Yes, Marketing Matters To Innovation Too

from the and-it's-a-part-of-innovation dept

There seems to be something of a knee-jerk dislike for "marketing," as if it's something to be shunned and has little to do with anything useful in the marketplace. While it's true that there's plenty of bad marketing out there, good marketing actually serves a really important function -- helping companies determine what the market actually demands, and then delivering products to fill that need (note that, contrary to popular opinion, marketing shouldn't be about convincing people to buy what they don't need). This comes up quite often when we discuss things like patents -- where we point out where one company was successful in bringing a product to market, whereas another failed (and then resorts to patent lawsuits). Some people brush off such successes as "just marketing," as if it's meaningless.

That's simply incorrect.

Marketing is an important part of the innovation process, in understanding what a market wants and making sure it gets it. If one company has better "marketing," that means it's doing a better job getting products out that the market wants. We should be celebrating that, rather than brushing it off as "mere marketing." This is highlighted by a recent blog post by Matt Asay, where he points to the status of two hyped up open source projects that both have failed (by a wide margin) to live up to the hype: Linspire and Chandler. Linspire was the Linux version that was supposed to take on Windows (it was originally called Lindows, but a lawsuit took care of that). However, it's now closed down. Chandler, which has been seven years in the making, was supposed to take on Microsoft Exchange, but after Mitch Kapor finally dropped the project, seems to have emerged as a greatly scaled back notepad/task mgmt system. It took them seven years to build that?

Asay points out the basic fact that "mere marketing" is more important than you might think, and brushing it off is often what leads to these kinds of failures:

Perhaps the lesson in both Linspire and Chandler is just how hard it is to build a strong consumer-facing business. For those who pooh-pooh Microsoft's success as "mere marketing" I have a suggestion: You need to get into this "mere marketing" business. It has a way of driving adoption. It matters.

Engineers like to think they know best, but the market makes the final decision on that -- and it often helps to have good marketing paired with those good engineers to make things work on both ends.

Filed Under: innovation, marketing, open source

Turns Out Just Saying A Marketing Campaign Is Viral Doesn't Make It So

from the who-knew? dept

In case you hadn't realized it, a new research report (that I'm sure you can buy for plenty of money) says that it's not so easy to make a viral marketing campaign actually be viral. Who knew? Well, probably everyone but some marketers. Viral campaigns are nice if you can get them to work, but betting an entire strategy on a viral campaign is pretty dangerous, no matter how much the media pretends that there's some secret magical formula to make products viral.

Filed Under: marketing, viral campaigns

Marketing Execs And Privacy Execs Disagree Over What Companies Do With Private Info

from the data-leaks dept

We've already established that privacy policies are pretty much useless, no matter how much some organizations want to pretend they matter. First off, no one reads them -- and if you asked most people, they simply assume that if a site has any privacy policy then it automatically means they won't give away any personal details to others -- even if the privacy policy says exactly the opposite. In other words, someone could put up a privacy policy that says that it will reveal all your personal data to organized criminals, and most people would think that the site was safe. It's "privacy theater" designed to make people feel good, but that has nothing to do with real privacy.

And, of course, it's not just the people reading the policies that don't seem to understand them -- it's those in charge of living up to and enforcing the policies. A new study surveyed a bunch of executives, including both marketing execs and those in charge of enforcing the privacy policy, and quickly discovered that marketers have a very different concept of "privacy" than privacy officers. Not surprisingly, they don't see anything wrong with sharing all sorts of data that seems to horrify privacy officers. So, no matter who controls the policy (or where it's posted on a site), the real issue may be who actually has access to the data and what they're able to do with it.

Filed Under: marketing, privacy policies

The New Music Business: Enabling Musicians To Take Advantage Of New Business Models

from the nice-to-see dept

It seems that whenever we write about various bands embracing new business models, one of the criticisms raised is this idea that we're somehow expecting musicians to also become businessmen to embrace these new models. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we've pointed out that this is exactly the space on which record labels should be focused: helping musicians embrace these new business models, helping to handle the business and the technology, while the musicians focus on the music. Unfortunately, most major record labels still haven't figured this out, due to either legacy issues and contracts, an unwillingness to let go of old business models, or simple cluelessness.

Of course, the longer the major labels take to realize that this is where the market is headed, the bigger the opportunities there are for others to come in and fill that "enablement" gap. There are going to be more and more interesting startups entering the space. One that's starting to get some buzz is TopSpin, which just revealed its business late last week. TopSpin got some press a few months back by getting Yahoo Music boss Ian Rogers to join as CEO. We've written about some of Rogers' cogent writings on the music business before.

TopSpin isn't a record label, but it wants to basically enable all sorts of internet-based business models to work for musicians so that they can focus on making music. From the sound of it, that involves plenty of backend infrastructure, as well as front-end components, so that musicians can easily pick and choose custom, scaleable business models for their website with little effort. The company already has a nice headstart (and even some high profile customers). What may be most interesting, however, is to see how the business model opportunities evolve over time, as TopSpin may grow to have the best understanding of what business models really work, depending on what the circumstances are for the band. That could be incredibly powerful data by itself.

Filed Under: business models, enabling, marketing, music
Companies: topspin

Word Of Mouth Marketing Isn't Effective If Your Product Sucks

from the just-saying... dept

Way too many people seem to think that "word of mouth marketing" is about getting others to spread your marketing message. That is, they think it's about putting words into the mouths of others. But that's not true at all. Real word of mouth marketing is about building a great product, and then letting your customers pass on the news however they see fit. If there's anything to do on the "marketing" side, it's merely to enable the tools for your biggest fans to spread the word, and then get the hell out of the way. However, it appears many marketers still don't understand this concept.

Reader Aaron deOliveira writes in to point out a story about Hollywood studios apparently giving up on word of mouth marketing campaigns targeted at "faith-based" audiences promoting certain messages that the studios hoped would resonate with folks who are religious. In the article, they toss up all sorts of reasons why such campaigns haven't done all that well, but deOliveira points to a blog post by Ben McConnell where he makes a different assertion: perhaps all those word of mouth campaigns failed because the movies just weren't that good. It's just that the studios are so sure of their product that they never even noticed it. So, once again, it goes back to this: word of mouth marketing is never going to make a lick of difference if your product sucks. Rather than focusing on such things, concentrate on making a good product first -- and then worry about the marketing campaign. And if the campaign fails -- recognize that maybe it's got something to do with the product.

Filed Under: buzz, hype, marketing, quality, word of mouth

How A Big Record Label Could Make Itself Useful: Act As The Filter

from the bring-the-audience dept

For a while now, we've been pointing out why there is still a space in the new music landscape for record labels -- but it's just that they need to adapt in significant ways. Last week, we wrote about some of what Warner Brothers Records was working on (even as its parent company seems to be working overtime to kill any goodwill). Now, Ian Rogers, the former GM of Yahoo Music who has written provocative posts about the industry before, has written an open letter to EMI's boss, Guy Hands, with some suggestions on how EMI can save itself as a record label.

Rogers starts out by making the key point: in the past musicians went to record labels to get money, distribution and marketing. However, these days, money is less important thanks to cheaper and cheaper recording tools, distribution help is less important thanks to the internet and even marketing help is less important (again thanks to the internet). Rogers suggests that the first two are basically meaningless to artists now, so all that really matters is if a label can help them market themselves better than they could on their own. And, on that front, he has a simple suggestion: affinity labels. Put together various mini-labels under which similar types of bands are associated. And, include on those labels a few of the "big name" EMI artists. Thus, for all the fans who are fans of some huge artist, by creating these affinity labels, it will help drive the fans of the big name artist to those other bands as well, knowing that they all have a similar sound or musical philosophy.

What Rogers is really pointing out is that thanks to the vast explosion of music available these days, bands don't need help getting "out there" any more -- they need help standing out from the clutter. Fans, on the other side, need a better filter to figure out what's worth listening to, and that's something that an affinity label could stand for. It plays the role of the filter, and allows the major label (like EMI) to leverage its connections with big name bands, to drive additional interest to lesser known bands by associating the names on the same affinity label. It's an idea that makes plenty of sense (in fact, there are a few small independent labels that already live via this concept -- within certain niches, you can find people who will buy nearly every album released on a specific label).

So would EMI go for it? Lucky for Ian (and for EMI), Guy Hands isn't a long-term music industry guy stuck to the old ways. He's a private equity guy who seems to recognize that the industry needs to change -- which has meant pushing back against the RIAA and the IFPI and even hiring a Google guy to run the digital strategy at EMI (though, hopefully, he won't be pigeonholed as "the digital guy").

While I agree with almost all of Ian's post -- there is one thing that I disagree with. I think that a label can certainly help beyond just the marketing -- and that's in managing some of the new business models that are coming out these days. We keep hearing people complain that musicians don't want to manage these new business models, and a smart music label could (and should) be helping on that front as well.

Filed Under: affinity labels, business models, filters, marketing, record labels

Inside Craigslist's Increasingly Complicated Battle Against Spammers

from the spam-fight dept

John Nagle writes in with a fascinating dissection of the ongoing battle between Craigslist and spammers. The back and forth nature of this battle is fascinating -- and somewhat disturbing when you realize the lengths to which spammers will go to get spam onto Craigslist, and the extent to which an entire ecosystem of scammers and software providers seems to have been built up around this effort:

"Spam on Craigslist has been a minor nuisance for years. Not any more. This year, the spammers started winning and are taking over Craigslist. Here's how they did it. Craigslist tries to stop spamming by checking for duplicate submissions. They check for excessive posts from a single IP address. They require users to register with a valid E-mail address. They added a CAPTCHA to stop automated posting tools. And users can flag postings they recognize as spam.

Several commercial products are now available to overcome those little obstacles to bulk posting. A tool called CL Auto Posting Tool is one such product. It not only posts to Craigslist automatically, it has built-in strategies to overcome each Craigslist anti-spam mechanism.

Random text is added to each spam message to fool Craigslist's duplicate message detector. IP proxy sites are used to post from a wide range of IP addresses. E-mail addresses for reply are Gmail accounts conveniently created by Jiffy Gmail Creator ("Who Else Wants to Create Unlimited Gmail Accounts in Seconds Flat Without Breaking a Sweat?") An OCR system reads the obscured text in the CAPTCHA. Automatic monitoring detects when a posting has been flagged as spam and reposts it.

CL Auto Poster isn't the only such tool. Other desktop software products are AdBomber and Ad Master. For spammers preferring a service-oriented approach, there's ItsYourPost.

With these power tools, the defenses of Craigslist have been overrun. Some categories on Craigslist have become over 90% spam. The personals sections were the first to go, then the services categories, and more recently, the job postings.

Craigslist is fighting back. Its latest gimmick is phone verification. Posting in some categories now requires a callback phone call, with a password sent to the user either by voice or as an SMS message. Only one account is allowed per phone number. Spammers reacted by using VoIP numbers. Craigslist blocked those. Spammers tried using number-portability services like Grand Central and Tossable Digits. Craigslist blocked those. Spammers tried using their own free ringtone sites to get many users to accept the Craigslist verification call, then type in the password from the voice message. Craigslist hasn't countered that trick yet.

Much of the back and forth battle can be followed in various forums.

It's not clear yet who will win. Craigslist may find something that works. If it doesn't, however, it could be toast for the success story of Craigslist."

Filed Under: battles, black hat, marketing, spam
Companies: craigslist

Of Course Crowdsourcing Will Get Stale If You Think Of It As Just A Marketing Gimmick

from the relationships-relationships-relationships dept

News.com's Tim Leberecht wonders if crowdsourcing has "jumped the shark," pointing out that everybody and his dog seems to have a crowdsourcing program in place, and wonders if consumers are getting tired of the gimmick. I think the problem here is the way the question is being framed. If a company views crowdsourcing as just a one-off opportunity to get some free labor out of its customers, then obviously customers are going to get tired of it. But that's the wrong way to look at it. What crowdsourcing is about, ultimately, is improving communications with your customers, and among the customers themselves. Asking your customers to become more involved in various aspects of your business -- offering product advice to one another, providing feedback on new products, or offering ideas about advertising strategies -- increases customer loyalty by demonstrating that your company is actually engaged with its customers and responsive to their concerns. If your "crowdsourcing program" is limited to the marketing department, you're throwing away much of the potential value of the concept. Building strong relationships with customers and fostering online discussion about your products is at least as valuable as any cheesy ads a "make your own ad" contest might produce. Advertising gimmicks "jump the shark," but strong relationships with customers never do.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, gimmicks, marketing

Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

There's been a bunch of buzz this week over an Ad Age report suggesting that firms are finally realizing that no one pays attention to online banner ads. For all the hype about online advertising, this one point should have been obvious from quite early on. That doesn't mean that banner ads haven't been lucrative for some publishers who place them on their sites -- but it does call into question how long that sort of advertising will last. Sooner or later the advertisers will recognize that they're not getting much bang for the buck. For publishers (us included, mind you), that could mean that an easy vein for revenue goes away -- but the end result should be better. Companies will start to learn that there are better ways to achieve their goals than banner ads.

There are a few key points in the discussion that shouldn't be surprising to most folks around here, but apparently have just hit the consciousness of ad execs on Madison Avenue:

1. The captive audience is dead. There is no captive audience online. Everyone surfing the web has billions of choices on what they can be viewing, and they don't want to be viewing intrusive and annoying ads. They'll either ignore them, block them or go elsewhere.
2. Advertising is content. You can't think of ads as separate things any more. Without a captive audience, there's no such thing as "advertising" any more. It's just content. And it needs to be good/interesting/relevant content if you want to get anyone to pay attention to it.
3. Content is advertising. Might sound like a repeat of the point above, and in some way it is -- but it's highlighting the flip side. Any content is advertising. It's advertising something. Techdirt content "advertises" our business even if you don't realize it. Every bit of content advertises something, whether on purpose or not.
4. Content needs to be useful/engaging/interesting. This simply ties all of that together. If you want anyone to pay attention to your content (which is advertising something, whether on purpose or not) it needs to be compelling and engaging.

So, for the "brand" marketers out there who are starting to worry that banner ads aren't particularly effective, it's time to start rethinking how you build a brand along these points. Techdirt even has a way to help you put these ideas into practice. Give us a call -- we'll explain how it works in more detail. So, yes, even this is an "advertisement," but hopefully, it's also useful content.

---

Other posts in this series:

• Advertising Is Content; Content Is Advertising
• On Content, Promotions, Basic Economics... And Loutish Statements
• Content Is Advertising... In The Newspaper Industry
• Content Is Advertising... On TV
• Newspaper Content Is Advertising For More News Content

Filed Under: ads, banner blindness, captive audience, content, marketing, techdirt feature

Just Copying Someone's Technology Isn't Enough

from the much-more-going-on dept

When discussing patent related stories, people often claim that without patents, copycat companies would simply copy everything and put the original creators out of business. There are a number of reasons why this isn't true (and plenty of historical evidence that it's not true at all), but for a good example of this at work, just take a look at Google. Google is by far the dominant search engine out there, and it's only been growing. It was first to market with a quality search engine, but many studies have pointed out that Yahoo and Microsoft have both caught up (and possibly passed) Google in terms of search quality. And yet, Google keeps growing. There are plenty of reasons for this, from Google's "celebrity" (as the article implies) to Google's clean interface to people generally trusting Google more than those other providers (to date, Google has done much less to piss off most people). None of those things have anything to do with the technology alone. There's this view among patent system supporters that the technology is everything, when it's really just a component in terms of what makes a business. Copying the technology is one thing, but there are advantages to being first to market, executing well, treating customers right and building a reputation. Just copying someone's technology won't get you very far on most of those other points, and shows that focusing solely on patents as a competitive advantage is unlikely to get you very far.

Filed Under: execution, marketing, reputation, technology
Companies: google