GM is attempting to “dialogue” with youth (side bar – and by youth they mean people 20-35. I am so flattered GM considers me a youth).
“Read the press release first.”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/adweek/20070213/ad_bpiaw/gmcourtsyouthwithvideoops
GM let me be the first to “dialogue” with you. Knowing that you sponsor the “Grammy Awards”:http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/49th_show/default.aspx, the fact that you “blog”:http://fastlane.gmblogs.com, the fact you are trying to connect with young people means nothing.
I’ll save you some time, energy and marketing dollars. Let me tell you a little secret about what us “youth” really want. You ready for this mind blowing insight? Normally we charge many thousands of dollars to clients for this kind of thinking.
Make a car I would actually buy.
written by Jon Lax
From where I stand, what you’ve said seems to be the current marketing trend. I read Seth’s blog, good experience, 37 Signals, Creating Passionate Users. They all seem to be echoing this sentiment in general (not necessarily just at GM).
I’m curious how much of this is cyclical. Do we as a species go through phases where we just want something that doesn’t frustrate our desires too much, and then later just want opulence? I don’t know if I’ve been around long enough to notice a trend. Does the whole world shift on these lines or is it specific industries?
The point I was making was that GM has some more fundamental issues to fix and their desire to connect with youth is misguided. They would be better off building a better product rather than trying to “dialogue” and getting users to make videos for them.
I think what you are talking about is the movement to simplicity. Those blogs seem to proselytize that well designed, simple, products create positive experiences.
I don’t believe this is cyclical. I believe technology has accelerated this understanding. I think, only very recently, have we become aware of how complexity in products can create negative experiences. I think the iPod was probably the watershed product that made people realise this.
I know for myself until I read Barry Schwartz’s “The Paradox of Choice” I was a believer that more choice was better.
I think our desires are often for products that meet our needs. The ones that do that as simply and as elegently as possible seem to provide us te best experiences. Not necessarily those that are more opulent.
Did this answer your question?
Perfectly.
I am not an historian nor art historian, but it seems like there have been various periods in our history where we’ve moved from grandiose artistic expressions and garb to simpler ones. This may be a product of my lack of knowledge though.
Hmm, interesting point. I don’t instantly see it, but I think an argument could be made that as complexity enters system there is a natural tendency for the system to self correct and simplify.
I can’t think of a time in art history prior to Modernism where simplification occurs…
I think the big three have been so focused on being all things to all people in their product releases, they’ve most certainly lost a resonating trait of what their particular strengths are. This approach has carried itself over to their marketing, as far as my impression of it goes over the last decade or more. Personally, I intuitivly think of a primary trait when i think of each foreign vehicle. Honda with stability, acura with speed, and toyota with longevity, to name but a few. It’s not that the big 3 don’t offer a great product, I think it’s also that as a consumer I don’t remember what exactly was great about their product.