So we got sent this book by the direct marketing company, Wunderman.
This man literally created the discipline of direct marketing and even though technology and society has dramatically changed over the years – he’s still as sharp as a tack.
I’ve had the great pleasure of dining with Lester and despite him having nothing to prove, I found him to be one of the most genuine, warm, inquisitive and intelligent people I’ve ever met.
So what has this got to do with the book I received from Wunderman?
Well it’s because it kills me that a company that was created by a genuine communication visionary has now devolved into some middle-of-the-road, mass-generalising, skills-by-acquisition, emotion-free-process slab of blandom.
Yes, I know Wunderman are hugely successful … yes, I know they have some fantastic people … yes, I know they’ve done [and do] some great work … yes, I know they have a wealth of case studies … however it seems [at least to me] that ever since Lester stopped being an integral part of the organisation, they are quite comfortable putting out statements that are bordering on corporate suicide.
I wrote about one of their previous two-feet-in-one-mouth episodes a while back – but for those who didn’t see it, one of their senior executives announced [and I paraphrase]
‘Data simply tells you what consumers did in the past, it doesn’t necessarily reflect what they will do in the future’.
Holy mother of god, what a discovery. That’s right up there with gravity, DNA and instant mash … except it isn’t, is it? It’s called stating the bleedin’ obvious and quite frankly, the originator of that declaration, David Sable, should be hanging his head in shame.
Mind you, at least what he said was true [ignoring the fact he didn’t then talk about how the real power is when you understand WHY people did what they did] what Wunderman has come out with now is so generalising, that it makes a mockery of the whole ‘one-to-one’ marketing discipline.
Have a look at this …
So Wunderman are saying that if you were born in the 1970’s – meaning between twenty nine and thirty seven years ago – you are pretty much a technological snail.
Interesting …
OK, so I was born in 1970 so a statement like that will immediately rile me up as it reminds me I not a spring-chicken, but infact a boring old fart … however even though on first impressions a general statement like “People Born in the 1970’s Don’t Understand Technology As Fast As Young People” seems fair enough, I would still say it has fundamental flaws.
First issue is what is a ‘young person’?
2 years of age?
5 years of age?
9 years of age?
[And there’s no need to tell me a young child wouldn’t have a credit card – I know – I was just using that to demonstrate my point. Mind you, given banks desperation for ever increasing profits …?]
Then I want to know what they mean when they say UNDERSTAND technology?
Are they talking about ‘how it works’ or ‘how to use it’?
There’s obviously a massive difference between those two interpretations so I wish Wunderman clarified what they meant – however if it is the latter definition, I’ll call them on it.
You see, while people born from 1990 live lives that are seamlessly integrated with technology, people of my era have had such a long time to adapt to the changing landscape that for all intents and purposes, I’d say [in most cases] we are as adept at using technology as any laptop bashing 6 year old.
Sure our reactions might not be as quick – especially when you compare them to a coke-addled, Red Bull guzzling, ADD suffering 15 year old – but that doesn’t mean we don’t know how to use the same technology.
Oooooh I’m pumped up now ….
Right, what about the issue that that most of the technology we use was/is designed and created by people who probably fall into the 29-37 age group.
Apart from the fact that means they influence how the masses tend to use technology, doesn’t it also mean they are rather up-to-date with what’s going on?
Let me tell you, when Bazz takes his big job next to Steve Jobs, I’m going to make sure he advises the guru of Apple to step down because at 53, he is obviously past it.
And last – but by no means least – given Wunderman are obviously trying to position themselves as the God’s of Digital, I wonder what percentage of their staff were born after 1980?
For their sake I hope it’s the majority because by their reckoning, anyone born before that year is a techno luddite and as such, no use to a digital comms company whatsoever.
[Lets ignore the fact Wunderman started in 1958, their CEO is around 57 years of age and their website looks like this]
Now whilst some of what I’ve said can be disputed, what I’ve hopefully done is demonstrate how their statement has some fundamental flaws – and if I were Wunderman, I’d be be worried about that.
Personally, I think segmenting societies technological capabilities by age is daft.
Whilst I appreciate that the older you are, the harder it might be to ‘grasp’ new techniques and/or technologies … that doesn’t mean [1] they won’t get it [2] they won’t want to get it [3] they won’t embrace it
Infact I could argue that the older you are, the more you embrace new technologies [as long as you’ve been shown how to use them and why they’re beneficial] because suddenly things become more exciting to use/do.
At the end of the day, technological understanding / desire / usage is about mindset rather than age – and whilst it might be more convenient for organisations to think this way, because it helps plan their marketing programs, what they are actually doing is ‘dumbing down’ their audience to such a degree that it is more likely to offend than motivate.
This is especially offensive when the organisation doing the ‘dumbing down’ is one who is supposedly obsessed with developing one-to-one relationships.