I never liked school.
I hated studying the thick volumes of textbooks of facts and numbers to be regurgitated verbatim back into tests. Because of the way questions were asked in multiple choice, rather than absorbing information, it became more about memorizing pieces of truncated data points word for word. I didn't grow up studying in the American education system and where I grew up (Malaysia), I felt that it was much more rigid, with less freedom for creativity and more focus on black and white answers. I recall being thrilled and astounded when I went to college here and being asked to write open-ended answers and essays. Being graded subjectively on how I chose to answer a question versus the actual answer. There were no absolute right or wrongs, everything was arguable and shades of gray, it was liberating.
I also remember being told that some students were terrified of this, trained in the education system of black and white facts. Unsure of how to answer an open-ended essay question, they would simply memorize entire paragraphs from their textbooks and literally rewrite exactly what the textbooks would say, much to the chagrin of professors who would receive carbon copies of identical essays which were basically just handwritten copies of the reading material they assigned.
Now in the corporate world, this mentality has become extremely relevant, especially in my field. The difference between data points and story telling. People who hide behind data or can't seem to actually make sense or use the information they have been given. You see presentations full of statistics and numbers, regurgitation of white papers and reports and data they have pulled. Informational certainly, but like the baffled professors of my college years, wasn't answering the question. They wanted the point of view of the writer, that important quality and filter of perspective that differentiates a human being from a text book. That's when data becomes insights or strategy - when it becomes interesting. That's what the human truth is all about, the big aha. It's extremely simple in the zen way that most insights are - to learn something you didn't realize you knew. That's why people argue most insights aren't new, they're just articulated in a way that resonates and inspires, but it's a known truth by everyone because well, it was sourced from data points from everyone.
I alluded to this briefly in this post on where to find insights. I mentioned you could pretty much find insights anywhere e.g. watching commercials. I can honestly say that the majority, at least 90%, of the knowledge I've retained over the years have not come from studying a text book. It came from reading a non-academic book, watching a movie, listening to a song. I hope everyone appreciates the irony that educational material is probably the least effective in educating.
One of my favorite song lyrics is from Death Cab For Cutie's 'A Lack of Color':
"And when I see you, I really see you upside down,
But my brain knows better, it picks you up and turns you around."
I love this song and this particular lyric because I was never able to grasp this concept when I learned it in science class but I instantly understood it the moment I heard it in the song. It's deceptively simple but it stuck with me permanently.
This is what great insights or strategy or pretty much anything you want to present has to possess. A narrative. It's never going to be about the data, it's always going to be about the way you explain the data. When I recalled my experience about the students repeating the textbooks word for word, that was really a data point in support of my hypothesis. But it was told it in a way that wove the information into an anecdote, that then compelled the reader to absorb a piece of information without realizing I was trying to prove out something. I could've said x percent of people consider x as an educational format/channel, but I doubt you'd remember that next week.
Writers, artists, talk show hosts, comedians even are the most effective way I've gleaned insights from the world. I think I've learned so much more about human behavior and mindset from a Louis CK standup act than I did from a TED talk.
This storytelling trend that's taken like wildfire over the industry has some legs- but like so many concepts that people try to 'replicate' - there's no way to teach how to tell a story, to have classes on how to compel an audience. The moment storytelling becomes self-aware, just like textbooks that try to teach, that's when it fails. That's the balancing act between informing and inspiring. You need to do it without trying - it actually needs to be authentic. And there's no class that can teach you authenticity.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Observation: The Passive Consumer
This observation is as old as time - if a tree falls in a forest but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a consumer doesn't like a product out loud (in today's world, 'like' means on Facebook), does that mean they don't like it?
One of the first questions a researcher always asks is: What is the source of this data? How was this question asked? I realize the irony in my next statement (as I don't know either) but I read on my LinkedIn feed that the majority of tweets during the Superbowl originated from only less than twenty percent of the Twitter universe.
Assuming this is true, using this as a rough ratio of the real world, only about 1 out of every 5 people are really 'heard', and yet these are the people you hear so we consider them the voice of the consumer. Think about every other research methodology available. In focus groups, the people that get picked are people that are interested in talking about their opinions. Maybe in syndicated surveys, you get more representative, but it is still a voluntary opt-in based on some sort of monetary incentive.
The fact of the matter is, there is a large amount of people that don't talk about what they like - they just like what they like. And if the only way brands can measure what people like is public or voluntary data of people talking about their brands - they are only looking at a very specific type of person. Are they the same type of people as what I would term, the passive consumer? I consider myself a passive consumer because I don't express opinions about what I like publicly but I love a lot of products and brands and from what I can see and hear about 'active' consumers, we don't have the same mindset. I might not be interested in talking about brands, but I do buy my favorite ones loyally without prompting every time I go shopping, and I think that's more valuable than a person that's just 'all talk'. There has to be a way to capture the activities and voice of people like me. All you need is a little coercion, and a little more passive capturing and this might be throwing back in the face of research, but perhaps, some leading questions.
There is an inherent difference between people who talk about brands and people that don't. People who talk about brands tend to be naturally more opinionated, probably extroverted and most likely brand switchers. They get pulled into different conversations, have varied interests because they get exposed to more - imagine a talkative person in a grocery store or discussion forum talking about what they like, and having other like-minded people pipe in and compare their opinions on what they like.
More passive consumers are more likely to wander into a store, not ask anyone's opinion, grab the thing they like or are most familiar with and leave. There's your target right there. Potential switchers because while these people aren't looking to push out their opinions, they do want you to pull them in with yours. That is a different type of conversation. Think about talking to a shy person and how to get them to open up. You ask them questions about themselves, their interests, then slowly get them to earn your trust and finally ask them what brands they like and perhaps, this might be something that suits them.
There is a lot of value and asset that constantly gets overlooked not just by marketers but society in general of the passive consumer/person. I recommend reading 'Quiet' by Susan for more insights into these people, she fleshed out some really interested perceptions on how American culture rewards the loud and the vocal, but again, those aren't the only people. There are other people in the room, in fact, I'd say just as much or even more than typically extroverted people. If you can lead the silent army, it's a harder fruit to reach, but one that has yet to be discovered.
One of the first questions a researcher always asks is: What is the source of this data? How was this question asked? I realize the irony in my next statement (as I don't know either) but I read on my LinkedIn feed that the majority of tweets during the Superbowl originated from only less than twenty percent of the Twitter universe.
Assuming this is true, using this as a rough ratio of the real world, only about 1 out of every 5 people are really 'heard', and yet these are the people you hear so we consider them the voice of the consumer. Think about every other research methodology available. In focus groups, the people that get picked are people that are interested in talking about their opinions. Maybe in syndicated surveys, you get more representative, but it is still a voluntary opt-in based on some sort of monetary incentive.
The fact of the matter is, there is a large amount of people that don't talk about what they like - they just like what they like. And if the only way brands can measure what people like is public or voluntary data of people talking about their brands - they are only looking at a very specific type of person. Are they the same type of people as what I would term, the passive consumer? I consider myself a passive consumer because I don't express opinions about what I like publicly but I love a lot of products and brands and from what I can see and hear about 'active' consumers, we don't have the same mindset. I might not be interested in talking about brands, but I do buy my favorite ones loyally without prompting every time I go shopping, and I think that's more valuable than a person that's just 'all talk'. There has to be a way to capture the activities and voice of people like me. All you need is a little coercion, and a little more passive capturing and this might be throwing back in the face of research, but perhaps, some leading questions.
There is an inherent difference between people who talk about brands and people that don't. People who talk about brands tend to be naturally more opinionated, probably extroverted and most likely brand switchers. They get pulled into different conversations, have varied interests because they get exposed to more - imagine a talkative person in a grocery store or discussion forum talking about what they like, and having other like-minded people pipe in and compare their opinions on what they like.
More passive consumers are more likely to wander into a store, not ask anyone's opinion, grab the thing they like or are most familiar with and leave. There's your target right there. Potential switchers because while these people aren't looking to push out their opinions, they do want you to pull them in with yours. That is a different type of conversation. Think about talking to a shy person and how to get them to open up. You ask them questions about themselves, their interests, then slowly get them to earn your trust and finally ask them what brands they like and perhaps, this might be something that suits them.
There is a lot of value and asset that constantly gets overlooked not just by marketers but society in general of the passive consumer/person. I recommend reading 'Quiet' by Susan for more insights into these people, she fleshed out some really interested perceptions on how American culture rewards the loud and the vocal, but again, those aren't the only people. There are other people in the room, in fact, I'd say just as much or even more than typically extroverted people. If you can lead the silent army, it's a harder fruit to reach, but one that has yet to be discovered.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Trend: Artisanal Conglomerates
Ever since the cultural zeitgeist decided focus its attention on conglomerates monopolizing the market and strangling out smaller, mom and pop companies, consumers have shifted towards the big=bad mentality. What Walmarts of the world offers are cost-savings with brand labels so big they became as generic as the product category. You're not buying orange juice, you're buying Tropicana, but it's the same meaning to you, really.
It harkens back to the most base form of products, buying for a needs and function basis, no emotional strings attached. These are the original and oldest form of consumers, the value-conscious, the ones that are closer to the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The coupon clippers, the ones whose immediate focus is the price tag versus the brand promise because honestly, that's all they can afford. Thing is about these consumers, they don't need much advertising. It'd be great if you can give them a lovely story about the product and where it came from, but what they really care about is that it's a dollar fifty cheaper than the rest of the competitors.
Hence why any brand or marketer who want to compete outside of the price ring, which is pretty much most brands (otherwise, just be generic and spend your marketing budget on coupons/sampling), need to focus on other brand offerings. People look for themselves in brands - besides the actual need for the product, they want a brand to reflect who they are, something they would use, something that screams 'them'. Brand stories emerge, happy - like-minded people using the product show up in ads, portraying how this brand is just like you and agrees with all your values and mindsets and lifestyles. Lots of brands are focusing on storytelling - the origins of their products, how they came to be, very much similar to what artisanal small mom-and-pop products naturally do. It personalizes these products - I'd much more likely buy say, a carton of eggs from the farmer's market because I know that these come from a farm upstate and the friendly people that sold those eggs were the same ones that actually took care of the chickens. I like that, it gives me a sense of community and contribution, like I'm actually helping these specific people and this was a true human transaction. Rather than say, picking up eggs mass produced at a supermarket, there's no human emotion, my money is just a drop in the well going into the pockets of shareholders that don't know I exist. People want to feel that their purchase matters. It's not just about knowing where the product came from, but where their money is going.
I just saw a commercial for Beats Music, that had an evocative narrative on the appreciation of music and how they weren't just technology, but integrating humanity into their technology so that the service you receive isn't an algorithm, but from people that respect and appreciate your need for music to act as the soundtrack for your life. It was great, because I had no clue what they were actually selling, but I wanted it. That's proof of how you sell a brand, not a product. I understood their ethos, it was exactly what I (and millions) feel about music. That's what I want to buy, and if I needed whatever product they were selling, headphones, music subscription service, etc. , I'd probably go with them. They got me to trust them as entities, and therefore, if I ever needed a music-specific product, I'd think of them first.
What was unnerving to me is that I am aware that Beats isn't an mom-and-pop and rather a huge conglomerate like most of the these ads popping up on prime time air lately. Target, P&G, Unilever - the one with the Swiffer ad and the old couple, they're all multi-conglomerates but speaking like real people. If these huge companies can paint themselves just as authentically and realistic as the real corner store upstate farm egg sellers, then what hope does the small-batch artisan have left? Their only competitive edge was that they had a personal story to peddle with their goods - these large corporations have started to peddle the same story (with cost savings, mass awareness and convenience). The new successful brands seem to be these artisanal conglomerates, huge companies with small beginnings and stories - creating personal relationships with you while in the mass grocery aisle.
It harkens back to the most base form of products, buying for a needs and function basis, no emotional strings attached. These are the original and oldest form of consumers, the value-conscious, the ones that are closer to the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The coupon clippers, the ones whose immediate focus is the price tag versus the brand promise because honestly, that's all they can afford. Thing is about these consumers, they don't need much advertising. It'd be great if you can give them a lovely story about the product and where it came from, but what they really care about is that it's a dollar fifty cheaper than the rest of the competitors.
Hence why any brand or marketer who want to compete outside of the price ring, which is pretty much most brands (otherwise, just be generic and spend your marketing budget on coupons/sampling), need to focus on other brand offerings. People look for themselves in brands - besides the actual need for the product, they want a brand to reflect who they are, something they would use, something that screams 'them'. Brand stories emerge, happy - like-minded people using the product show up in ads, portraying how this brand is just like you and agrees with all your values and mindsets and lifestyles. Lots of brands are focusing on storytelling - the origins of their products, how they came to be, very much similar to what artisanal small mom-and-pop products naturally do. It personalizes these products - I'd much more likely buy say, a carton of eggs from the farmer's market because I know that these come from a farm upstate and the friendly people that sold those eggs were the same ones that actually took care of the chickens. I like that, it gives me a sense of community and contribution, like I'm actually helping these specific people and this was a true human transaction. Rather than say, picking up eggs mass produced at a supermarket, there's no human emotion, my money is just a drop in the well going into the pockets of shareholders that don't know I exist. People want to feel that their purchase matters. It's not just about knowing where the product came from, but where their money is going.
I just saw a commercial for Beats Music, that had an evocative narrative on the appreciation of music and how they weren't just technology, but integrating humanity into their technology so that the service you receive isn't an algorithm, but from people that respect and appreciate your need for music to act as the soundtrack for your life. It was great, because I had no clue what they were actually selling, but I wanted it. That's proof of how you sell a brand, not a product. I understood their ethos, it was exactly what I (and millions) feel about music. That's what I want to buy, and if I needed whatever product they were selling, headphones, music subscription service, etc. , I'd probably go with them. They got me to trust them as entities, and therefore, if I ever needed a music-specific product, I'd think of them first.
What was unnerving to me is that I am aware that Beats isn't an mom-and-pop and rather a huge conglomerate like most of the these ads popping up on prime time air lately. Target, P&G, Unilever - the one with the Swiffer ad and the old couple, they're all multi-conglomerates but speaking like real people. If these huge companies can paint themselves just as authentically and realistic as the real corner store upstate farm egg sellers, then what hope does the small-batch artisan have left? Their only competitive edge was that they had a personal story to peddle with their goods - these large corporations have started to peddle the same story (with cost savings, mass awareness and convenience). The new successful brands seem to be these artisanal conglomerates, huge companies with small beginnings and stories - creating personal relationships with you while in the mass grocery aisle.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Millenialisms: Thoughts on Entitlement
Another reason I started this blog was the eruption and waves of op-eds and POVs on the Millennials. That generation. My generation. The scathing reviews from both previous and current generations, followed by passionate response pieces, both sides of the pro and anti Millennials waging a war on whether or not this generation was the best or the worst. I swore to myself that I would never join the conversation because I wanted to be Millennial agnostic. Regardless of what anyone says about the Millennial generation whether it be praising or bashing them, it really isn't relevant to who I am because it doesn't actually directly affect my life.
And yet, like anyone, I am drawn by my own reflection and need to at least take a look and voice whether or not I think it is accurate.
One of the main points of contention I have on the Millennial debate is the topic of entitlement. I don't disagree that Millennials feel entitled but I believe it's inevitable and they will eventually grow out of it, the same as when Gen X people were in their twenties or Boomers. The sense of entitlement isn't based on the generation they were born into but rather, just circumstantial of people who have progressed from being teenagers to young adults.
When you transition into adulthood, it is a stage of firsts. You are thrown into many, many new situations that seem accelerated because it went from zero to well, not zero. From not making any money to suddenly making a bunch of money (even if it's minimum wage, it's still a lot more than they were ever making). From having zero equity, to suddenly owning stuff. Having their own car, their own place, their own phone. From not sharing their life with anyone but their family to suddenly having to make decisions with a significant other. It's a pretty big change going from having nothing.
And when you get used to that level of incremental raise, your mind instantly expects the same to happen the next change you undergo. You'd think the next change would be just as exponential and life-changing.
For example, living in a bedroom to moving to your own apartment. Take into account the scale of that shift. A single room (that you don't even technically own) into a whole apartment with your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen, bedroom. I'd say following that relative scale, the logical next leap would be an apartment twice that size, if not more. I'd even say a fancy loft apartment. If you went from making no money to say, thirty thousand dollars, logically, you'd think you'd make twice as much in your next leap. That's just rational and what I'd imagine someone who was dealing with this for the first time would expect. This generation has yet to grasp the concept that their next leap is never going to be as big as the first. It will not produce exponentially larger results. It's going to output the same amount of effort they put into it.
They are at the stage of their lives where the acceleration is starting to even out and plateau. Yet, they are naturally addicted to the rush one gets when they accelerate forward, and have yet to realize that sprints only works in short distances, not the marathon that is life. They haven't yet realized it yet because they're dealing with it for the first time. I don't think it's illogical to think that way when that's what you've been accustomed to - you expect the same results for the same efforts. When they finally realize, as all people eventually will, that moving upwards or forwards is just a build on what they already have, that's when what anti Millennials call 'entitlement' will stop. It's the realization that well, it's about 'growing' up, literally. You build on your current life. You add on to your current salary or career or apartment or social life - you don't get entirely new, improved ones. Unless you want to start from the beginning and burst forward again. This is a possibility they'll leap further than their first time - but they'll still have to start from the beginning.
And yet, like anyone, I am drawn by my own reflection and need to at least take a look and voice whether or not I think it is accurate.
One of the main points of contention I have on the Millennial debate is the topic of entitlement. I don't disagree that Millennials feel entitled but I believe it's inevitable and they will eventually grow out of it, the same as when Gen X people were in their twenties or Boomers. The sense of entitlement isn't based on the generation they were born into but rather, just circumstantial of people who have progressed from being teenagers to young adults.
When you transition into adulthood, it is a stage of firsts. You are thrown into many, many new situations that seem accelerated because it went from zero to well, not zero. From not making any money to suddenly making a bunch of money (even if it's minimum wage, it's still a lot more than they were ever making). From having zero equity, to suddenly owning stuff. Having their own car, their own place, their own phone. From not sharing their life with anyone but their family to suddenly having to make decisions with a significant other. It's a pretty big change going from having nothing.
And when you get used to that level of incremental raise, your mind instantly expects the same to happen the next change you undergo. You'd think the next change would be just as exponential and life-changing.
For example, living in a bedroom to moving to your own apartment. Take into account the scale of that shift. A single room (that you don't even technically own) into a whole apartment with your own furniture, bathroom, kitchen, bedroom. I'd say following that relative scale, the logical next leap would be an apartment twice that size, if not more. I'd even say a fancy loft apartment. If you went from making no money to say, thirty thousand dollars, logically, you'd think you'd make twice as much in your next leap. That's just rational and what I'd imagine someone who was dealing with this for the first time would expect. This generation has yet to grasp the concept that their next leap is never going to be as big as the first. It will not produce exponentially larger results. It's going to output the same amount of effort they put into it.
They are at the stage of their lives where the acceleration is starting to even out and plateau. Yet, they are naturally addicted to the rush one gets when they accelerate forward, and have yet to realize that sprints only works in short distances, not the marathon that is life. They haven't yet realized it yet because they're dealing with it for the first time. I don't think it's illogical to think that way when that's what you've been accustomed to - you expect the same results for the same efforts. When they finally realize, as all people eventually will, that moving upwards or forwards is just a build on what they already have, that's when what anti Millennials call 'entitlement' will stop. It's the realization that well, it's about 'growing' up, literally. You build on your current life. You add on to your current salary or career or apartment or social life - you don't get entirely new, improved ones. Unless you want to start from the beginning and burst forward again. This is a possibility they'll leap further than their first time - but they'll still have to start from the beginning.
Ad Musings: AT&T Bigger is Better
The original reason why I wanted to start this blog was because I'd see or hear an advertisement and think 'I wonder if they thought...'
AT&T's latest 'Big is Better' ads with the comedian Beck Bennett talking to children is supposed to illustrate that the mega-conglomerate that is AT&T is obviously better, that even children can see it. He proceeds to ask them leading questions and the children proceed to be adorable. I admit, I do find them funny and cute but not all of them exactly relay the message. The first ones (where they probably had the A1 material) were pretty straightforward but now that they seem to be scrounging through B-Reel material are a little less so.
The one in particular I keep noticing is the one where he uses the analogy of a big swimming pool and a small one and asks which the kids would prefer. First, they never outrightly select the big pool, secondly, they start asking questions about what the big pool has - pirahnas, dinosaurs that change into motorboats, etc.
Seems that size doesn't matter. They care about additional features I don't care about your coverage, tell me what added value you can give me. Better prices for newer phones, unlimited data, more perks. Even the kids can see that.
AT&T's latest 'Big is Better' ads with the comedian Beck Bennett talking to children is supposed to illustrate that the mega-conglomerate that is AT&T is obviously better, that even children can see it. He proceeds to ask them leading questions and the children proceed to be adorable. I admit, I do find them funny and cute but not all of them exactly relay the message. The first ones (where they probably had the A1 material) were pretty straightforward but now that they seem to be scrounging through B-Reel material are a little less so.
The one in particular I keep noticing is the one where he uses the analogy of a big swimming pool and a small one and asks which the kids would prefer. First, they never outrightly select the big pool, secondly, they start asking questions about what the big pool has - pirahnas, dinosaurs that change into motorboats, etc.
Seems that size doesn't matter. They care about additional features I don't care about your coverage, tell me what added value you can give me. Better prices for newer phones, unlimited data, more perks. Even the kids can see that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)