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.