Comments on: What’s the Definition of ‘WE’?

By: Greg Woodley

Greg Woodley — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:51:23 +0000

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

By: Matthew T. Grant

Matthew T. Grant — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:05:49 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:44:48 +0000

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.

By: Stephen Denny

Stephen Denny — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:29:25 +0000

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.

By: CK

CK — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:16:15 +0000

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:
“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 . 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.
Thanks for making me think–and for having me re-watch that commercial, that kids is over-the-top adorable.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:52:24 +0000

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.