[photo taken by: Scott Beale / Laughing Squid]
The thing that bothers me about this cartoon by one of my favourite subversive thinkers, Hugh Macleod, is not the message. Hugh’s cartoon is poignant. It speaks the truth. It’s from his soul. And I think the message is clear. What bothers me is how the cartoon has been absorbed.
Think of it this way.
Option #1 Upon seeing this cartoon, Microsoft PR could have gone rancid. Ballistic. Ignored or shut down. Or worst, ceased and desisted. That’s the ‘clueless’ answer we half expect companies to do. And we loooove to call companies on this…use big examples of how these old skoolers just “don’t get it”. Have we totally stopped talking about Kryptonite already? (I still pick up on the meme) But companies, and especially companies like Microsoft, are not stupid. And their PR people are even less stupid. They haven’t spent years of building ‘evangelist’ teams of people to do community outreach to end up blowing it on something like this.
Option #2 is that they read it, reflect and realize that they need to do something about this. Not shut it down, but it actually gets them thinking, “Man, maybe it is time to change. Maybe we aren’t relevant anymore. Maybe we’ve just got too mired down in being big company that we lost our edge?” and they could start actually doing something about it. It doesn’t appear that is the case.
There is a third Option, though, and, in my estimation, it is the scariest option of all.
Option #3 is akin to systemic or implicit prejudice. It’s there…you can feel something is wrong, but there isn’t something explicit enough to be able to call anyone out on it.
Option #3 is when marketing uses subversion as a marketing tool. It’s what happened with the Chevy Tahoe ads. So, the story went: people defaced the ads. Bloggers waited in anticipation for GM to take them down. And they didn’t (well, not right away). So, a miraculous thing started to happen…people started to say things like:
“Wow, they are so smart. Look at all of us visiting their site.”
and
“I think I just increased my respect for GM. They DO get it.”
Which made me stop and shudder in a big way. You see, by taking on the subversiveness of those ads, they appeared as if they ‘got it’. They appeared as if they were doing Option #2. Now, time will tell whether GM gets rid of this line of enormous vehicles and replaces them all with more fuel efficient, hybrid or electric vehicles, but the issue I take with the outcome of all of this is that a simple PR move totally quieted the critics. They neutralized by taking the punch.
Which is what Microsoft is doing here. Whether or not they are actually ‘changing the world or going home’ is up for deep debate and discussion, but when they showed up at the Web 2.0 Expo sporting this cartoon all over t-shirts and signage, I was taken aback. The PR people were standing at the door to the MS session, happily handing out their (men’s XL & XXL) tshirts to everyone coming into the session. A big smile, saying, “See? We’re hip. We’re listening,” across their face.
Meanwhile, we were running the Web2Open across the hallway and had spoken with some Microsoft people a week earlier about them coming down and being involved in the Mashpit. “Bring developers and your APIs.” I offered and added, “This is for the developers and the community, so we aren’t ‘featuring’ anyone. We’ll let people decide what they are working on.”
Well, no developers showed up, but those same t-shirt flingers were more than happy to ’spam’ our tables with Microsoft literature as they ran by. It seemed to me that the appearance of clued in was much more important than being clued in. And could you blame them? I mean, being clued in is a terribly time-consuming, drawn-out process that takes a long period of humility, pain and general deprogramming. Whereas, appearances are pretty simple. All you need are a stack of gapingvoid t-shirts and a heartfelt speech.
I do have the utmost faith in human beings…still…even after all of these years of hearing people say one thing, then do something else. And still, even after watching so many people around me fall for the line rather than judge by the performance…still, I think that people are smart and can see these inconsistencies for themselves.
But this is a cloak. The cloak of subversion is strong. And the strongest part of it is that we, ourselves, want to believe SO strongly that stuff is changing this fast. We want our stories to carry into our clueless clients’ offices and say, “See? Microsoft is doing it. Why can’t you?”
I do believe that times are changing…companies are changing (or have to change). I believe the tide is shifting and there will be a great leveling (in fact my book proposal, which is coming along nicely, thank you, is about this very belief). But I don’t believe it is happening as fast and led by the characters that we are pointing to. We, too, have to change our own measurement systems to see where things are making leaps and bounds and it is truly, in the individual stories and the long tail.
Subversion…REAL subversion is going down. And it is kickass, amazing, disruptive stuff. But it will: a. take some time to shake out and b. come with some crazy consequences we don’t even realize yet. And it isn’t as simple as GM keeping Tahoe-bashing ads up on their site longer or Microsoft using a cool Hugh Macleod cartoon on their conference materials.
Subversion isn’t a marketing tool. It’s a path to change. We can’t lose site of that.
View Tara Hunt's profile
13 Comments
Really enjoy this post.
I remember reading a Wired article and watching those Tahoe-bashing ads last Dec. To me, I thought the ad agency and Chevy was simply making a tactical decision to leave the bashing ads alone to minimize damage. I think it is safe to say the chance of GM making more fuel efficient vehicles because of any lesson(s) learned from these bashing ads will be next to zero. Just my 2 cents.
Did anyone else expect, based on the title, that this post would be about the power of open source as marketing: opening your subversion tree to the public?
I remember leading a project team that worked very hard to deliver a sophisticated project management system which would enable the big media company involved to do the most wonderful, advanced real time things. Every journalist or ad exec involved would be able customise content, pull in this, tag that…They said “Thank you” then used it to carry on running things in exactly the same way after firing half their staff. That’s the problem with subversion - the bad guys or the merely indifferent-to-humanity get to play too.
yeah, guilty as charged. got my gears turning on the marketing value of open sourcing software products, so it looks like tara delivered two thought provoking messages in one!
Suggest you check out Technorati with the tag: sapphire07 - this covers all the stuff written about SAP following their 2 most recent customer conferences. SAP takes everything on the chin and still comes back for more. They’re doing a good job with their developer communities.
I have been pondering this question a lot lately. Thanks for doing a great job of articulating it. I see big company efforts looking at social media primarily as another vehicle to declare the “message”. Yes “listening” is considered an integral ingredient in the process, but I keep getting the feeling that the listening only exists in order to craft a better message, not necessarily a better product/service.
On the other hand, any listening is better than none, and who knows where those emergent properties will crop up…
Yeah. You’ve hit the nail on the head Tara but no one seems to realize what the proble is. It is the very nature of the beast. That is “corporations” technically in the law a corporation is a person with all the attributes of a person. A corporation has only one function that is stay alive and make money. Doing good or bad is incidental to its primary task. Just check out Wall Street what is that place interested in this quaters results compared with the last or the same period last year. 10,000 people died because of poisoning from our smokestacks who cares our profits rose 10% over same period last year. one immediatereference Nigeria and the oil patch there.To hope for the revolution via the corporation is a pipe dream in my view. To me the solution lies in open source not only in software but where ever we can. We also need to create employee owned/customer owned co-ops. Then there is a hope that we can save this lovely world before it is completely befouled. If you like this idea perhaps this is the long term aim of Citizens Agency?
love to all
Roger
“A big smile, saying, “See? We’re hip. We’re listening,†across their face.”
Microsoft isn’t fooling that many folks. “Why sure, I’ll take the free swag…” and go hunt down an Apple or install Linux
…though, they may be fooling themselves. Which is totally their prerogative. Ah, well, they were alerted. (Me too. I see a massive sea change coming.)
Hey Tara, thanks for the feedback.
You do know there was a fourth point that you completely overlooked, right?
All will be revealed, fret not
hmm. i’m with Hugh on this one. how about option #4:
Microsoft realizes there is some truth in there, and RATHER THAN TAKE IT AS A WEAKNESS, they turn it around and USE IT AS A STRENGTH.
in other words, they acknowledge the truth of occasionally acting monstrous, perhaps a bit evil, perhaps a bit lumbering goliath, the “800-lb gorilla” label that has become so much cliche… much the same Leviathan as the IBM they tricked out of hundreds of billions of market cap over 15 years ago.
and yet, for those of us geeks who’ve been through the times when Microsoft was so incredibly dominant — and to some extent still is — there actually is some unshakeable & demonstrable brand recognition and value there.
i mean, who WOULDN’T be a little afraid of Microsoft, if they decided to go after your market / niche / platform? they DO have a history of inexorable extend-embrace-devour — RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED — whoops, sorry, an inexorable BORG-ishness that is… well, hell i’ll say it… admirable.
i love the campaign. it’s great. it’s honest. it’s powerful. it reminds me of how fierce a competitor Microsoft can be, and how significant its impact once it focuses on a target.
is that bad? not completely.
is it funny or humorous? you bet. i snicker each time i see it.
is it accurate? absolutely.
is it memorable? utterly.
nice job hugh.
(this is just a general rant, not addressed to anyone in particular)
This is a game that’s been going on since the beginning of mass media. Check http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/259919.html from 1997 for an overview from the 1960’s to now.
The problem with subversion, is that it is always subverting the mainstream. So, it’s always too complex, complicated, and cutting edge for the majority to make use of in any form except a watered-down myth used for marketing mainstream goods and services.
One lesson that I’ve taken away from the study of Calre W. Graves’s theories about human nature http://clarewgraves.com is that people can only change in ways that they are ready for, and only when they are ready for change.
Most of “mainstream” developed world society is not ready for the type of change that would allow them to adopt social norms, technologies, and mediums that resemble those used by cultural “subversives”. However, I think there is evidence that many people in “mainstream” developed world society are partially ready a change that partially resembles the technology, social norms, and mediums of cultural “subversives”. Microsoft realizes this, and they use it to capitalize on this readiness for change. But, microsoft offers the technology, mediums, and social norms of the existing “mainstream” as a it’s catalyst for change in it’s realm of media/technology. This can fool some people for a while, but eventually the picture becomes clear.
So, how do people who are not just trying to capitalize on “mainstream” societies readiness for change help contribute to something that affects real change?
* Recognize the existence of unique local conditions
* Figure out what types of change people on local levels are ready for.
* Realize that the biggest catalyst for change will not be a technology, nor even a medium, but rather a new set of social norms that people will use to voluntarily co-govern how they will use those technologies and mediums
* Create you technologies and mediums in ways that are flexible enough to allow people to easily use them within their unique context, in ways they are ready for right now, to solve problems they actually care about.
If you really need a macro trend to look at, then realize that the social norm that is emerging in many areas is that people are starting to trend to recognize more and more natural and human created resources as a “commons”. And, they are starting to apply voluntary rules to co-govern these commons. And, perhaps most importantly THIS is a type of change that a huge amount of people ARE ready for, NOW….
This is a smart post because it highlights the basic problems large companies have, and their natural, vs learned responses to disruption. Microsoft have the Mark Kay approach still … rah rah, lets all hold hands and circle the wagons. I think GM do too, but maybe some in there are getting it.
My observation have just finished 30 years with one such organization (a Bank) is that the problem lies in organizational inertia. Every day going to the work with the same people, getting the same memo’s (yes paper memo’s) from the same HQ. When new and disruptive things don’t fit within the realm of that space, everyone resorts back to what they know, and what they know, is what they have been told.
Everyone is smart in isolation, and many know the the answer, yet everyone acts collectively as the organisation expects them to … groupthink.
Microsoft will only be changed from the inside, by people with no stake in the old ways, and who are sufficiently knowledgeable about the new. Oh, and a mind transplant to Ballmer might help - not the most open minded chap in the world
I guess when Hugh first penned the Blue Monster he never thought it would spread so far and wide. I didn’t when he sent it to me and 3 other folks last year. What’s been interesting is to watch how it has spread and from where - more external to Microsoft than internal initially but now it’s starting to show up more within Microsoft.
This is where it could get tricky and where it *could* be subverted by groups wanting some of the Blue Monster “kool aid”. If that happens I for one will be disappointed but I honestly don’t see any groups within Microsoft ready to take the risk and use this in any mainstream way. Thankfully Hugh made it too off piste else it would have drowned by now in some cheap shot marketing gig.
This started at the grassroots and will grow bottom up, not top down. As I’ve said in many other blogs, I keep waiting for the brand police to call me and ask me “wtf” about this. It’ll be a shame if it comes to that but it’d be more of a shame if it gets bastardised for some quick, cheap, new age coolness for some group or other within Microsoft. I’m a little sad that it was used in the way it was at Web 2.0 Expo and will guard against that but given the cartoon is freely available and not owned by me (or Hugh actually) we run the risk of it being mis-used. I’ve already stopped a few of those efforts in the hope that it’s growth will continue to be organic, bottom up by people who actually take the time to understand the message behind it.
This thing was born out of a few people wanting to see a change. Some internal, some external. I hope it continues that way and it’s essence doesn’t drown in marketing. I don’t work in marketing…never have, probably never will so I have a vested interest in that not happening.
Thanks for raising the discussion Tara - it needed to be aired now to help keep the Blue Monster untarnished. For as long as we can anyway.
4 Trackbacks
[...] ::HorsePigCow:: marketing uncommon » Subversion as a Marketing Tool (tags: marketing web2.0) [...]
[...] a post headed Tara and the Blue Monster, Hugh discusses Tara Hunt’s comments on Microsoft’s adoption of the Blue Monster; Tara’s scepticism is something [...]
What Kind Of Change Are People Ready For, Right Now?…
Link: ::HorsePigCow:: marketing uncommon » Subversion as a Marketing Tool. Comment left at Horse Pig Cow: (this is just a general rant, not addressed to anyone in particular) This is a game that’s been going on since the beginning of…
[...] Tara Hunt: Subversion As A Marketing Tool - “It seemed to me that the appearance of clued in was much more important than being clued in. And could you blame them? I mean, being clued in is a terribly time-consuming, drawn-out process that takes a long period of humility, pain and general deprogramming. Whereas, appearances are pretty simple. All you need are a stack of gapingvoid t-shirts and a heartfelt speech.“ [...]