nick baily's two cents

I don't think I believe in "Marketing Guru" types...

I mean, I believe in marketing. I could even define it, it's basically a combination of messaging and outreach. Simple enough. Plenty of variations, like which message will motivate which people, and what medium will be effective in reaching them, and so on and so forth. But at root it's the message that matters, followed closely by who you're talking to. If either one are off the entire thing's a lost cause. 

Sometimes people confuse that idea of messaging. We often hear the "if you have a great product people will flock to it" and the converse which is that "if the product sucks marketing is just lighting money on fire."

All true, and doesn't conflict at all with what I said above. Your message has to be some elaboration on why what you're doing is of genuine interest to the audience in question. I added the extra double bold there for a reason. You have to communicate with your audience. But you also have to tell the truth. 

If the product is amazing but nobody knows how to use it you have problems. If its benefits aren't immediately apparent you have to communicate. If it doesn't have benefits to someone and you tell them to buy it anyways you're not marketing, you're lying. And if you present your product to an audience in a way that they find offensive or just stupid or silly you've lost your shot, the product won't save you if you lose them on the way in. You always have to communicate clearly and compellingly and to the right people -- in the right way. 

That's kind of it. 

There are tricks: like how to time media, how to augment free press (PR) with targeted advertising. How to respond to a crisis or disaster or product failure. How to change entrenched perceptions of you or your company as you move into a new sector, etc. There's also process stuff that just plain works, as this very highly recommended article about QVC in The Atlantic gives as one great example. 

Then there are the other kind of tricks. The ones where trick is synonymous with gimmick. Where it's all about some "system" or obsessing about logos and mission statements and gobbledygook. 

Now -- in fairness -- there's something called "Corporate Culture" which matters a whole lot. I read Tony Hseih's book "Delivering Happiness" and it's one of the best I've ever read on management philosophy, with a concentration on the employee and workplace culture as paramount. Get it. 

But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about this:

 

 

 

But to be honest, hey, it is a nice card I suppose.

In my opinion that's not actually as insane as an idea I heard from a billed "Marketing Guru" recently, and I don't think they were kidding. It was bizarre enough that I finally just decided I had to see what it was like to try and execute, just out of sheer morbid curiosity. 

Want to know what it was? I already wrote a blog post on that one elsewhere... read all about it here if you're interested. Here's a sneak preview:

 

Making a Mint With The Value of Press

OK, fine I'll admit it, I'm the last human in the world to dive into Mint.com. As an OCD spreadsheet wielder with every penny I have or don't have tracked and sliced and diced I never really thought it was for me. But today I decided it might be worth giving it a shot. It had some features I wanted to try and let's face it, no matter how good your spreadsheet is, chances are you're no match for a well designed application.

I have to say, I was more than impressed, and my turbocharged spreadsheet feels like a bicycle sitting next to a Porsche 911. I had dim memories of first being tipped by Jason Calacanis via his TechCrunch event with Michael Arrington, and was trying to remember the story of Mint getting off the ground. A quick google revealed this article and sure enough, it was only two years or so ago. They've certainly blown things out since. But reading the interview with founder Aaron Patzer lent even more insight:

We didn’t have money for advertising, so we started a blog. We didn’t have money for writers, so most of our original blog content then was guest posts from other personal finance blogs, plus a couple of columns on people’s worst financial disasters.

To build demand, we started asking for email addresses for our alpha 9 months in advance of launch. Then when we had too many people sign up, we asked people to put a little badge that said “I want Mint” on their blogs to get priority access. We got free advertising and 600 link backs which raised our SEO juice.

When it came time to launch, we choose TechCrunch 40 – why pay $20k for DEMO?

We decided not to do SEM – it’s too easy and too additive. Instead, we relied on press. It’s where I spent 20% of my time. I’m spending it right now while writing this.

The net result has been millions of visitors and 1.5m users essentially for free. Mint is not inherently viral like a social network – but all good things are viral by word of mouth.

And so here we are two years later. We’ve attracted over 1.5 million users, found over $300 million in savings, managed $50 billion in assets, and helped people track nearly $200 billion in purchases.

Notice the interesting way he uses the terms "viral" or "word of mouth" and "press" almost interchangeably. It's a great illustration of a common misconception -- which is this idea that all you need is to build something truly impressive and people will beat a path to your door. 

Granted, there's more than a grain of truth to that, brilliant ideas really do spread virally, and with lightning speed. 

 

But often what people feel is an avalanche of "word of mouth" is really just great press. Sure, often the press is "following" the word of mouth buzz. A classic example, perhaps the opening shot of the Web 2.0 era (or the final screaming death of the 1.0 era, depending on how you look at things), is F*ckedcompany.com, which Phil Kaplan famously created for the hell of it over a long weekend, emailed as a link to six people, and woke up a couple days later to find tens of thousands of visitors beating a hole in his servers. 

So, it happens. But more often than not when people say they "keep hearing" about something, or that "everyone's been telling me about" something, they don't mean real actual conversations. Most people move in pretty close-knit circles. What they mean is that everyone in the media has been telling them about it. What feels like word of mouth often isn't so much the presence of tremendous chatter from close, trusted friends and but rather the absence of an over the top, in your face marketing blitz. To be specific, paid marketing, like advertising. Like Superbowl ads. Like Pets.com.

And to go back to the F*ckedcompany.com example, the viral pass-along for that site was nothing short of remarkable, it was like a direct conduit into the zeitgeist. But if my memory serves, it made the Wall Street Journal within the week, and was on to Time, Newsweek, The Today Show, Rolling Stone, and just about everywhere in the media universe in a short amount of time. How many people discovered it through an email forward or water cooler conversation vs. the number that learned about it via some kind of "proper" media channel?

That's something you can only guess at, but it's one example of many. Zappos.com is another that comes to mind in the online/startup space, and there are more examples than you can count in entertainment, music, film, etc. 

In all cases they've hit a trifecta, that combination of a great product (yes, that's still the prerequisite, if you don't have that the rest of this is meaningless) with a core evangelical base of initial users and a successful effort to get that positive word of mouth coming from those who measure their audiences in millions. 

You bet the media has changed, these days the personality with the huge megaphone might be a tech hero with a six figure Twitter follower count. But social media is media. And that personality is a media personality, the underlying point isn't diminished one inch. 

It's not strictly impossible to see success happen purely organically, without any organized plan for publicity. Though I'd say it's nearly always when a founder or principal happens to be naturally press-savvy. But exceptions aside, more often than not it's a thoughtful, considered -- and experienced -- person or team at the helm, managing the media strategy. 

So, to bring it home with a pun -- if you'd like to make a mint, you might want to think about who's minding your press. 

 

Slice Of Life @ Paul Simon's Beacon Theatre Opening

One of the more impressive cakes I've ever seen. The centerpiece of the backstage celebration party following the re-opening night of the restored Beacon Theatre in NYC, headlined by Paul Simon and a few special guests (including a surprise encore with Art Garfunkel). Despite the presence of a large knife (upper right) for the entire event nobody had the guts to be the first one to take a slice. Wonder what it tasted like. 

Where Pitchfork Meets Keynes

I was having a discussion with some friends in the media and music business recently, specifically about the much-discussed (read: over-discussed) phenomenon where bands emerge and bubble up from the blogosphere and become overnight sensations in a teapot, taking the hipster world by storm, becoming ubiquitous in all the tastemaker places almost simultaneously. Someone commented that this phenomenon is really particular and endemic to the indie rock world -- where there's a massive wave of over-hype and artists are thrust out into the world not even fully formed, subject to a premature "next thing" consensus and an inevitable backlash to come. 

I don't think this is confined to music at all. Political consensus among the chattering classes is probably the most direct and clear example, with so much media, so much airtime to fill on deadline, and so many predictions that "have" to be made in the face of subjectiveness and a major herd mentality. It's also common to quickly moving technology trends (iPhone, Twitter, lots of other gadgets) and even financial opinions (Jim Cramer and Motley Fool come to mind especially). And probably quite a few other things. Just straight old TMZ style pop culture too.

But confining the discussion specifically within the confines of the music business, what I think is interesting is the degree to which the indie rock world exemplifies a certain set of attributes. You don't see the same hyper-"meta" discussions and self referential issues in other genres so much, at least not in my estimation. In straight bubblegum pop you might just as easily have the overwhelming hype and meteoric rise, and even in more esoteric niches like country or jazz or even bluegrass you definitely have flavors of the month, someone who makes a breakout performance at a festival or a last minute substitution. 

As a sidenote -- I actually think classical is a close second to indie in the herd-hype department, with that last example of a last minute substitution and seemingly coming out of nowhere being a great example of how many well known artists -- most notably Leonard Bernstein and Lang Lang, among others -- got their big breaks. And both suffered a torrential backlash several years into their career as well. 

But anyways, the basic concept is pretty well established. What's interesting to me is that in indie rock (which I should make sure to define here as the hipster, Pitchfork, blogger world, etc -- not in the indie=independent sense) it seems to have come to dominate the landscape. 

And of course, it conjures up parallels in economics. Specifically the classic quote about the stock market and investing from The General Theory, by John Maynard Keynes: 

"Professional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that each competitor has to pick, not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees."

I've always thought this was a pretty good metaphor as well for the worst parts of the hype machine that seems to swirl around indie rock, in the way mentioned above. The issue here isn't that you have a scene that's incredibly dynamic and changing, that artists come out of nowhere and get a ton of hype and then recede. There are plenty of reasons why you'd see those kinds of things happen. For example, another just-as-plausible hypothesis would be that it's an artistic scene that is intensely focused on novelty, hence the quick rise and short shelf life of many such artists. 

But I don't think that's quite it. I think it's the self-referential nature of the whole thing that is the most fundamental attribute. Everyone is looking at what everyone else is doing. In economics or ecology you'd describe it with some concepts from complex adaptive system dynamics, where you have systems or implied algorithms that are self-referential and loop back on themselves, and have both positive and negative feedback loops working at cross purposes. Not too far from the idea Keynes intuited in the 1930's in the quote above. 

So the more hype builds around you the more success you have. That's a positive feedback loop, a network externality. If 10 influential indie blogs plug you then that might lead to 30 more the next month. But there's a negative feedback loop. The more success you have the more you arouse the distaste and backlash of many members of the community. You have everyone looking at everyone else to see what they think before they make up their mind. 

People's opinions of an artist's intrinsic merit are in part based on their perception of who else likes them, what kind of people like them, how many of those people there are, and how long this has been going on. Like in the beauty contest example above, many participants are picking the prettiest competitor at a beauty contest not based on what they personally like, but based on their impression of what they think other people's impression will be. 

So you have two countervailing forces at work -- and the result is the classic boom-bust cycle that has tons of parallels. In ecology the textbook one is watching deer populations skyrocket, then they eat all the available food, and then half of them starve and die. Then they do the same thing over and over again. In economics it's the classic business cycle boom/recession wave in the stock market and economy as a whole. It's the natural outcome of a wicked combination of positive and negative feedback loops, both governing the same variable, in this case success and prestige and "hype." 

Or to simplify: 1) The more successful you are the more people like you. 2) The more successful you are the more people hate you. Pour them together, and you get breakneck change, massive and premature over-hype and massive and premature backlash. Both often divorced from any underlying actual merit of the music in question. Just like financial bubbles tend to affect the good firms as well as the bad, both on the way up and the way down. The truly great stuff endures, but when you're looking at a week to week timetable that boom-bust cycle is all you can see.

I think it's food for thought. The interaction of positive and negative feedback loops in self-referencing systems with network effects is well known in complexity theory to be the driver for some very interesting emergent phenomena, not just in simple rules-based systems but in applied social sciences as well. Perhaps there are some parallels to be drawn in marketing, media, and even entertainment and popular culture.