
People Don’t Buy Products, They Buy Better Versions of Themselves (2016) - allenleein
https://blog.bufferapp.com/people-dont-buy-products-they-buy-better-versions-of-themselves
======
ouid
> _So, it seems like features are the “what” of your product or service, while
> benefits are the “why” behind it. I also found a really neat, old marketing
> quote that’s often attributed to Theodore Levitt (he attributes it to Leo
> McGinneva in this paper), on why people buy quarter-inch drill bits:
    
    
        "They don’t want quarter-inch bits. They want quarter-inch holes."
    

So, the customer wants to make a quarter-inch hole for some reason. They buy a
quarter-inch bit for their drill in order to achieve this. Marketing the drill
bit based on its features (it fits into your drill) wouldn’t be as successful
in this case as marketing it based on the benefits (you can create a quarter-
inch hole).

So after all of this reading, I finally distilled the difference into a
sentence that I think makes it easy to distinguish between features and
benefits:

A feature is what your product does; a benefit is what the customer can do
with your product. _

If a feature is what a product does, then isn't making quarter inch holes a
feature of drill bits?

~~~
erikb
It's not perfect though. If you make a brochure full of quarter-inch holes, a
customer still won't buy your bits.

I think in one of the two Steve Jobs movies the Pepsi guy explained it quite
well: He shows how people open a Pepsi, drink it, and then feel whatever is
important to them. What you need to do is actually present your features, but
in a way that the customer believes he can achieve his benefits easily with
it. Of course to be able to do that, you first need to understand the benefits
the customer cares about.

1\. present technical features -> be seen as weird nerd.

2\. present benefits -> be seen as glitchy sales guy.

3\. present features that let customer think about benefits -> sell products.

~~~
myYCaccout
> 3\. present features that let customer think about benefits -> sell
> products.

I see this trend and it actually makes me furious. If I want to buy a GPU, I
want to see the stats and how it compares to other products, not how many
headshots i can make with that particular GPU.

I'll see these ads on billboards, on tv etc and think of the greasy marketing
people that want to trick me into buying their stuff.

If the ads are to obnoxious I'll actually make an effort to avoid that brand (
looking at you Apple and Coca-Cola)

~~~
i_cant_speel
I honestly feel like Pepsi and GPUs fall into different categories. With
Pepsi, the customer usually already knows what it does for you so explaining
the benefits isn't as important. So instead do telling customers what they
already know, they associated good feelings with their product. A GPU is
different in that different GPUs perform significantly differently so
explaining the stats is much more important to a buyer.

~~~
pm24601
> With Pepsi, the customer usually already knows what it does for you ...

make you fat?

(I love pepsi :-) )

------
mc32
The 1000 songs in your pocket, to me, didn't make you feel the better person,
it was simply presenting the products usability up front, instead of distant
descriptors. 5GB storage, what did _that_mean to the average consumer?

People have said products have three main ways they get marketed.

Specs: These are the physical characteristics. Emotional: You are keeping up
appearances and are besting the Joneses. Spiritual: You are realizing your
true inner self thru this bespoke vehicle.

~~~
wastedhours
There's a load of frameworks for marketing stuff, I tend to rely on two of
them: EBF or BAB.

EBF. Emotions, benefits, features. You spark a feeling within someone, whether
it's presenting them with the pain they feel or showing them their life a bit
better ("my mobile pictures are crap" / "Dave's doggie photos always look on
point").

Then you say, well, "this new phone can take awesome photos".

The feature will be "16MP, autofocus etc..." to ground the ethereal feelings
to tangibles to make it real for people.

Then BAB. B(efore), A(fter), B(ridge). Frame someone's life before your
product, then what their life will be like afterwards, and then the bridge is
your product, linking the before and after. "Fed up of blurry, out of focus
mobile pictures? Picture this - all of your Instagram lunchtime shots hitting
the trending list. Make it happen with the 16MP camera in the Piphoxel."

~~~
sarabande
Are there any books you would recommend for marketing techniques? The
frameworks you mentioned piqued my interest.

~~~
wastedhours
Not many books to recommend, but there's a whole wealth of content online. I'd
start by keeping an eye on Hiten Shah's [0] newsletter, decent curation there
for a number of topics. The Buffer's blog here is pretty good, as are the
content marketing ones from Drift, Intercom and Groove.

Of course, if enough startup/tech people are interested in some more tailored
lessons, reach out (email in profile). Been thinking of building out a small
course/curated info on marketing with this sort of stuff.

[0] [https://hitenism.com/](https://hitenism.com/)

------
taeric
This looks dangerously close to survivor bias for examples. In particular, it
is easy to give a reason for something having succeeded. At least, it is
easier than giving the reason that something will succeed.

~~~
kelnos
These approaches can easily be A/B tested, though, by using both feature-based
and benefit-based marketing, and seeing if there's a significant difference in
conversion rate. Just knowing that there are different marketing strategies
you can employ will help you narrow down the best way to get people to want
your product.

~~~
taeric
Can they, though? Most companies don't have the customer base to get real
statistical power in these studies. Those that do, are likely winning in other
ways.

This is not too say I don't want to see these studies. Just still skeptical.

------
orasis
The "Jobs to be done" framework has clarified a lot of my thinking about
marketing.

The idea is that customers don't purchase products, they _hire_ products to do
a job for them.

This is a good description and the first and only time I'll recommend a
corporate free ebook: [https://www.intercom.com/books/jobs-to-be-
done](https://www.intercom.com/books/jobs-to-be-done)

------
mikkom
I find it extremely funny that under the Mario image that is basically saying
"don't push your product, explain the benefits" they try to push their product
without explaining the benefits.

------
QuantumGravy
This strategy can be taken too far.

You can claim that your "comprehensive fractional imperial unit helical matter
extraction system" will turn me into a sexy master craftsman all you want, but
as much as that's a better version of myself, it still doesn't tell me how
you're going to help me drill that quarter-inch hole.

The most obvious example of this extreme is those drug ads with exuberant
actors smiling in ecstasy and jumping in slow motion to an idyllic summertime
setting. No, I'm not asking my doctor about Xymbaltrix™, and I probably don't
want it in my search history either. Similarly, on the tech side, if my
project on Platform X is stuck because of factor Y, I want to know what your
product or consultants can actually do about it. Don't care if you call
yourselves the world's leading Platform X Solutions Provider, spell out your
capabilities please. Management, of course, eats up the "better versions of
the themselves" talk, but if the goods aren't provided, our necks are on the
line for not talking management out of it.

~~~
pm24601
> Management, of course, eats up the "better versions of the themselves" talk,
> but if the goods aren't provided, our necks are on the line for not talking
> management out of it.

Management, of course, is the purchaser -- "you" aren't.

"this is a stupid ad" means "you" are not the target market.

I find most car ads annoying, yet BMW is still in business. I am not the
target market.

~~~
QuantumGravy
Hope it was obvious that I understood who holds the purse strings. Regardless,
if such sales people make themselves the enemy of those who'll be held
accountable for the purchase, they'll get the fight they're asking for.

------
spraak
This is very similar to the paradigm of "jobs to be done". I.e. you don't buy
a product, you hire a company to do a job for you.

~~~
hyperpallium
It's an interesting take on it, to see it as incorporated as part of yourself.

There's neurological evidence that when we use tools, we experience them as
part of ourselves (or an extension of ourselves). Certainly, driving a car
feels like _you_ are driving (not talking about any social identity, the image
of your car in the eyes of others, but the biomechanical act of driving
itself).

A tool or "hired for a job" can make you feel more capable - that _you_ are
more capable. You have changed, you are different. There are situations where
a person does change, such as increased physical strength, aerobic fitness,
stamina, and increased mental skill and knowledge. But a tool is a shortcut.

For example, when google first came out, when you used it, _you_ were better
at search, you were faster, you were clearer in interpreting the results. In
the early-adoption stages, perhaps there was also some hipster-like identity,
from knowing about this new tool.

~~~
jacobush
For me, not perhaps... I had this super power which found answers to linux
related question, every time!

------
RangerScience
Interesting, and way more interesting than I first suspected!

I think this is case when you're trying to get new people into your market.
Once they're in, they know enough that they do care about the features, but
they also care enough to stick around to learn about those features.

It also plays interestingly with the Burning Man ethos. I was expecting an
article on lifestyle marketing, which is one of the things the BM ethos is set
_against_ : you cannot buy a thing to be a person - but instead the article
(to me) points out the sweet spot: Does your product help me be the person I'm
trying to be?

The dev-style phrasing is maybe better: Buying products doesn't make me a good
developer. Using (good) products clears blockers.

But, is that missing the effect of things that give you new capabilities?

~~~
orthoganol
Isn't paying burning man $500+ to go have this experience in the desert, and
often hundreds more on costumes so you look the part, the epitome of "buying a
thing to be a person"?

~~~
JammyDodger
Paying money to LARP as someone who wouldn't pay money for an identity. Pretty
much sums up this century so far to me.

~~~
wsinks
Holy shit. Never thought about it that way.

------
demosito666
> “Here’s what our product can do” and “Here’s what you can do with our
> product” sound similar, but they are completely different approaches.

Yes, they are different: I don't want to hear the later in ads or any product
description because I want to know the traits of the products and not how many
girls will end up in my bed tonight should I buy it (spoiler: zero). This
bullshit is one of the reasons I have to train myself to de-bullshittize
surrounding world automatically.

~~~
usmeteora
oh no worries dude, we get the same thing as girls too. Girls are marketed
overpriced clothing and makeup, but in all honesty the only thing that makes
the models attractive in those clothes is their investment in their diet, and
long term skin care, and minimalist organic approach to really taking care of
your body.

Those things are way expensive than any clothes they are wearing, and require
a lifestyle of discipline and long term changes that can take years to get to.

If youre a model in that clothing, you also look just as as good in shorts and
a tshirt from target, in act you probably just did an ad campaign with them
last week.

Once you figure out investing in your health and your glow as a person is the
long term investment, everything else becomes less relevant.

Nonethless, they do want you to believe the clothes are why the model looks so
edgy and well tailored but it rarely has anything to do with that.

Take care of your body, take care of your mind. less stuff, and a few high
quality investments in minimalist clothing and thats the trick.

------
laurex
This article doesn't mention Kathy Sierra, but as someone who has worked on
User Onboard with Samuel, I know he'd want to give her some of the credit.
[https://www.amazon.com/Badass-Making-Awesome-Kathy-
Sierra/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Badass-Making-Awesome-Kathy-
Sierra/dp/1491919019/ref=sr_1_1)

------
lngnmn
To paraphrase Orhan Pamuk - "They don't buy clothes, they buy dreams (about
themselves)". This is as old as humanity.

------
RichardHeart
tldr: Turn features into benefits.

People see more value in what a thing can do for them, than what traits it has
that might let it do that thing. Often times features get all the press while
utility is forgotten.

Side note: People do buy things that make them worse people, though they might
not realize it.

~~~
shmerl
Does it mean people prefer to be told what to do with it, instead of figuring
it out based on existing features? It would assume an approach that reflects
some lack of creative thinking.

~~~
davidivadavid
It means that if you're creating a product that has a low level of awareness
(common for startup products), then you need to emphasize benefits ("with
product x, you'll get y result") rather than features ("product x is made with
technology x,y,z").

Of course, it's a gross simplification to assume it's always the best and only
way to communicate about a product (people who already know about the benefits
will still want to know about the features), or that all products benefits
from that approach (products that are mature are well understood, and talking
about their benefits makes you sound like an idiot stating obvious things).

One place where the benefits vs. feature distinction is important is in coming
up with new product ideas: if you think in terms of benefits (it gets you X)
instead of features (it's like X, except we switched tech-stack-X with tech-
stack-Y), it helps you understand why people will buy it and where the value
really lies.

I do not agree that people buy things because it makes them better. They buy
things because they perceive them as having higher utility (i.e. they satisfy
their desires more than the alternatives). Being "better" is only one of many
desires.

------
peter_vukovic
This is advertising 101.

Any good advertisement appeals to both rational and emotional aspects of your
life:

\- This car moves you from place A to place B fast (rational)

\- This car makes you look cool sexy (emotional)

With this in mind, "1000 songs in your pocket" appeals to the practical,
rational side.

It does not make you _feel_ like a better person, it just makes you _think_
"Wow, I can put here everything I ever want to listen." So this part is the
mistake in the analysis.

The product design and creative approach - specifically the iPod ads, which
positioned the product as a part of a cool & hip look - are what made people
_feel_ they'll be way cooler if they owned that device.

~~~
Danihan
idk, having 1k songs in my pocket makes me feel pretty badass...

~~~
peter_vukovic
Sure, but what I'm saying is that you probably wouldn't feel badass unless you
also _looked_ badass with those nice white headphones and a playlist dial. Or
at least not to the same degree.

------
svantana
I dunno, there's something to this, but at the same time, it doesn't explain
the popularity of fast food, alcohol, reality tv, and porn. My feeling is that
marketing is a dark art, sort of like stock market investing or song writing.
In that if there was a rational way to do it, then everybody would be doing
it, thus nulling the effect.

~~~
coldtea
> _but at the same time, it doesn 't explain the popularity of fast food,
> alcohol, reality tv, and porn._

Alcohol is all about creating a "better version of yourself" (short-term,
while under the influence). And in reality tv and porn you watch better
looking / more interesting others (porn, reality tv) to lose yourself.

~~~
coldtea
I'd add that fast food, as a short-term "hit", and like all kinds of instant
(but shallow) highs, represses the anxiety of not being that better self.

------
vortico
I'm going to adopt this for my upcoming product, thanks for the advice!
Although, I would argue that if you're in a field where people know exactly
what they're looking for, it makes sense to be direct to your customer to say
that they're drill bits, not that they create holes. But this should be
obvious if you know what field you're in.

------
stanislavb
Old and gold

------
justforFranz
And that.... is why I stopped buying stuff. :)

------
j-c-hewitt
I have written thousands of product and service descriptions for everything
ranging from products that sell relatively poorly to best-sellers in their
category.

"Sell the benefits and not the features" is page one/paragraph one of a large
proportion of the copywriting and sales manuals out there. This is a good
article, but it's also basic advice.

People are also not entirely self-motivated. They may want to improve the
condition of their family or a friend -- or to prevent themselves from getting
worse than they are already. Loss aversion can be a more powerful motivator
than a promise of an uncertain gain. The typical sales pitch for life
insurance is to ensure that your family is taken care of, because there is no
real benefit to the individual in most cases.

Also, features play a different role in the sales process. Features are much
more important when selling to experienced buyers.

This advice to focus on the benefits can be taken too far, as in the case of
some people who make things like diet pills in which they bury all the
relevant information that a consumer might use to compare the offering to
other products. For example you can say that the product burns fat using
'thermogenic' ingredients without mentioning that it's just caffeine. That way
you would only be able to sell the diet pills to people who didn't know much
about supplements that are supposed to raise your metabolic rate.

People with experience in the market would see through the appeal and scroll
right to the ingredients list, see that they could get the same thing for half
the price, and bounce. The people who don't know better will overpay for your
product and may eventually have complaints when they figure out that they've
been duped.

Ideally you should use different appeals for different kinds of prospects at
different stages in the buying process. Someone who routinely buys a certain
component as part of their job is really only going to care about the features
and the price. Making it really easy for that kind of buyer to see that your
product beats the competing ones on both features and/or price is going to win
his business. Someone who doesn't even know enough about the product to
evaluate the features is going to need a benefits-first sales approach. They
don't know enough to evaluate the features, so they're not as relevant.

For example, someone who doesn't know the difference between an SSD and an HDD
will not understand why a laptop with the SSD acronym in the features makes it
a higher performance machine worth a premium price. But if you explain to them
that the machine boots in under 10 seconds thanks to the lightning-quick
internal solid state drive (SSD) they may understand why it's worth a premium
price compared to a laptop with an HDD.

Sales and marketing types give this advice to engineers and other technical
people about emphasizing benefits over features because people with technical
knowledge are already aware of the benefits and may have a tough time
understanding that other people are not similarly aware of the benefits of a
given technological solution. But when experts are selling known solutions to
experts, making it easy to evaluate features and buy with no fluff added can
be a huge benefit in and of itself.

------
amelius
> When everyone else was saying “1GB storage on your MP3 player”, telling
> people about the product, Apple went ahead and made you a better person,
> that has 1000 songs in your pocket.

How exactly is someone wearing a headset, and being lulled by BigContent, a
"better person"?

~~~
kelnos
I think you're reading it too literally: the iPod didn't make you a "better
person", but it made your life better by allowing you to take all your music
with you anywhere.

(Obviously you have some disdain for big music content producers, but that's
not really relevant. Most people don't, and they believed the iPod really did
make their lives better, which is the thing that matters from a marketing
standpoint.)

~~~
amelius
> I think you're reading it too literally: the iPod didn't make you a "better
> person", but it made your life better by allowing you to take all your music
> with you anywhere.

Ok, but how is this different from the value-proposition of other music-device
vendors?

