With the Super Bowl this weekend (Go Packers!), there’s lots of attention on the ads during the telecast. In the tech world, one of the to-be-aired spots that is garnering lots of attention will be from Motorola. That company is pitching it’s Android-based tablet, called the Xoom, against the current run-away market leader, Apple‘s iPad. What is striking about the teasers so far available is that Motorola hopes to get attention using a version of Apple’s own iconic “1984“ (of the George Orwell book) advertising concept. Drones of white, iPod earbud-wearing people are portrayed against a lone individual sporting a Xoom. Effective? Not likely.

Attacking future customers

The anti-user angle is very similar to what Microsoft did with its initial Windows Phone 7 (WP7) advertising … attack the very customers and their behaviors that you hope to attract (see our previous post). You could argue that the market is plenty big enough to support anti-current user tactics, but that argument is weak at best. Cutting-edge technology users, and increasingly the next wave of less technology-versed people, have adopted smart phones and tablets — they mostly paid for the devices themselves, they are buying in the tens of millions, and they are most likely recommending them to friends and family. This is not a segment to call stupid. Yet Microsoft and Motorola appear to have both adopted the same approach. That approach says:

• Consumers doing things they enjoy are actually being foolish, inconsiderate, or aren’t thinking.
• Even though we just called you stupid, we think you should buy our similar product.
• Our product offers almost exactly what the ones we just mocked you for owning, but we have some new visuals, some technical edges, or some content freedoms to show you.

Here are the obvious and not so obvious issues with this approach:

• Consumers voted with their wallets for their current devices. People with free will and their own money bought Apple iStuff (the informal term for iPods, iPhones, and iPads) — no gun was held to their head. They invested in Android-powered smart phones. Unlike in the original Apple “1984″ commercial, the target isn’t workers that have to use what they are given by shadowy bosses. These are consumers — volunteer spenders. You might as well call the buyers of Wisk, the voters for McCain, or the drivers of a Hyundai stupid. Hint: They won’t appreciate it, and that approach won’t change their minds (it will probably do the opposite).
• Consumers like doing what they are doing. Calling smart phone behavior poor is a bit like Clint Eastwood yelling, “Get off my lawn” in Gran Torino. Anti-Facebook or Twitter people might as well call all those happy users and their posts dumb, too … but it will only make the name callers look out of touch and elitist. Smart phone users bought the phones to do smart phone things. Apple iPod users — those with the white earbuds in the Motorola teaser — bought their music player to listen to music. Most of these users like what their product does and they use them how they are meant to be used. Calling their behavior out is not a way to convert them.
• Promoting subtle user interface (UI) changes or technical specs only appeals to the small subset of techies. Microsoft’s active tiles are the center of its attempt to redefine smart phone use, but the main ad message seems misplaced since the tiles all lead to all the smart phone behavior the WP7 ads make fun of. Earlier Motorola Xoom teases have talked about technical specs — something very few outside of the techy crowd care about. Again, consumers bought competing products for their own reasons — focusing on a company-defined differentiation won’t help sell WP7 phones or Zoom tablets. It sounds obvious, but focus on the buyers and what they want (or will want; see below).

Focusing on creating consumer demand for better products

So, what should companies like Microsoft and Motorola do when facing an uphill battle — trying to enter a market of established products with similar capabilities pushed by competitors with powerful brands? They need to stop mocking their potential customers. They need to tell a consumer why their solution is better than what’s out there and selling well today (note: This advice will also be useful for Hewlett Packard with its webOS products and Research in Motion with its Blackberry and PlayBook offerings). Here are some things to do:

• Focus on visually, easy-to-see aspects (the things consumers like, not engineers). Apple ads tend to be pretty basic but are very effective — in most cases, they show a simple but fun iStuff device and lots of apps that appeal to a wide range of people. Microsoft and Motorola need to focus on why it’s fun or cool or useful to invest in their products, not just bash existing behaviors or competitive offerings. Focusing on the new UI in Wp7 made sense — knocking consumer behavior didn’t. Sure, it sounds like you are appealing to the “cool” or “gee whiz” factors. That’s because you are and should be. Those factors sell, or at least have a lot of influence.
• Find away to create uniqueness (despite being made of commodity parts). Apple’s iStuff has brand appeal and is based off in-house technology (both hardware and software) that leverages third-party content. The problem for both Microsoft and Motorola is that their product use me-too technology components, and people often know that (mainly, they learn from the other competition). In Microsoft’s case, the company relies on hardware partners like HTC and Samsung to deliver the physical devices (thus the hardware looks similar to Android-based phones). In Motorola’s case, it relies on the Google-shepherded Android software (“Honeycomb” flavor for tablets) to power the Xoom. The problem? So does almost every other tablet manufacturer. Honeycomb will be on tens to hundreds of tablets, so there is simply little differentiation. A brand can’t thrive without competitive differentiation.
• Define next-generation features (even though everyone will have them soon). Microsoft should take a page from it’s own Xbox success. Rather than offering a PlayStation knockoff, Microsoft’s Xbox 360 redefined what a high-end game console should offer, most notably with its Xbox LIVE subscription service. For smart phones and tablets, Microsoft and Motorola need to think about what they can do that is  different. For WP7, that means having all the iPhone and Android features and more. For Xoom, that means having all the same iPad and Andorid (Honeycomb) features and more. The more, in both cases, has to come from those two companies, otherwise it is just a generic offering. Sure, everyone else will eventually copy  what was created, but differentiation is always a “moving the goal posts” game. Just ask Apple.
• Know when to build a separate brand (even though you love your primary brand). Apple makes the iPhone, but most people say they have an iPhone. Microsoft makes the Xbox 360, but must people call it an Xbox. Google is behind Android, but few people call Android-powered smart phones Google phones. Some brands need to go away. For example, Microsoft needs to get rid of Windows in Windows Phone 7 and promote a single phone brand devoid of legacy PC terminology (Unfortunately, the company often can’t resist slapping similar brands on everything … think Windows, .NET, LIVE, etc.). Motorola needs to lose its proud, but consumer-irrelevant company name when marketing the Xoom. A great example of a recent failure in the tech industry to separate brands is Dell and its premium Adamo notebook line (designed to compete primarily with the MacBook Air). The problem is the Dell brand does not connote a premium product, so the combo (or diluted ) branding does not work. A positive example of how separated brands work well can be found in the auto world. Honda makes Acura, but you don’t hear people say they drive a Honda Acura TL. It’s an Acura, and while some people know it’s really a high-end Honda, most don’t.