marketing

You are currently browsing the archive for the marketing category.

Architecture of Participation: Make your fans teachers

February 23, 2013 in marketing, strategy by George | No comments

classes_from_kids

The impulse to teach is a powerful one. For me, it provides me with my Joseph Cambell “bliss.”

It’s not just me, of course, who has this compulsion to share what I know. My kids (ages 6 and 8) recently set up an elaborate instructional day for my wife and me. They made signs and schedules for the classes each was going to teach; Annabelle taught dance, Henry: arts and crafts.

They delighted in sharing information about something they felt they had expertise in.

I talk a lot about how the key to marketing is shifting the burden of promotion from the band/brand to the fan/customer. This truly is a requirement if you’re ever going to experience real growth. However, it’s easier said than done.

One way to shift this burden is to think of your fans/customers as teachers in waiting.

For a product/service/band to cross the chasm from early supporters to a larger group (early majority) the product/etc. must either improve one’s life without requiring the user to learn new skills, or – if it does require new skills to be learned – improve a customer’s life in a very substantial way. The DVD player crossed the chasm because of the former — it improved users’ lives without forcing new skills to be learned; it’s a VCR, but better. The iPod crossed because of the latter — it radically improved peoples’ lives, even though requiring new skills to be learned.

There’s an interesting relationship between products that do require new skills to be learned and teaching.

Think about it: if a new product/service/band requires the user to learn new skills, it means, axiomatically, that people have to invest time in understanding/appreciating the product. Once this time has been invested, and they are rewarded for their effort — i.e. the product really does improve their life; again, the iPod being a good example: hard to understand at first, but once grasped, impossible to imagine living without — the customer has a true knowledge surplus that is looking for an escape valve. That escape valve manifests in the form of teaching.

Those who mastered the iPod early on were the ones who taught others. They did this directly and by blogging, etc.

The same is true for pretty much every product/service/band that isn’t just an iterative approach that slightly improves upon a predecessor.

Whether it’s a new fitness fad (think about all the Cross Training or Tough Mudder “experts” out there right now) or bands (I was an R.E.M. “teacher” back when people were interested in deciphering what Stipe was going on about in “Laughing”; I had done the research, etc., and was eager to share. Phish, Rush, The Grateful Dead, At The Drive In, etc. all have experts who guide the “newbies.”) or wine, or technology, or cars.

Anything that has a steep learning curve that rewards those who make the climb, tends to result in compelling some percentage of those who took the time to understand the benefits of the product/service/band to help others understand. They become sherpas; guides who make the climb more navigable, and, thus, flatten the learning curve for others.

The key is that those who make the climb now have this knowledge surplus, and tend to actively look for people to foist this upon. Ever been around someone who has lost a bunch of weight because of a new diet? Ever been around someone who has recently started training for a marathon/taken up Yoga, etc.? They can’t shut up about it.

Same deal when someone has “cut the chord on cable.” They will expound relentlessly on how they’ve done this to anyone who will listen about the relative merits of the AppleTV versus Boxee.

Don’t get trapped around someone who has just “seen the light” about Thomas Pynchon or DFW, or had an epiphany regarding John Cage, or tasted their first Domaine de la Romanée-Conti.

When something goes from esoteric to understandable, people have…well…something resembling a religious experience. (Of course, you really don’t want to be trapped around someone who has just had an actual religious revelation.)

Religious or otherwise, these people who have put work into something, and seen the light/benefit all become the same things: evangelizing teachers.

This is the best possible thing that can happen to a product/service/brand.

No longer does the company/band have to explain the (clearly, difficult to explain) benefits of their product/service/music, their customers/fans do it for them.

This is the truest “burden shift” in terms of having your customers promote your work that can possibly occur.

It’s imperative therefore, whether you’re a band or brand, that you encourage those who self-identify as potential evangelists with the tools to become teachers.

    Think about how certain restaurants have “hidden” menus.

    Think about how artists, such as Kristin Hersh provide access/benefit to super-fans.

    Think about how Yoga studios offer Teacher Training certificate classes, knowing that many/most of those who attend will never become official Yoga teachers.

    Think about how certain restaurants offer customers the opportunity to cook with the chef.

    Think about Avon (certainly MLM is frequently an unsavory example of this concept, but when it works…).

    Think of how many tech companies “promote” certain members of their forums to the role of moderator

    Video games.

    Easter eggs in DVDs, etc.

    up up down down left right left right B A

In each of the cases above, a certain group of people are more in-the-know than others, and therefore take the lead in exposing new people. They have knowledge about something they are passionate about, and are driven to seek out others for whom they can equalize this information asymmetry via their teaching.

There’s tremendous opportunity for most bands/brands to cultivate an environment — an architecture of participation — where their most passionate users become teachers. In so doing, they not only reward those who have put forth the effort to understand the benefit of the product/music, but also provide them with an outlet to share their knowledge, and, in so doing, attract new customers, some of whom will also become teachers, spreading the knowledge even further.

We are all teachers. A company/band who provides their customers/fans with the ability/permission to educate others about their company/band is creating bliss. Bliss sells.

Tags: , , ,

Netflix, Books, and Music are all Failing for the Same Reason

May 31, 2012 in entrepreneurship, marketing by George | 2 comments

Netflix has lost its social object.

For its initial (massive) run Netflix was defined by its “social object” of the Red Envelope. For some period of time, the Red Envelope was a sort of badge; an external manifestation of internal values:

The Red Envelope signified a person’s love (not like) of movies. Not a movie fan, but a movie fanatic.

Having this Red Envelope on your desk / coffee table allowed for the thing that the movie fanatic wanted to happen to happen:

A visitor to the movie fanatic’s home/office would see the Red Envelope, and ask about it. This allows the movie fanatic to do what he (not “wants to do”) must do: Talk about his passion.

The Red Envelope was the conversation starter, and the tool that enabled the movie fanatic to become an evangelist for Netflix. It was the tool that allowed the burden of promotion to shift from Netflix to the movie fanatic.

It was the tool that accelerated Netflix’s growth.

    The Red Envelope is largely gone. It’s been replaced by a stream.

    The stream can not and does not act as a social object.

    Markets are conversations.

    The conversation starter — the Red Envelope — is gone.

    The conversation has died down considerably.

Music has lost similar social objects.

Vinyl’s resurgence is only partly explained by its sound quality.

The main reason people crave vinyl is that it acts as a social object — an external representation of internal values — and, when seen sitting on someone’s coffee table/hanging on their wall, provides the conversation ignition for the music fanatic to become an evangelist for the band who they love.

It was the tool that accelerated music’s growth.

    The vinyl record (and its less-effective counterpart, the CD) is largely gone. It’s been replaced by a stream.

    The stream can not and does not act as a social object.

    Markets are conversations.

    The conversation starter — the Vinyl Record (and, its less-effective counterpart, the CD) — is gone.

    The conversation has died down considerably.

Writing has lost similar social objects.

Books have long been the classic example of social objects (an external manifestation of internal values). We have — museum like — portions of our house that act as a display case for these values (they’re called book cases). We have tables specifically designed to display these — coffee table — books.

These books provided the conversational ignition between the fan of the author of the book, and their friend, and allowed the fan of the author to become an evangelist for the author, and thus shift the burden of promotion from the author herself (or her less-effective counterpart, the publisher) to the fan. (“Books are the new vinyl” will become a meme, just watch).

    The book, while not gone, is rapidly being replaced by a stream (download).

    The stream can not and does not act as a social object.

    Markets are conversations.

    The conversation starter — the book — is gone.

    The conversation has died down considerably.

What are our new social objects? The iPad. People use it as an external expression of their internal values. It’s why the market for iPad covers is so high.

Apps may fill this role to a degree. You are, to a point, defined by your apps.

It’s not the same, however, and we all know it.

Savvy companies will recognize that they must create social objects even as their products largely move to the intangible.

Failure to do so deprives customers of the tools they need to make the switch from fan to evangelist, and therefore decreases the chance of the burden of promotion from the creator (or label, publisher, producer) to the constituent, and thereby puts a ceiling on growth.

Tags: ,

The power of Small Change as illustrated by Audi’s headlights

April 20, 2012 in entrepreneurship, innovation, marketing by George | No comments

I love it when products/companies/individuals impliment “small” changes that signify something far greater.

These “incremental” changes or innovations can be so slight as to be nearly subliminal to the customer, but the impact these changes can have is anything but small.

The most recent example of small change having a disproportionately large effect that I’ve noticed is Audi’s headlights.

I’ve never paid much attention to Audi as a car manufacturer. As is so often the case with durable good type products, the feelings you establish (good or bad) in your early experiences with products tend to inform your life-long opinion of them. This is why brands try so hard to capture the loyalty of the 18-24 year-old male; they know if they get them at that stage in their life, they’ll have them forever. I had a bad experience with an Audi back when I was in college, and, thus, embargoed the company as a possible choice for me since then.

Until now.

It wasn’t some car review that made me reconsider the company. Nor was it word of mouth (either from an actual conversation or some social media variant).

Rather, it was this:

The line of LED lights that Audi has introduced (I don’t know how recently) into their headlights just pops out. For me, this “small” detail completely differentiates the Audi from other cars of its ilk (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus) that, truth be told, otherwise really do sort of look all alike.

What keeps this detail from being “small” is that it represents something larger. In literary theory, you refer to this as “synecdoche” (a part representing the whole; e.g. Blake’s opening line of “The Tyger”: “Tyger! Tyger! burning bright/”).

The LED lights in these headlights represents something much larger in my mind: adherence to quality, innovation, style, etc. This detail has made me completely rethink Audi.

As another example, Apple is, of course, masterful at this. Think of what happens on your iPhone if you tap the camera icon on the lock screen rather than slide it upwards. The entire screen bounces up a bit — subtly and stylishly showing you precisely what you need to do in order to launch the camera app from the lock screen.

Too often, we feel we must make wholesale change in our products, services, (selves), etc. In reality, a slight change that is illustrative of something deeper going on below the surface tends to have a more profound impact.

“Small” change has the power to absolutely surprise and delight users. A customer may not comment on these details, but — in aggregate — they register and accumulate powerfully in their mind. The overall outcome is tremendous loyalty.

Tom Waits “Small Change”:

Tags: , ,

Scarcity is the Thunderclap of the Internet: Metcalfe’s law + Scarcity = Engagement

April 5, 2012 in entrepreneurship, innovation, marketing by George | No comments

Metcalfe’s law — aka “network effect” — states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.

Originally formulated to quantify value with respect to communication devices (fax machines, phones, etc.), it has more recently been applied to other networks; specifically, social networks.

In the same manner that a network of fax machine increases in value when there are more users of fax machines, the value of social networks increase as their user base increases. [1]

This law explains why, for instance, social networks with many users grow exponentially faster than those with few users. In fact, networks with few users tend to die a slow painful death of attrition because there is no value for those few users.

It’s a VERY good thing to keep in mind should you ever be tempted to create some type of social network around your own/owned product, service, band, etc. Can it be done? Yes. Should it be done? Only when you have accumulated enough passionate users that creating a network for them provides more value than do the networks which they are already a part of.

The requisite number for this value to users to be present is vastly more than you think. I would say you need to feel confident that you will have somewhere in the area of 100k users before you should even consider this.

This brings up the inevitable question of how to get all these users prior to instituting a proprietary network. It also explains why so many companies are essentially leveraging Facebook to for their “own” networks.

Essentially, the answer is that it’s vastly harder to get your own users.

Difficult as it is, it’s still important to understand how to acquire your own users; to do so you do the following:

1. Have an exceptional product/service
2. Create an architecture of participation — i.e. use the social networks, and shift the burden of promotion from yourself to your users with a simple goal:
3. Drive people to your (own/owned) Site where you capture their emails
4. Once a significant — several hundred thousand email addresses — have been captured, create a social network that represents a compelling value to them with respect to your product or service, and let them know via email

The alternative: piggyback off FB.

For the vast majority of people, the FB alternative, sadly, is really the only “option.”

For those, however, who feel that having their own network is a more valuable proposition, and are willing to put in the effort, there is an element of “secret sauce” that seems to be emerging that can accelerate your process: Speed/Scarcity.

Scarcity is in many ways the thunderclap of the Internet. It’s one of the few things that can snap an Internet user to attention.

Clearly, all of the flash deal sites (from wOOt to Groupon, et al.) realized this, and – for the time being at least – have been able to capitalize from this realization.

Injecting scarcity into your network accelerates Metcalfe’s law. It supercharges network users, and gives them incentive to act.

Knowing that whatever gambit is put forth is of a limited duration, causes those who care about said offer to act. If that action requires sharing of some kind (or a critical mass (i.e. Groupon-esque) offer; i.e. if X number of people sing up/share, etc., the offer “tips”), the network effect can go into hyperdrive.

This is how, for instance, many companies rapidly increase their Twitter/Facebook presence.

My suggestion: build this approach — some type of frequent offers with a component of scarcity — into your overal strategy. At first, this may (and should) involve utilizing third party, existent networks to achieve scale, but then transition over to your own/owned network to make the offers.

___________
1 One mistake people make, however, is not recognizing that the equation changes: it goes from being a logarithmic proportionality when applied to social networks, rather than the squared proportionality applicable to telecommunication networks – the general theory still holds, however.

Tags:

shifting social sands

February 19, 2012 in entrepreneurship, innovation, marketing by George | 4 comments

I’ve been saying for some time that FB can’t be all things to all people, and, ultimately, that trying to be will be its biggest challenge. I’ve advanced the idea that people will gravitate towards networks where their specific interests are addressed.

I believe we’re beginning to see an emergance of this. Others, such as Jay Jamison — who articulates the idea of “interest-based networks” beautifully in this article — seem to think so too.

People are seemingly shocked by the rapid acceleration of Pinterest. They shouldn’t be.

Look at Pinterest’s mantra: “Organize and share things you love.” Compare this with Facebook’s: “Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them.”

See the distinction? FB is about organizing around people; Pinterest is about organizing around things.

We’ve naturally conceived of social networks as being “for” helping us connect with other people (that’s what FB, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. do). The problem with this is that for most of us there is a relatively finite number of people with whom we’ll connect (cf. Gladwell’s idea in The Tipping Point that the max number of authentic social connections anyone can have is 150. UPDATE: Thanks to 9gs reader, Elainejoli for correcting an omission of mine. Though Gladwell is perhaps responsible for popularizing the idea of 150 social connections, the theory was originated by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar).

Not so with things.

We’re constantly discovering new things about which we might want to learn more (in an era where everyone is a content creator, this ain’t slowing down).

The unintended consequence of organizing around things, of course, is that it leads to the possibility of breaking through the glass ceiling of acquaintances. In other words, we have a far better chance of making new social acquaintances via organizing around things than we do connecting with people. This is why Pinterest is growing so quickly.

When we organize around a thing, we’re breaking through barriers of geography and demographics and, instead, uniting around a shared psychographic interest. I can, for instance, tweet a link to an article about some great bbq that I’m looking forward to trying in Austin during sxsw, and I know that some percentage of my followers on Twitter and FB will appreciate this article. However, I’m unlikely to expand my social circle via this gesture.

Conversely, if I go organize myself around the interest/object of bbq, and then look to see others who have done the same, there is a chance that my social circle can expand (i.e. meet new people).

To be clear, I’m not for a minute saying that FB is going away/going to fail (the cost of abandonment is just too high for most people; though there have been some studies of late showing a large degree of unused FB accounts).

Rather, I’m saying that there is tremendous opportunity to rethink how we should be concieving of networks moving forward. As I’ve argued forever, look to objects of interest (in some respects, the more specific the better) that people are passionate about, and give them the tools to better organize. Doing so will lead to far more durable, rewarding, and expansive connections than organizing around existing social connections.

Of course, the real winner will be the person/company who combines object-orientated organization with acquaintance-orientated organization (you can bet FB is working on this). The chart below attempts to exemplify the trends, and the potential outcome.

Tags: ,

« Older entries