In addition to the benefits that technology brings to our lives, or we think it brings to our lives, it can also provoke unforeseen negative emotions and complex reactions in consumers. This can be thought of as an inevitable consequence of our paradoxical relationship with technology. Does technology make us smarter creatures; Or is it more stupid? Is it more social thanks to technology; Or are we getting more asocial? Can we control our lives better thanks to technology; Or are we drifting into chaos? Is technology meeting our needs? Or is it constantly creating new needs? Is he freer or more captive? Is it more efficient or less efficient? It is possible to extend this list of questions. Apart from all these, it is a fact that should be accepted that the disappointments created by the constant desire to have the newest and then inevitably staying behind with the new technology leave a mark on all of us.
The "admiration" of technology and the related focus on technology by the marketers, and the negative reactions I mentioned above may not be noticed, may shake the marketing strategies of the brands and in the long run, it may lead to a negative attitude towards technology among consumers that is difficult to break. Today, while high-tech products mostly try to meet the needs at the level of "self-realization" in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, sometimes they cause lower-level needs such as "safety" and "acceptance and love" due to the dual feelings they cause. For example, the smart mobile devices that we all use and the accompanying social networks can not meet the "security" level needs due to privacy and health concerns, and the sense of isolation that these devices can cause can cause a deterioration at the level of "acceptance and love".
Marketing has important roles in reducing and managing these feelings and reactions. While developing high-tech products, the existence of paradoxes should be taken into consideration, and the damages caused by these paradoxes should be reduced before the product is commercialized. However, we observe that users often start using technology in ways and for purposes that those who developed them had never thought of. From this point of view, it may not be possible to predict the negative effects that will arise due to usage during the product development phase. Therefore, perhaps the marketing component that stands out from the product in this regard is communication.
Communication can play a variety of roles, ranging from developing a plan B in the case of negative reactions at minimum, and being aware of paradoxes at the maximum, educating and raising the public about how technology should be used for the right purposes, minimizing negativities. It may be necessary to raise the awareness of the society about all the products offered by that sector by assuming a leading role for an entire sector when necessary. Instead of focusing on competition, we can expect companies that can anticipate these roles to be more successful in the long run. Today, we witness that many technology companies display a one-sided and unaware of paradoxes by mentioning freedom, productivity, creativity and connection in their marketing messages. We have repeatedly observed that they were surprised when they encountered negative reactions and could not manage this situation correctly. Let's recall, for example, Eric Schmidt, then CEO of Google, comment on privacy in 2009: "If you're doing something you wouldn't want others to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it anyway."
It should not be forgotten that consumers are the final decision makers. Downplaying paradoxes does not negate their impact on consumer choice. The duty of marketing as the outward-facing function of an enterprise is to understand these paradoxes, to share the information obtained from outside within the company, to produce solutions for these paradoxes through products and communication, and to lead these solutions to be accepted within the company.