in to a sales oversight role within my company, I often find myself tripping in to these mental bear traps where I become convinced that a prospect's disinterest in our product comes as a result of their misunderstanding. Whether it be a misunderstanding of our product, how it can be used, or who should be the one to use it. Thoughts such as - "why don't they see how much they need this?" hit me on a near daily basis.
And I give in to these thoughts at times. Why not? The prospect was "wrong" to be disinterested. End of story.
No further questions asked as to why this seemingly intelligent person did not want to learn anything else about our product.
As I was watching the first episode of Mindhunter, a particularly poignant quote struck me. Debbie and Holden had just met and she was grilling him for his lack of knowledge on Durkheim. More specifically, Durkheim's beliefs and the later-developed Labeling Theory of Deviance. Living vicariously through Holden in that moment, I felt as if I was being grilled by Debbie as well. Debbie stated to a bewildered Holden (and me) on Durkheim's theory:
"He was the first person to suggest that if there's something wrong with our society, then criminality is a response to that."
The statement and related theory ran contrary to everything Holden had ever been taught by his upbringing and the FBI. And he was not alone. Important to note that this was during a time in American history where the term 'serial killer' had not even been coined yet. If someone committed a heinous crime and their motive was "elusive", that person was "crazy" and nothing else. End of story.
No further questions asked as to why this seemingly normal person with no criminal history in some cases would commit such an unimaginable act.
Nobody was asking questions, let alone the right ones. And because of that, law enforcement had zero fundamental understanding of what caused people to become deviant in the absence of tangible motive. Without this understanding, how could these people ever be prevented from or caught after committing these acts?
Now I will allow you to ponder the societal ramifications of Durkheim's theories on your own time. The subject matter is still controversial and is up for debate. Now, if we were to create a spinoff of the deviance theory (Better Call Saul-quality spinoff as opposed to Joey-quality) and we called it the Labeling Theory of Disinterest, it could go something like this: if there's something wrong with our product, then disinterest is a response to that. Sounds too simple, right? Maybe in theory but in execution, we have all failed it at least once.
Remember those mental bear traps I mentioned earlier? If a prospect declined to learn more about our product with little indication as to why, I could easily think that person was "wrong" for having that thought. End of story. By doing so and not asking any further questions as to why, where would that leave us?
It would leave me with zero fundamental understanding of what causes prospects to become disinterested in the absence of tangible motive.
What if a prospect's disinterest is not indicative of their misunderstanding of our product...but actually indicative of something we are doing wrong? Though it may be easy to scapegoat a prospect as the reason for a missed opportunity, it is much harder to re-evaluate our own approach. And when we do, it can lead us down a sobering line of questioning.
Is our brand where we want it to be? Does our platform have all the features it needs to satisfy our target client? Are we the ones with the misunderstanding?
As I said earlier, this was always going to lead us to a nauseatingly cliched conclusion. While Durkheim most likely had little intent for his life's work to be applied to business (sociology nerds - correct me, if you must), the Labeling Theory of Deviance leads us back to the golden rule of business:
The customer is always right.
We must construct our approach around the customer's interests, needs, goals, etc. And when a prospect shows little interest with minimal rationale, instead of asking what's wrong with them, we should really be asking...
...what's wrong with us?