We watch a commercial of a four-year-old take a digital photograph, upload it to her computer and then email it to her parents. If you’re moderately technical parent, then your kids probably do this all the time.
You’d see this commercial and think, “These people are like us,” and you’d feel a sense of connection. If you aren’t moderately technical, however, seeing a four-year-old doing what to you looks like a sophisticated technical process is worse than intimidating …. it triggers negative feelings. The last thing you want your marketing to do.
Remember our “up card, down card” discussion of Texas Hold ‘Em and marketing the other day? Put it in this framework for a moment: the public up cards say “easy” at best and “maybe I can do this” at worst. The private hole card says “I’m way behind and I need to catch up” at best. At worst, it says “now that I know that even a four year old can do what I can’t, I will further distance myself from these intimidating things …. I despise what I don’t understand.”
If I’ve put these emotions in Sophoclean terms, forgive my artistic license. Further, forgive my using this particular campaign as the sole example, as this idea is widespread. For this particular campaign, the opportunity is to bring technological late adopters into the fold. Everyone can play. It’s easy. A problem emerges when we define who “WE” are. Saying “so easy, a child can do it,” is fraught with danger to a careful marketer.
The definition of “WE” is one of the key principles in understanding influence and motivation. Under conditions of uncertainty, we look to people like “US” for guidance. We prefer to do business with those we know and like. Source similarity plays a key role in not just who we choose to spend our money with, but who we choose to listen to and follow. If “you” are not one of “us,” your message is greatly diminished.
Further, the world of technology is very intimidating to many, particularly older people who didn’t grow up with computers and the internet. While studies abound that show growth in previously untapped segments, these are still small percentages. We all have egos. We all feel shame at being the only one in the conversation who doesn’t get it. Those who ask for help are in the minority, with the greater number disengaging out of shame and anger. Having just polled several hundred senior marketers on the subject of social media adoption and use, I’ve just received a fascinating ethnographic education on this subject.
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
. Your definition of “WE” should be a cultural touchstone to guide your marketing, regardless of whether you’re hoping to sell current customers or recruit new ones. “WE” must be viewed as an inclusive club …. and everyone you’re targeting must readily understand that they’re invited.
. “WE” must be placed in context. Promoting Twitter to a group of senior executives is an exercise in futility because it lacks the appropriate context. When a senior executive talks to other senior executives about his personal adoption process and collaboratively shows how Twitter facilitates information gathering and communication, it creates converts out of those who see themselves as one of “US.”
. Fumbling your definition of “WE” can be disastrous. New executives that come on board with the message of, “I’m right and if you don’t ‘get it’ you’re wrong” are quickly killed off. Those who define themselves as “WE” and let others see themselves as part of “US” succeed.
The commercial in question shows a child using technology. If you have children, you know that they master technology instantly. Therefore, they aren’t the problem. The problem is the parent who makes the buying decisions. How do they feel about technology in the home? If they are intimidated by it, they don’t see themselves in this definition of “WE” …. they are outsiders. And now you’ve got a coin flip as to whether they will choose to move closer to you or push you away.
Interesting to note that Microsoft has also defined “WE” in a very broad and global sense in their smart “I’m a PC” ads. It’s hard not to relate to the global village represented here …. we can not only see ourselves in the attitudes towards work but in the sense of connection with people who are not necessarily from “here.” A different sense of “WE,” but an important one.
How would you shift this definition of “WE” so that late adopters could see themselves as one of “US”? Where have you come across “WE” frameworks where the message has resonated …. or failed to resonate? How can you use inclusion with words and images in a positive, generative way?
Regards.
Stephen,
You make us rethink our ideas. And that’s a sign of a good writer. That said, I really like both the “WE” commercials you address and believe they are designed to reach an audience that either has a computer or one getting ready to purchase one or lastly, an audience that either owns a MAC or is considering making the switch from PC to MAC. I make that assumption based on my marketing experiences and who my audiences would be if I were creating these commercials. I have no inside information.
I agree that we must be careful not to alienate our core audiences. However, these days mass marketing is old news and we should have specific markets in mind when we do any kind of marketing. Assuming MS does, they likely don’t care if they alinate those who are intimidated by technology. Those folks do not represent their most valuable customers and the cost to make them comfortable is not profitable.
Great post/thoughts. I don’t think I disagree with your reasoning on the “WE”, but I disagree with THIS particular example’s premise which is:
. But the target is families with young kids not necessarily late adopters. I’m also thinking that MS is clearly showing that they have both enterprise software (VPs don’t care about fish pics, they care about spreadsheets) and consumer software (that kid and her parents don’t care about spreads, they care about easy, fun and safe computer usage). Btw, the other MS commercials have focused on “safety” for kids when browsing so they’re hitting on that messaging too.
“For this particular campaign, the opportunity is to bring technological late adopters into the fold.”
The way I see it is that it’s not aimed at “late adopters” it’s aimed at “people with young kids.” Let’s face it, once a kid hits, say, 10 they’re making their own decisions on which computers and tech gadgets they want their parents to buy for them. So MS is targeting that FIRST computer purchase–they make a BIG point of her being only 4–a purchase which the parents make, not the kids. 2 other big takeaways here:
(1) Microsoft is now targeting families–whereas heretofore, MS has always been the ‘enterprise/business’ software. Unlike Mac which has been more for families/education/kids/consumers. In showing this amazingly cute kid, it makes us think families and home not office and cubicles.
(2) MS is now trying to show that it’s easy to use their consumer-oriented products. This has not been the case with MS, as many have griped for many years just how user-unfriendly (and buggy) the software is. But in showing that a 4 year old can do it, is showing that it’s not buggy and not complicated and hey, quite fun to make pics of fish.
I’m having a hard time believing that people feel less than in their technical skills from watching this commercial, but maybe they are–as I’m not the target
Thanks for making me think–and for having me re-watch that commercial, that kids is over-the-top adorable.
Lewis, CK: thanks for the read and the always interesting back & forth on Twitter -
I don’t think I disagree with any points you’ve raised in your comments, above. The piece shows “it’s easy” and therefore speaks to benefits of bug free, family friendly, etc.
If this campaign extends to show others in the family using the computer in a similar fashion, it would complete the story for me – leaving it with the “rookies” shows an incomplete understanding of the opportunity here. There are unintended consequences of this strategy that may have been overlooked – but that could easily be remedied – without watering down the creative impact.
Contrast this with the Sprint commercials showing a family walking through the Museum of Natural History in NY – with each family member’s face buried in their cell phones. Hmm.
I like those commercials and believe that they are quite effective in conveying their message.
We need to make sure that every form of our marketing efforts allows us to connect with our audience effectively.
I agree with Lewis and CK that nowadays as brands become more concerned with establishing and growing communities (or “tribes,” to be buzzy about it), the use of an implicitly circumscribed “we” fits perfectly into that strategy.
Your post made me think more broadly however about how people (not just companies and marketers) envision their life-world. It is all too human to assume that most people are “like us” – share our interests, our incomes, our histories – and dismiss or ignore what is limited, contingent, and exclusionary about the “we” we imagine we belong to.
Hi Stephen,
who would have though so much is in a little word like “we”.
And you are right the ability of “Social Validation” is determined by our understanding of “we” i.e. are we part of the group. I remember years ago a trainer once told me the ultimate nominalisation is “I” because you cannot really refine “I” and each person would interpret “I” as something different. So that when I say “i …” that would be interpreted differently by many people I speak to as they all understand me as a different “I”.
Greg