The Myth of Persona

Rahul Agaskar, SVP Strategy at R2integrated talks about journey mapping in marketing and how there is a “myth of persona”

This year, companies will spend billions trying to reach people who don’t exist. We call them “personas.” Like photos and maps, personas are not reality – they are representations of it. We put personas on a pedestal because, supposedly, they answer the question “Who?” They paste colorful identities on the people we presume will buy our products and services.

What if the better question was “Where?” or better yet, “Why?” What if personas have distorted our buyer, and we risk marketing to a myth?

The trouble is recognizing when it happens. It’s not easy to distinguish a messaging problem from a persona problem. To overcome the myth of persona, we have to reconsider what a persona is and how we create it.

Persona to Personalization

Personas are getting deeper by the day. The proliferation of consumer data has made us confident in our understanding of whom we are targeting – perhaps to our own detriment.

Once, marketers would target males who are 18-34, make at least $60,000 per year, and live in urban areas. The marketer might label them “Millennial Male Professionals.”

Now, companies, products, and services start with a value proposition, the description of a problem and their solution for it. The persona answers the question, “Who has this issue?”

Sure, Millennial men in the 18-34 range might have the problem, but why and when? What do these men believe? How do they live? What are their personalities like? What causes do they care about? How would they describe their affinities and interests? In how many different ways can your brand connect to their lives?

Between market research and social analytics, we can answer these questions. The data adds ‘soul’ to the personas, but it can also lead us to a dead end.

The Scale Problem

As my agency’s CEO Matt Goddard has arguedOpens a new window , content personalization doesn’t scale well. You could carve your audience into 1,000 segments if you wanted. But, creating writing, photos, and videos for each one would be an onerous task with diminishing ROI. Thus, “Where?” is becoming a better question than “Who?” With smartphones, wearables, Amazon Alexa, and virtual reality headsets stretching the notion of a “channel,” it pays to personalize by experience rather than solely relying on demographic or psychographic data.

Let’s use Uber as an example because most people are familiar with it. When Uber began in 2009, the founders had one user channel: a mobile app. Now, Uber’s touchpoints go well beyond that. You might have noticed that in January 2017, Uber (and Lyft) showed up in Google Maps, complete with real-time pricing, vehicle options, and a “Request” button. Uber appeared in Facebook Messenger, too, back in December 2015. There, users can share an address, and their friends can click it to request an Uber. People can also share their Uber trip via Messenger so that coworkers know where they are, or so that friends can walk outside to hop in the car.

Uber for Google Maps and Uber for Messenger each added more dimensions to the existing personas, and in some cases created new personas. The Google Maps users are checking for directions, drive times, and transportation options. They’re deciding among multiple options. The channel and marketing experience (often one in the same) has to convince these users that Uber is the best choice.

Uber for Messenger, on the other hand, has to win the buyers amidst a conversation. If you’re the friend who receives an address, you have choices. You could memorize the address or copy-paste it in another app (perhaps Google Maps). Or, you could just click the darn address and get your ride. You’re more likely to hit request when time is short – maybe you made last-minute plans, or maybe you’re rushing over from another social event. Your friend who sent the address is wondering when or if you’re going to show up. Tapping the address and typing, “I got an Uber. See you in 10,” is easy.  

Google Maps is for the unrushed, contemplative Uber user. Messenger is better suited for the impulse requestor. Maybe they both are 18-34 male, urban professionals, but they’re in different situations and therefore behave differently. The personas are dynamic.

Context Shapes Persona

If we link each persona to a channel, then personalization is about capturing a moment. That doesn’t mean the demographic and psychographic data is irrelevant. Surely Uber’s marketers could use that information at the top of the funnel, where would-be customers find deals, advertisements, social posts, news articles, and so forth.

At the top of the funnel though, the message can be universal. Recall that Dos Equis made the “The Most Interesting Man in World” appealing to as broad an audience as possible. If, instead, they had made one most interesting man for each of their 20 core segments, we wouldn’t be talking about him years later. Too much personalization kills the art.  

So rather than personalizing every message, personalize distribution and the channel. Blend the boundaries between marketing and user experience by making the experience market itself. The design and function of the app have a message. In Uber for Messenger, perhaps that message is: “This is the easy way to go. Just tap the address and get on with your night.”

The real myth of persona is to believe that your customers think and behave the same way all day. In reality, they change minute to minute. People move in and out of the persona you’re targeting.

If you define your persona as an age range, gender, income bracket, and geographical location, you’ll suffer from the myth of persona. If you start with a value proposition, follow it to a channel (i.e. the context), and then build the persona – and your marketing efforts still fail – you probably have a messaging problem.