This is a little love note to some people who will never read this.
For the rest of you, let me provide a bit of background. There's a group out there in the world that is (finally) of great interest to the business and marketing folks. They're called "Early Adopters" or "Influencers" or any of a number of names that marketing drones and high priced consultants are willing to pull from shadier portions of their anatomy. i call 'em geeks. You know, nerds, computer literates, the folks that spend hours gazing at 70+ Hertz monitors and communicate best via keyboard.
The theory being that these are the folks that "influence" others. They're the ones that generally try out new tech, improve it, and then become increasingly religious about it so that it finally drills through the denser matter of their surroundings and other folks start picking up on it. These are the folks that discovered the Internet, email, web, instant messaging (IRC to you old-timers) and id Software when all they had to offer was Castle Wolfenstien.
If you're part of the 93% and discovered this post by mistake, they're the folks far ahead of you. In fact, you probably know a few. If you didn't find this by mistake, you ARE the 7% and do your best to influence those around you.
May God have mercy on their souls.
Thing is, influencers are SIGNIFICANTLY different than the normal audience. Much like college professors, the best they can ever hope for is that the folks they tend to talk to pick up a tiny fraction of what they offer. Usually stuff that takes the least amount of effort to pick up.
Ok, back to the topic at hand. Yo' product weenies, pay attention:
Influencers use weird crap. They use Macs and Linux, Mozilla, and other eminently hackable systems. They don't generally run Windows and IE. Note that this is in stark contrast to the greater unwashed who do use that stuff.
What it means is that if you want to go through the effort of trying to capture the attention of the influencers, you have to offer them a product that they will actually use.
It also means factoring in that they've got to beat the drum for A Good While before the masses pick up on it.
The Clever General realizes this and places effort in trying to build a system that can run on Mozilla under Windows, Linux and Macs (Painfully easy by the way) before readying the product on IE. You'll have weeks to do the IE work and add polish. Hell it can look like a pile of steaming crud but so long as it works and has a fairly open API you'll get more press than you can ever imagine.
The Foolish man ignores that and instead builds a very pretty system that works for the 90% audience only. You'll get some press, probably a few notes, but nothing like what you expect. And you'll blow your chance.
*sigh*
You try to beat this into people and still they're amazed that things didn't work as they planned.
First off, understand two things that Influencers provide. One is a set of semi-religious minions. These are folks who trust the opinion of the Influencer for whatever reason. i, for instance, am pretty low on that list. i've got my list of favorite toys that i try to get other folks to use for various reasons, but in all honesty, my group extends out to maybe 20 people. Positive marketing directly to me means reaching maybe 15 minions at best, with maybe another 20 or so sub-minions picking up the message. Ok, but not fantastic in terms of effort. Marketing to someone like Jeremy Z or John Battelle would be better since they have far larger reach.
The other is that they provide a way to get quick media attention (and that's a huge win for marketing folks). Here's a real life for-instance. About a month ago there was a post on Slate about how most SUVs are illegal to drive on residential California streets. The story was picked up by a number of blogs, and sure enough the local TV media had an (uncredited) story about it about a week ago. i've seen the same thing happen with other stories that did start specifically with a blog entry.
Thing is, i know that there is at least one media outfit that regularly reads my blog. How do i know this? Easy, i traced back the IP. Chances are nothing i write here will ever show up in the news, but i'm not ruling that out, even though i know it'd scare the hell out of me. More than likely, i'm just being spidered for content. It's lazy journalism, no doubt, but it's nothing new.
Marketing folks see that part as pure gold. It's a chance to "establish buzz" and get media real estate for whatever they're producing, and frankly it's also nothing all that new.
Heck, pharmaceutical companies are masters of this by offering doctors pre-written papers promoting whatever medication or treatment they're pushing. Doctors like it because it gets them articles and increased notoriety.
Again, i don't think that you need to only market to geeks in order to be successful. i think that geeks are a valuable asset and (provided they can or are willing to use your product) a fantastic way to get word out about your product that will boost your early adopter rates and get you higher initial revenue. Putting together a system that they can't or are unwilling to use and then marketing it to them is simply a waste of time.
Something those Influencers will be more than happy to let you, and the rest of the world, know.
Are you kidding? Good grief, that's all we need: another self-selected, condescending, pompous elite. It's begining to sound like a remarkable amalgam of haute couture, high art and technology. Nobody will buy anything or do anything without a tug on the forelock and careful consideration about what the cognoscenti might think. That's not art, it's not honest, it's not clever, it's not innovative - it's fashion.
Ah, but see, there in lies the problem.
I have no problem with creating a product aimed for the masses that uses what the masses use. My problem is when you create a targeted marketing effort toward a specific group that ignores the tools of that specific group.
It's like creating a targeted marketing effort for adult tricycles aimed at NASCAR drivers, or to use your analogy, introducing a high priced fashion design package in Boise, Idaho instead of Paris, New York or Milan and then being surprised that Vera Wang never heard of it or can't use it.
Dude, name a wildly successful company that got it's start catering to the "Influencers". "Influencers" is what geeks that don't be like being called geeks call themselves. The other 93% call them geeks.
No, he's talking about building to Web standards first and then quirky, buggy, nonstandard pachyderms like IE/Win second.
In any event, catering to an elite works pretty well sometimes. Who do you think put the iPod on the map?
JR is thinking way outside the box for most execs. When they say "think outside the box", they really mean: "Think slightly outside of this small box, which is in turn, within a signifigantly larger box, outside of which you are not permitted to think because it's too expensive.
Then stick a USB drive on it"
I think your examples are dead wrong, but let's try it another way. Name a wildly-successful company that bucked the trends prevailing at that time and explicitly supported non-mainstream platforms in an effort to reach the "Influencers" first.
Sony. Specifically VHS vs Betamax (the one time industry standard), or the afore mentioned Apple iPod/iTunes which wasn't even available for Windows until well after it's introduction.
I'm also willing to say that the computer industry is moderately different than many traditional non-technical industries, possibly with the exception of radio and television manufacturers.
What really made Google, Amazon and others currently significant was the ability for third parties to build tools ontop of their services. How many tools out there use Google? How many use Yahoo, MSN or Ask? With that sort of market saturation how could non-techies NOT be aware of Google?
Marketing folks see that and think "This is great free advertising" but are still learning how to get their message across. Or learn that it's not really "free".
Is it catering to a niche? Yep. Can it make or break your company? No. It's just another market, like audiophiles and Indian motorcycle enthusiasts. It's just that these people have minions you (as a company) want to reach.
Beta? Huh? I'm missing the point there.
iPod? Huh? If iTunes was released on Mac and Windows and Linux at introduction, and there was no iPod, and iTunes kicked everyone else's ass, you might have a point. But since none of those are true…
Tools are the reason Google and Amazon made it? Umm, no. Google made it because of (a) cool name (like Yahoo!), (b) big distribution deals early on (i.e., Yahoo!), and (c) a better index.
Amazon made it because (a) cool name, (b) accepted tax evasion by consumers, (c) an entire inventory of loss leaders, and, eventually, (d) good data mining.
"Influencers" only influence each other and their parents.
VHS vs. Betamax: Betamax, while providing better recording quality, was tightly controlled. VHS was an underground standard that was more open. Sony did a fair amount of marketing in early video magazines to initially promote the standard, which built up demand, and increased early market share.
So, you're saying that iPods aren't successful and that iTunes isn't a widely recognized brand? Ah, so all those little white music boxes I see all over which are tied to only one music distribution service are merely illusions.
As for the other points, since when did I say that only targeting one market was the key to all success? I said that if you're going to target a market at all you should address your product for that market.
Just because nobody listens to you doesn't mean that everyone else shares that problem.
> Sony did a fair amount of marketing in early video magazines to initially promote the standard, which built up demand, and increased early market share.
And Blockbuster is filled to the rafters with Beta tapes now. You're right, that proves your point, not mine.
> So, you’re saying that iPods aren’t successful and that iTunes isn’t a widely recognized brand?
Yes, but that's because the iPod is a good device built for the masses. I still don't see how Apple did anything special to appeal to the "influence" class.
> Just because nobody listens to you doesn’t mean that everyone else shares that problem.
I don't consider it a problem (either for me or for the people that don't listen to me — not sure which you meant). Geeks don't listen to me. Non-geeks don't listen to me. Give me a specific example of the "Influencer" class who actually has influence outside geek circles.
You do realize that Sony backed the new VHS standard, not the betamax one, right? Besides, Blockbuster is filled with DVDs now, a method that required very little marketing except to studios who loved the idea.
Ok, here's a way that influencers make a difference. I help out various folks on various boards, some public, some private. I usually evangelize various tools that I have found work very well for me, Firefox being one of them, Xara being another. I know that I've been personaly responsible for around twenty folks to use either or both of those tools for their work based solely off of my suggestion. I am aware of only one person who did not also enjoy using those tools, and I'm fine with that.
Neither of these are "wildly successful" companies in that they're not listed in the Fortune 100. Xara is a successful company in that it makes a profit without doing a great deal of marketing outside of sending me an email letting me know of new products or advancements, some of which I pass along.
I am a trusted source to those people, much as they are trusted sources to others. It's just like Amway, Mary Kay, Tupperware or any other Ponzi scheme, except that there's a level of credibility. If I were to simply start recommending random crap to folks, my credibility would be damaged so I don't.
This isn't a game of "Pay of Bob, he'll beat our drum and we can rule the world!" it's more like those old Shampoo commercials, where I'll tell two friends, who will tell two freinds, and so on, and so on…
Now you've really lost me. Sony wanted everything to be Beta. People wanted to be able to fit a movie on one tape. VHS took over the market because the real "influencers", the consumers decided that usability was more important than video quality. Sony eventually saw the writing on the wall and started making VHS decks and eventually abandoned Beta.
The "Influencers" didn't do any better with SVHS or LaserDisc. The "influencers" said no.
So do the 20 people you influence each influence 20 other people and hence your influence grows geometrically? Or does your influence stop at those people or grow linearly beyond that. I contend that the influence of the Influencers reaches only skin deep into the mainstream. Something has to have mainstream appeal for it to grow beyond that. And if something has mainstream appeal, then it's easier to grow market geometrically by spending more on mainstream appeal and less on Influencer appeal since the leverage is geometric and not linear.
You implied:
1) It is important to capture influencers to have a successful product.
2) Influencers use Macs, Linux, Mozilla, etc.
I say:
The influencers you describe must not be that influential, as IE, Windows, et al kick Mac/Linux/Mozilla ass in terms of market adoption.
Dang, I hate losing a comment, particularly when it's mine.
To iterate (since it's only the second time for me), I was wrong about betamax, I had them switched and was arguing wrong. (I should have stuck with Lincolns instead.)
I'll also reiterate my statement of:
What it means is that if you want to go through the effort of trying to capture the attention of the influencers, you have to offer them a product that they will actually use.
In effect, Influencers are a market that you can try to go after, same as audiophiles, movie geeks, and any other market. Right now "Influencers" are considered a hot property because of the equally aforementioned idea that they assert a higher level of trust among their group (note the locality of this) than just blanket advertising. In effect, you only have to market to one to get a good return on investment.
The problem is that companies aren't factoring in the right level of investment. I've no problem targeting a utility designed for the 90% market at the 90%, but targeting that same ap to a rather persnickety 10% who can't or won't use it for well established reasons is stupid, regardless of whatever the expected return might be.
I'm not even sure I buy the premise that geeks are such influencers. I remember very well when Amazon was new, and what really made it stand out from its then-competitors was that its user interface was very clear and clean, making it usable by a much wider range of people. I don't think Amazon owes its success to early adoption by geeks.
I'll agree about amazon getting the bulk of it's market via more traditional methods, paying folks to shop them, (The amazon affiliate program), and early SEO efforts (they created hundreds of sites that pointed to their books and used lots of link farms), but the initial segment of affiliates were people who ran their own websites and were able to create HTML pages. Definitely, not the bulk of the internet. And as I mentioned, that also improved their search ranking with the various search engines.
Save This Page
Please forward this note to USA Today before they run a "up-and-coming" article on the MP3.