Let Them MAKE Cake
Instant cake mix, in an effort to improve, once went from asking people to add eggs, butter, and water to the powdery mix in the box, to just adding water. Sales dropped immediately. When the makers pulled it back so that people added two eggs and the water, sales rocketed back up. It turned out that adding the eggs made people feel more involved, part of the process.
When your media feels too complete, people don’t feel like they’re participating. More than anything, this is a note to myself.
Photo credits, Cake- Kanko, Egg - Gabe Photos
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to receive future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Your point about media, I think, is bang on. The cake analogy, however, might be a bit of a stretch. I suspect that it has to do with consumers/bakers feeling that a mix that requires actual ingredients would produce a higher quality result.
But media: yes, there’s a better ROI when it’s participatory.
There are sort of two points in one here. One is that people like to feel wanted. Doing something makes people feel wanted. The other point is that by buttoning up your media too tightly, people don’t have anything to add, no participation.
The reason movies (and books) have “entry characters,” those characters that give us a perspective of this all being new and gee whiz (Think Harry Potter as the new non-muggle on the block), is so that YOU, as reader, can feel part of this new world and participate in it.
Thus, if we lift that premise, our media needs to have the same feel.
Make sense?
Hey Chris - I was excited to read this short post (well, the cake pic reeled me in. Ha ha.)
I’m guessing you’ve seen the incredible BBC series “Century of Self” that reveals the work of Edward Bernays (Freud’s nephew). It was indeed Betty Crocker that introduced instant cake mix as a convenience food in the early ’50s, but it wasn’t until consumers were instructed to add an egg that sales resumed. Yep, participation is key!!
See:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-678466363224520614
at min 21:49 if you’re interested!
Chris,
I think this analogy needs a bit of work, I’m afraid.
A generation previously, cake-mix had appealed to those who wanted “time saving”… because it was quicker than just starting with a bunch of ingredients (in the way their mothers [and I use the gender-specific language with 99% accuracy if you look at cakes baked in the 1950].)
… by the time the incident you described happened, it was READY-MADE cakes that were the convenience-led mass market buy.
Cakemix had changed its positioning to the segment who wanted a “cake-making experience” rather than the people who wanted a cake. It was no longer about being the quick way to have a cake… it was about those who wanted to feel involved.
Most people didn’t want to feel involved - they just wanted the sugar rush that came with EATING the cake rather than a close personal relationship with the cake-maker.
Where the manufacturers of cake-mix were failing was that they were still thinking in terms of the OLD niche - but were so close to the product that they thought “how do we make cake-making easier” rather than “how do we make cake-getting easier.”
And that, in a nutshell, is one of the hard points of Web 2.0….
…. there are SOME who want to get involved, and help bake the cake…
… there are many more who want a quick cake fix, and have no interest in baking whatsoever.
Web2.0 seems to assume that the world is full of cake-bakers.
I guess that the interesting point is that, it would turn out, that some of the amateur cake-bakers (bloggers, say) have ended up making more popular cakes (blogs) than the so-called professional chefs (journalists.)
You are so right. I own a bakery and indeed, people want to be involved in putting it together…eggs and all! Good thinking. Keep going!
Chris, this is a brilliant summary and illustration of what this stuff’s all about!
Joanna
PS Don’t be too hard on yourself - you are blazing a trail for the rest of us, don’t forget