No offense intended, but working with Ph.Ds, MDs,
‘scientists’ and attorneys can be infuriating. These are smart people, very smart,
so it shouldn’t be such a chore explaining marketing to them. But it is.
Their idea of marketing always centers on logic,
statistics and specs… three things that aren’t primary when it comes to changing
consumer perceptions.
But you can’t convince them: if the facts say A
performs twice as well as B, then A should outsell B… it’s a matter of logic.
But marketing, although logical in many ways, isn’t about THAT kind of reasoning.
Marketing is about people, and people are often illogical and irrational… they
lead with their hearts not their heads (and that’s why you love them).
But ‘experts’ aren’t happy with this reality. It’s sloppy
and it’s not theirs; rather, they posit a world
where the best always wins. (Again, not to be offensive, but Ph.Ds and the like
always seem to operate from one egotistical premise: If I can learn how to be a
doctor [lawyer, engineer, etc.] then I can learn anything – including how to do
YOUR job as well as you in a matter of weeks.)
“How hard is it to write an ad, I’m a trained scientist?” (A
question directed to me many years ago by an MD.)
A recent post from Seth Godin put this in perspective… I
reprint it here:
There are two kinds of
users/creators/customers/pundits.
Some can't understand
why a product or service doesn't catch on. They can prove that it's better.
They can quote specs and performance and utility. It's obvious.
The other might be
willing to look at the specs, but he really doesn't understand them enough to
care. All he knows is that the other choice is beautiful--it makes him feel
good. He wants to use it.
Acura vs. Lexus, Dell
vs. Apple, New Jersey vs. Bali...
PS: At dinner last night, a friend and I were talking
facts versus emotions. He’s an attorney, who was, for a time in the 1980s, a Federal
prosecutor in the office of anti-trust and tried the largest case of the
decade. I’ll summarize his account:
“They (a large multinational) had dozens of expert witnesses
from around the world testifying on the company’s behalf. I had no way of hiring
that many counter-experts; but I could sense the jury was overwhelmed with
facts. In my summary, I said something like, ‘That was sure a lot of facts and
a lot of experts; they’re so much smarter than me that half the time I didn’t
really understand what they were saying.’ In a flash, that simple statement
dismissed weeks of expert testimony… I won the case and the opposing attorneys
were shocked at how simply I countered their mountain of facts. It was all I had… what else
could I do? But I fully realized at that moment that emotions played a larger
role than I suspected in the courtroom. Sure, passions are key in a murder
trial – but I learned that even in a dull case of anti-trust, emotion is paramount
and far beyond any Ph.D, MD, you name it, expert testimony.”
