I’ve heard this used more than a few times.
I’ve heard it in development: ‘We just need to educate them on the benefits of clean water, then they’ll buy our pumps.’ ‘If only they’d understand how immunizations can help them be healthier, they’ll come in and get them.’
I’ve heard it in marketing: ‘We have a killer product. If only people understood this, we’d sell a ton. They need to understand this.’
I’ve heard it in politics: ‘We have a comprehensive platform that addresses the needs of Canadians. Now we just need to educate them about this.’
It’s tough to truly understand people’s wants when you start from a position of arrogance.
It’s difficult to see the decision from the adopter’s point of view when you start with how brilliant your solution is.
It’s nearly impossible to spread something that requires people to adopt, if you can’t understand that their reason for doing so isn’t necessarily what you think it is, or want it to be.
People make decisions that reflect their needs, and adopt solutions that they perceive to have value. With this in mind, we can learn how to develop solutions that really appeal to them, not rely on ‘educating’ them about our brilliant solution. Whether in development, politics or the commercial sector, demand pull is powerful. But it requires that we understand what people actually want, not what we expect them to want, and how they make decisions that work for them.
B
(Shot from Southern Senegal in 2006. We hoped people would want lower cost rice. They do, but really only if it’s white, as ‘unclean’ rice doesn’t appeal to people’s tastes. Our first solution didn’t cut it.)
Check out more: Featured Posts - Africa - Ethiopia - Senegal - Brand - Design - Marketing - Work - Our World - Culture - Development - Economy
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Delicious]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-delicious-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://www.cashewman.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
{ 1 trackback }
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Very good point. I find engineers are particularly susceptible to this notion. We have a very defined set of rules and logic in the way we see the world, and who can argue with my logic, when it’s based on physical laws? Everyone can when it comes to purchasing decisions, since their logic is often different that my logic. And physical laws be damned!
[Reply]
nice post Brendan…..
what you write is incredible similar to the work I do…
We just cut our newest sneak peek for our video blog check it out - it is a 5 minute piece on a classic Lecture of Moshe Feldenkrais, pioneer in teaching people the skills of “learning how to Learn”…i.e., educating and not “telling” or “fixing”‘
The title “TO CORRECT IS INCORRECT”
http://vimeo.com/7750143
the common view of say the typical health/medical model is “fix me, or we need to fix them, make them less susceptible to disease, ailments, aches, pains etc”,
however what is starting to become common amongst people is seeking out “what can I do to make myself better and avoid XYZ” -
Prevention, lucikly is becoming more understood as important - at least in the Western World” - I know that Obama at least recognized this, lets see how he pools the resources to intelligently impart this among the masses…the key is making sure this paradigm doesn’t become just as obsessive and compulsive as the other end of the spectrum. which will happen if not carefully mapped out..
Ciao Irene.
[Reply]
“People would never vote for Palin of we could just educate them.”
[Reply]
I seem to be taking on the role of contrarian these days…
Engineers get frustrated because we are trained to evaluate information and make rational decisions. Most people are not particularly rational, nor do they understand statistics at all. That does not negate the fact that sometimes there IS a “right” or at least a “better” answer to some questions, even if people feel differently. True, you may not be able to convince them without wrapping it in some other marketing, but I don’t think we should let go of the underlying fact that one choice can be demonstrably better than another.
Case in point: childhood vaccinations. The medical and scientific community are overwhelmingly clear on the benefits. All the people who don’t vaccinate their babies are putting their kids (not only themselves) at risk of preventable illnesses with potentially serious consequences. Should doctors stop pushing people to vaccinate their babies because it makes a few misguided parents feel uncomfortable, because they think “their choice” should be equally respected and accepted?
Also, what about all the progress and actions which involve swaying public opinion? Isn’t that essentially ‘education’? A few years ago gay marriages weren’t legal in Canada (and still aren’t, in many places). Fifteen years ago, most people hadn’t heard of climate change, and certainly wouldn’t have supported economic measures to reduce it. Ninety years ago, women weren’t “persons” in their own right. All of those changes came from a few dedicated campaigners out to “educate” everyone else.
People do need education. Selling them what they already want might be easier, and may seem to work better in the short term, but it should be a tool in service of a goal, not an end in itself.
[Reply]
I don’t think Brenand is saying that education isn’t important. What he is saying is that there is a plurality of “reasons for acting” one way or another, and also a plurality of things people have reason to value. If we are to make any headway in dealing with this sort of plurality, ignoring it by asserting one reason to act over another, or asserting one value as superior to others, will distort the way in which individuals and communities actually make decisions.
If we cannot properly develop a comparative approach to development, health, etc., then the institutions we set up will have a paucity of information upon which to enable actors to have the ability to gain access to benefits. Impoverished institutions, even if based on “rationality”, will ultimately be ineffective institutions.
Additionally, it is more likely that, say, women’s rights will become better understood and more widespread if we take a comparative approach to value systems and respect plurality. It is possible to be rational in many different ways - rationality is not a de facto answer. By approaching problems with limits placed on parochialism, and by accepting the views of outsiders as valid, it is more likely that a society will move beyond its parochial approach if that approach, comparatively, seems to deprive more people of freedom than alternatives from other communities. By being open to those perspectives, we allow more rational decisions to occur more frequently.
[Reply]
a friend recently asked me, “if there’s so much appropriate technology already out there, in addition to a whole lot of new stuff currently being designed, then why is it that i never see any of this when i visit rural villages?”
the best response i have so far is that we are either a) missing a good dissemination technique or b) aren’t producing what people want or c) both. i’m still sorting through my thoughts on this (and am planning on writing a post on everything soon), but your post above really rang true to me.
[Reply]
I wrote about this on my blog yesterday, from the social enterprise marketing perspective.
You can’t educate your consumers with facts. In fact, you have to do three things.
1. Put a single face on your issue.
2. Avoid statistics. Tell a story.
3. Show them that their efforts at helping are meaningful. (e.g. if they help 1 out of 2 people, they feel good. If they help 1 out of 10, far less so)
You can read the full piece here: http://socentex.com/2009/12/warning-statistics-kill-your-cause/
[Reply]
Brendan Reply:
December 11th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Hi Auren,
I think we’re maybe talking about two different ‘customers’ here - I’m not talking about donors or funders, but end customers (or beneficiairies in old school development-speak).
That said, I do agree with your comment though, completely. Thanks for the comment,
B
[Reply]