1/15/08

There are No Consumers, Only Heroes: The Truest Expression of Consumer-Centricity.

Kenneth Burke identified stories as equipment for living. Very true. They are the way we think about, organize and make sense of the world's anarchy. They help us feel centered, connected, oriented making us more aware of our identities, our responsibilities and our relationships to the rest of the world. They guide our behavior.

It’s no big ta-da that story is important to marketing - both from a research standpoint and a communication standpoint.

But what we do need to rethink is what stories we use and how we use them.

The old school marketing approach is to find stories within a company or invent stories about a company to tell people and attract people.

But Transformation Design does the opposite. It finds stories in people’s lives and helps companies participate in those stories.

Allow me to beat this horse: The difference between old school marketing and Transformation Design is the difference between people coming to you and you going to people. The old school makes the company the focus of attention and activity as marketers lure people in to play in the company's story. On the flip side, Transformation Design makes people the focus as designers create ways for the company to play in people's stories.

Hugh MacLeod had it right:
“If people like buying your product, it's because its story helps fill in the narrative gaps in their own lives.”
It's not about people playing in a companies stories. It's about companies playing in people's stories.

And that is the client offering of Transformation Design: to make their company an important player and contributor in people’s personal narratives.

Over the past week, I’ve thought a lot about this so I thought I’d share with you my most recent thinking to see what y’all thought:
We all desire some sort of personal change in our life whether it is in how we live or who we are. We spend the better part of our lives – sometimes all of it – struggling to achieve that change.

These struggles for personal transformation, the people we meet and the experiences we have along the way make up the personal narratives that shape our lives, define our identities and guide our behavior.

Especially our purchasing behavior.

Therefore, the more ways in which companies can align with these stories and contribute to them the more valuable they, their products and their marketing become to people.

But doing this requires a significant mental shift.

Companies must acknowledge that consumers do not exist; only struggling heroes looking for assistance exist.

Companies must recognize the end game is not a product in every hand, but the transformed individual.

Companies must think of themselves and act not as producers/distributors of value but as role players in the stories of everyday people finding value.

A company that achieves this mental shift must then change their market activity to align itself with people's narratives.

This is the job of Transformation Designer whose job is defined as:

The creation of interactive systems that intertwine products, experiences and marketing to create touch points that help people achieve the personal changes they desire and a client company offers.

Literally, you design commercial activity that aligns with people’s personal narratives in a way that helps them fulfill their personal transformations.


A company who does achieve this mental and behavioral change is no longer seen as a company; it is seen as an asset (or an ally) in one's personal narrative.

And by doing so, the company becomes, in the truest sense of the term, “consumer-centric.”

(Or as I’d say, hero-centric).
Discuss…

10 comments:

Adam said...

Here's a couple of related posts:

http://tinyurl.com/2ecuqf
http://tinyurl.com/3avj3y

I don't completely believe in user-centricity despite the orthodoxy.

adamcrowe said...

The second link is broken. Here's a working one:

http://tinyurl.com/ynl7fx

Leland said...

Why don't you believe in user-centricity?

adamcrowe said...

Good question!

It's all about strategy vs tactics.

Putting the user at the center, no matter how well intentioned, is simply wrapping them up in a strategy against which the user naturally rebel with tactics.

de Certeau explains it far better!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Practice_of_Everyday_Life

User-centricity is the same old individualist ideology and carried over designer-know-best modernist fascism. *sigh* (Listen to me!)

Audrey explains:

http://www.slideshare.net/acarr/understanding-mass-behavior-229234

paul isakson said...

Not sure if it's entirely in line with your thinking here, Leland, but Faith Popcorn is talking about brands doing things to help people/make their lives easier instead of trying to yell at them to get their attention via traditional advertising tactics. She's calling this "Brand Whispers":

http://rurl.org/gdm

While I don't agree with everything she says in there, I do think this is an interesting way of talking about brands doing things vs. saying things. Nikon's "Picturetown" effort was a move in this direction:

http://rurl.org/gdn

They could've made this better by going beyond one town/community, but it is far better than if they had simply advertised via traditional mediums alone.

paul isakson said...

Adam - the slideshare preso you linked is private, so I'm not able to fully dive into your thought here, but I'll have to make due with what is available...

From the Wikipedia article you referenced, "Certeau defines two kinds of behaviour, the strategic and the tactical. He takes the terms out of their military context and injects them with new meaning. He describes institutions in general as "strategic" and everyday people who are non-producers as "tactical"."

So, strategy = existing, big, structured organization who produces "things" for the lowest common denominator in order to make the most profit off of said production. And tactic = a small group or individual who takes existing products (likely made by a "strategy") and modifies them to meet their specific need instead of accepting them as they are.

What I read from this is that he sees companies (strategies) producing things for which there may not be an existing need and so they try to create one through their marketing in order to sell that product.

Meanwhile, tactics (small groups or individuals) form because an existing need is not being met by a producer (strategy). They take a product or group of products that currently exist and alter/modify/rebuild them out of necessity to fill a void.

So, if companies (strategies) looked at producing things to meet unmet needs of users instead of producing things and trying to create needs, tactics would be less likely to form. In other words, if the strategies made things based on the tactics needs, there would be no need for the tactics to form and thus, no rebellion. Tactics form because the strategies' process is flawed and insufficient.

I think this then fits with what Leland is saying. Instead of companies saying, "Here are our wonderful products. Now go use them for these needs you didn't know you had (because you really don't)," they should be saying, "What are you trying to accomplish and how can what we do help make that happen?"

It's this exact mindset that is driving much of what is happening in Web 2.0. In Web 1.0, sites were formed based on what companies wanted to tell people and/or thought that people needed. People (tactics) grew tired of these sites that didn't meet their needs and so they started forming their own, more useful sites to accomplish their needs.

In a way, to look at a more traditional model, it's Nike vs. other running shoe companies. Other running shoe companies say, "Our shoes have great cushioning and support. They're made with the highest quality materials. You should wear them if you're a serious runner." Nike says, "We understand that running is important to you, it's a part of who you are, and that it is not an easy thing to do sometimes. We make our shoes to try and help make it just a little easier for you to do on those days when you feel like you can't." Now that might not be exactly right but I think you know what I'm trying to get at here. (It's late and I might have had a Jack & Ginger or two tonight, so bear with me)

It's about companies showing they understand the people who use their products and attempt to meet their needs vs. those who produce products and try to create user needs for them.

In a web design model, user-centric design means it's about designing your site to meet the needs/requirements of the majority of people who are coming to your site vs. setting your site up according to what you want to tell them and making it hard for them to get to the information/things they came there for in the first place.

Here's a much better explanation of what I mean by "User-Centered Dsign":

http://rurl.org/gdq

So, it's not about a designer forcing their will upon others, but a designer studying the people they're designing for and building "it" to meet the needs of those people through understanding of, and testing with, them.

erin said...

wow Paul. Thanks for all that digested thought. :)

You all seem to be pointing arrows to Brand/Branded Utility which is (apparently) the official term for brands and companies being useful to consumers instead of fabricating a need for a product that's seemingly useless. Ugh. Gross.

And the web is more able to illustrate utility than most other products/services. The web was built on the theory that access to information was a good thing. Each new website seeks to position its access as more useful and user-friendly.

As planners, the task is to apply this basic function of usefulness to other products and services. I think it all comes back to the information. Who will benefit most from this information? It's not a one-size-fits-all, get everyone to buy the product mentality anymore. It's about targetability. For whom will our product/service fulfill the biggest need. Position away!

Leland said...

Hey Erin,

I realize I'm being a total nit-picking prick saying this, but to me brand utility is similar, but different than transformation design.

Brand utility is simply providing some use to a user in a given task, i.e. a free Google-branded pen for instance. Technically, that is brand utility.

But it's not TD.

Transformation design is a larger concept: the orchestration of a system of products, services and experiences that change how people are or how they behave. (But, I'm being captain obvious here.)

I guess, to me, the difference is in the creation process. Brand utility puts the emphasis on the object: "What can we get this object do?" TD puts emphasis on the person, "How can we help this person acheive their desired change?"

I dunno. Does that make sense? I'm probably being too nit-picky, like I said.

Though, it is something I was planning on hashing out in a post. Overall, they feel like similar, but different things.

adamcrowe.com said...

Audrey's presentation was removed due to being a bit too herd-like. Oh, the irony!

Details here:
http:/tinyurl.com/yv66gn

jon leach said...

Leland - getting to all this way too late (lost your new blog URL?)

But the idea of thinking of the consumer as "hero" as opposed to, errr, "consumer" is a good plot device in itself in the attempt to re-write the story of marketing.

A tangible example : i have been trying to convince a client to stop seeing their "consumers" as people in distress situations that use their "low interest" category to get urgent information.

Rather I am describing them as "Masters of the Dataverse" : bold figures, striding through the world, weilding devices of power and (occasionally) using my clients service as tools to further the achievement of their noble quests.

Heroes, one and all.

(PS where would we be without Gary Gygax?)