There’s an anecdote that always intrigues me about an English tank-commander leading his column of tanks through the ruins of Berlin in 1945.
Standing in the rubble is a German woman yelling something over-and-over again.
He takes his headphones off so he can hear her.
She’s screaming at him: “If you had surrendered in 1940 none of this would have happened.”
What intrigues me is how different her reality is from everyone else’s.
In 1940, London was being bombed by up to 400 bombers, day-and-night, thousands of civilians were being killed.
But she thought the fact that Britain didn’t surrender in 1940 made them responsible for the destruction of Berlin in 1945.
Why this intrigues me is it’s the argument Trump’s supporters use about Ukraine.
They say Ukraine is to blame for the war for not surrendering when Russia invaded.
How can you have a sensible debate with someone like that?
As Amber Veal said: “Before you argue with someone, think to yourself, is this person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of different perspectives? Because if not there’s absolutely no point.”
When we choose to get involved in a debate with another person, we assume it will be conducted in a Hegelian fashion: Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.
That is, we state our position, the other side states their counter-position, strengths and weaknesses on both sides are explored, and we agree on a sensible compromise.
Both parties get a certain amount of what they want, but no one has to surrender, there is no winner and no loser.
But you can’t have a debate like that with someone who behaves in a totally binary fashion like a football supporter – my team is great, your team is shit – any compromise is a sign of weakness and even entertaining another view is treachery.
This is the mistake most people who write advertising strategies make.
They believe that people emotionally choose a brand and can be switched by identifying the emotional touch-point and simply claiming it for their own brand.
But markets aren’t always binary, humans don’t always work that way.
In simplified terms there are usually three groups of consumers : Core Users, Core Non-users, and Undecided.
Undecided is where the two circles of the Venn diagram cross.
Core Users would be another name for Brand Loyalists, people who always specify your brand, no matter what.
No point talking to them, you’re preaching to the choir.
Core Non-users are people who would never touch your brand, no matter what.
No point talking to them, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
Either of these two groups can’t be shifted, so it’s a waste of money talking to them.
The job of strategists is to identify who the occasional purchasers are, the group who can be shifted.
Steve Jobs was a master at this.
When he returned to Apple and was rebuilding the company he ran the ‘Think Different’ campaign: Einstein, Gandhi, Lennon, Dylan, Picasso, etc., a list of creative rebels.
This was purely a brand ad, only talking about Apple’s values.
He didn’t have any new products and Apple were losing customers.
Jobs had to reassure the loyalists (Core Users) to stop the losses, so pure brand.
As soon as he had new products he stopped doing this.
He stopped talking to brand loyalists (Core Users) and for the next few years ran dozens of ads featuring Mac’s product benefits.
The “I’m a PC” – “I’m a Mac” campaign, just addressing people who could be shifted by product benefits rather than brand.
By moving between the different audiences he built Apple into the most valuable brand in the world, valued at $574.5 billion.
He did all that by knowing who was worth talking to and who to ignore.
By knowing who was actually open to listening.