Steve Jobs e Neurociência?

A NEUROCIÊNCIA EXPLICA O MAGNETISMO DAS APRESENTAÇÕES DO EX-CEO DA APPLE

Ele usava frases curtas, recursos gráficos simples e a infalível regra dos dez minutos (Foto: Getty Images)

Entre as múltiplas facetas de Steve Jobs (1955-2011) estava a de exímio apresentador. Na Macworld, a feira anual da Apple, as apresentações de Jobs se tornaram eventos em si. “Steve Jobs foi o mais cativante comunicador que já existiu num palco”, diz o coach em comunicação Carmine Gallo, autor do livro Faça como Steve Jobs – E Realize Apresentações Incríveis em Qualquer Situação.

Segundo diversos neurocientistas, não foi por acaso que Jobs fez tanto sucesso com as plateias. Estudos mostram que o ex-CEO da Apple moldou suas palestras e conferências de forma a maximizar a atenção do cérebro humano. Eis as principais táticas de apresentação de Steve Jobs.

+Sem bullet
Jobs era adepto da simplicidade visual. Nada de bullet points ou recursos gráficos sofisticados. “O cérebro é preguiçoso, e assimila melhor os elementos visuais simples”, diz o professor de neurociência Gregory Berns, da Emory University.

+Frase curta
O ex-CEO da Apple costumava criar chamadas curtas que resumiam o teor da sua apresentação. Na Macworld de 2008, ao apresentar o MacBook Air, disse: “É o mais fino notebook do mundo”. “A frase curta, repetida, é a melhor forma do cérebro gravar uma mensagem”, diz a professora de psicologia cognitiva Susan Gathercole, da York University.

Jobs estudava cada ação que faria no palco. É a ciência a serviço do marketing

+O poder dos números
Jobs fazia um breve resumo no início da apresentação em itens numerados: 1, 2, 3… Ao dizer, por exemplo, “A primeira coisa que vou falar”, o telão exibia o número 1. Segundo Berns, a associação de números com tarefas tem efeito poderoso sobre o córtex parietal posterior, região responsável pelo planejamento das ações.

+Convidados especiais
Dividir o palco com convidados é outro truque. Segundo Stephen Kosslyn, de Harvard, tal expediente é essencial à assimilação de mensagens quando as duas metades do cérebro estão mal utilizadas, e o pensamento não está focado. Numa apresentação longa, é normal a fadiga, e o cérebro entra no piloto automático. Chamar um convidado causa um “chacoalhão” cerebral.

+A regra dos dez minutos
Ele guardava a principal atração da conferência para ser exibida a exatamente dez minutos do seu início. Por exemplo, o comercial de TV do iTunes e do iPod na Macworld de 2007. Os minutos eram cronometrados. “É quando as pessoas começam a olhar o relógio”, diz Medina. “Dez minutos é o tempo exato para o cérebro começar a ficar entediado.”

FONTE: http://epocanegocios.globo.com/Ideias/noticia/2014/08/os-truques-de-steve-jobs.html

 


 

Revealed: How Steve Jobs Turns Customers into Fanatics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marketers gaze in envy at brands like Apple. The firm that began with the Mac built some of the first home computers [doh, thanks, alert reader!] has turned their customers into legions of fanatical evangelists. But, without a Steve Jobs at the helm, or with fewer resources than Apple, is building that kind of loyalty possible? I’ve got good news: while having a visionary and charismatic CEO is a big plus, it isn’t necessary to build a fan base, or even a fanatic base. One big secret of Apple’s success lies in an experiment conducted 40 years ago.

 

The Seminal Experiment

Psychologist Henri Tajfel wanted to know how seemingly normal people could commit genocide, and explored how easy or difficult it was to get subjects to identify with one group and discriminate against others. What he found was startling: with the most trivial of distinctions, he could create artificial loyalties to one group, who would then discriminate against those not in that group.

Tajfel tested subjects by having them perform a more or less meaningless task, like choosing between one of two painters or guessing a number of dots shown on a screen. Then, each subject was assigned to a group, ostensibly based on their answer. When the groups were formed and asked to distribute real rewards, they became loyal to their own group and were stingy with the other group. Many variations on this experiment have been performed subsequently, and they have shown that people can develop group loyalty very quickly even in the absence of real differences. Subjects even became emotionally invested in their meaningless groups, cheering for their own group’s rewards and mocking the other group

Tajfel’s experiment (published in Social categorization and intergroup behavior) led to the theory of social identity, which states that people have an inherent tendency to categorize themselves into groups. They then base their identity (in part) on their group affiliations, and build boundaries to keep other groups separate.

Us vs. Them

In neuromarketing terms, our brains are hardwired to WANT to be in one or more groups. Brands that can be positioned to put their customers into a group will find that their efforts will be enhanced by their customers’ own need to belong. In addition, they will likely cultivate a dislike for other brand groups.

Jumping back to Apple, look how they have leveraged an “Us. vs. Them” approach for decades. Their “1984” commercial certainly drew a sharp distinction between the lone, attractive, athletic young woman and the lines of brainwashed drones.

A year later, Apple’s creepy and somewhat depressing “Lemmings” commercial continued to push people into one of two camps; they again portraying PC users as blindfolded businesspeople functioning like suicidal rodents following each other off a cliff.

Fast forwarding to today, look at the wildly popular Mac Guy vs. PC Guy ads. These in particular draw a sharp distinction – do you want to be one of the cool kids, or a dork?

Compare People, Not Products

Note the common characteristic of these, and many other, Apple commercials: they focus on the PEOPLE who use each product. These ads convey little or no actual product information, and instead mock PC users while portraying Apple users in a favorable way.

Certainly, other brands have successfully exploited this concept, both directly and indirectly. Could the surprising results that showed Coke-branded cola lit up people’s brains more than Pepsi (whether or not the beverage tasted was Coke or Pepsi) be a result of more people thinking of themselves as “a Coke person” vs. “a Pepsi person?” The famous “Pepsi Generation” campaign was all about Pepsi drinkers as a group, though in the long run Coke has held its leading position.

Car and truck makers haven’t worked the “us vs. them” angle very much in their ads, but their owner base has certainly picked up on the theme. Truck owners in particular seem to consider themselves part of groups, as shown by the ongoing animosity between Chevy people and Ford people, to say nothing of the clannish owners of HUMMERs.

Our Customers are Different/Better

While the “us vs. them” strategy works better when products are visible to others (cars, apparel, cigarettes, etc.) there is no reason why it couldn’t be employed by nearly any brand people feel at least a little attached to. It’s critical to make your customers feel different, and to interact with them in a way that makes that more credible than a passing ad slogan.

FONTE: http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/us-vs-them.htm

Anúncios
%d bloggers like this: