Trust is easily bamboozled.
Like in social media, all you have to do is start a blog and write a lot of content– it doesn’t even have to be original or even good. Next, find partners and create alliances where you tweet, digg and stumble each other’s content. Abuse whuffie to make crowd-sourcing work for you. Mass follow everyone on Twitter, import them into FriendFeed to inflate your subscriber numbers, and then unfollow everyone but twenty on your list. Spam people. Promote under the guise of community. Push. Pull. Publish.
Give your efforts a few months in the oven, and then… voila! You’re an influencer.
Congrats! And don’t worry. It doesn’t matter if you’re actually putting out interesting, new or relevant ideas into the world. Pure hustle, as Gary Vaynerchuk so aptly explains, will do the trick.
These are the mostly unspoken rules of social media. And in a medium that is supposed to be revolutionary, it’s disappointing that not much has changed from the status quo, despite claims that PR and traditional marketing is dead.
“The old way was to create safe, ordinary products and combine them with mass marketing,” Alex Bogusky and John Winsor explain in the little spark of a book, Baked In. We’re repeating the same inefficiencies in social media, however, where the focus on accumulating mass numbers is doing a great disservice to the possibilities.
Indeed, in my own outreach efforts with Alice, I’ve found that individuals with smaller numbers – whether it be traffic or subscribers – often have just as much influence, if not more than those with large badges on display. Bogusky and Winsor agree, reporting on a study that found “news travels as readily through ordinary people as influential ones. Interpersonal networks are democratic.”
We’ve supposedly learned from the likes of traditional advertising that worshiped a spray and pray approach, and yet we still pay credence to only the large influencers. Such an approach could be even more flawed than mass marketing, because social media numbers mean nothing. They’re often so inflated and distorted, that in trying to boost our influencer status, we’ve leapt back into the untargeted and interruptive advertising pool where relevancy and effectiveness drops drastically.
While the smaller scale of social media hides such issues right now – for most Fortune 500 companies, the medium is still emerging – it will soon come out that while the tool is different, the habits are the same.
What we need then, is not an improvement upon or even a replacement of the traditional PR and advertising model, but a complete market shift. “The new way,” Bogusky and Winsor explain, is to “create truly innovative products and build the marketing right into them.”
That, in a nutshell, is why my job at Alice is so enjoyable. We better connect manufacturers and consumers in the giant consumer packaged goods (CPG) market. And in disrupting the traditional retail market, Alice has made it possible to buy all your household essentials online with competitive prices and get it delivered to your door with free shipping. Toilet paper is all of a sudden revolutionary.
And in the few short months since our launch, the service has spread. While that doesn’t surprise me, the ease with which it has done so and continues to (knock on wood) does. Good spreads. Something I didn’t fully believe in until this job.
When good spreads you don’t need all the superfluous advertising and marketing campaigns. You don’t need traditional posturing, marketing gloss, fluff and trickery. Good has the promotion baked in. Creating products that market themselves means tearing down the walls between the company and consumer. No longer do you have to spray over the ledge, but you’re able to join them on the other side.
“In the same amount of time it takes to create an advertising campaign – it’s possible to take all that consumer insight and actually bake it right into a new product. A product designed with a mission. A product with a story to tell. A product with the ability to sell itself,” argue Bogusky and Winsor.
A product with integrity. That is the future of marketing.
What do you think? Does good spread or do you need to give it a promotional push?
25 replies on “Good spreads – without marketing”
Hi Rebecca.
Interesting post…I like your perspective, it is quite refreshing! I agree that products with integrity should be able to sell themselves, and often they do. The challenge is getting the word out for people to know the product exists. Consumers are increasingly wanting more value for the products they choose to purchase. Products that have the “good baked in” offer that value. So in answer to your question, my response is…a little bit of both. We must start with an excellent product that adds value but we also must tell people it is available and then it will sell itself. Thanks for the insight! ~Christine
@ Christine – I agree that you need to get the word out, but beyond that, traditional advertising – and for individuals, tireless self-promotion – isn’t needed if you have products that have value – they will spread easier with word-of-mouth. Although I think some things spread easier than others, so that’s where I’m still thinking… thanks for the comment!
I completely agree that most people put too much emphasis on the numbers, and I haven’t read Baked In yet, but I do think we’re oversimplifying the ‘good spreads’ argument a little much. The way in which a product (or idea) spreads is dependent on a number of factors: smoothness, the medium, etc.
Excellent stuff. I tune out companies and people that use tired old marketing techniques in social media. It is usually a sign that they have hired some company to do it for them and are getting poor advice. There are powerful platforms in social media for companies willing to rethink how they approach people. If they are not doing so, it shows me either the don’t understand or don’t care – both are bad signs. Thanks! Bret
@ Ryan – Yeah, I think it’s dependent on a number of things too… the big one being if it has value. I definitely didn’t use to believe this, but after working at Alice, I do. What is smoothness?!
@ Bret – Totally. It’s all about using the tools – whether it be new media or old – and rethinking your approach to those. It’s less about the marketing and more about the product. And you’re right. It’s very easy to spot inauthenticity quickly.
@Rebecca – By smoothness I mean how easy it is for someone to spread your product or idea. Having a “Tweet this” button on your site makes the steps easier to sharing your post than something they have to copy and paste into Twitter. And WAY easier than someone having to get a bitly of your post and do it themselves.
@ Ryan S – Eh, I actually don’t agree with that. And it’s not a very strong argument. Not a lot of people have the types of things you’re talking about and the content still gets spread. Sure, it’s good to make it as easy as possible, but that’s not a large indicator of whether or not word of mouth will be on your side.
I find that the people who focus the most on the numbers and analytics are the ones who would rather use social media as a mass blast to promote their products. Far too many business people unfortunately do not want to get “caught up” in the relationship building and viral marketing of their “good” product. They want a quick hit for a minimal investment of time and money.
I’m not sure when businesses decided that marketing of ANY kind was a quick hit something for nothing industry.
Personally I feel like there needs to be a better mix of blatent promotion and spreading of good. Sometimes there are good products but they can’t get by on JUST word of mouth. They need to bring people in to then send them out to spread the word.
I’m with Ryan Stephens on this one. Enabling and empowering your community to spread your message is mandatory in this web 2.0 world. People are lazy (let’s be honest here). If you make their job either, then you’ll get better results.
@ Elisa – It’s funny you should say that, because business has been built on relationship building for who knows how long. And yet, that seems to be a giant disconnect with social media, where many companies look at it as a shortcut. When it’s most certainly not. It’s just a more powerful relationship-building tool, but it takes just as much work. Thanks for the comment!
@ Dan – Yes, we all agree that it’s good to make things easy to share. But is that the primary reason of why people share it? No.
Rebecca,
Awesome post. I like the point where you argue people with less subscribers have just as much influence. I agree that I have also seen bloggers who abuse social media to mass spam its followers with the fake it till you make it mentality. Although I personally find that frustrating, what annoys me even more is how a lot of people actually do listen to them and blindly follow. Good does spread, but apparently sometimes popular spreads too, regardless good or not,
@ Ruby – Thanks for the comment! I appreciate you sharing your perspective and am with you on the idea that it’s even more annoying that other people blindly follow. I definitely don’t get that. Popularity isn’t an indicator of quality nor does it mean you should jump on the bandwagon… sometimes it’s like we haven’t escaped high school! ; )
I think if a marketing campaign doesn’t have integrity it’s destined to fail in this day in age.
Sure, it will gain some short term traction and may even move a few eyeballs…but it won’t have any sort of lasting effect that can be measured even a month down the line…
I don’t think I ever said smoothness was THE determinant factor. All I’m saying is that if you’re saying “good content is the #1 reason value spreads,” I think most people would reply with “Well, obviously,” hence the reason I felt it was an over simplification of a much more thorough discussion.
I thought this was a good discussion. I wanted to tweet it out, and saw that required me to go create my own tiny URL and I deferred. Part of the reason the hotmail service was so successful was because in every e-mail you sent using their service there was a signature at the bottom offering free e-mail to the receiver. It required about 2 clicks and they could sign up as well.
Is free e-mail a valuable idea? YES. But the ease of adoption helped the hotmail service grow quicker than it would’ve otherwise.
@Stuart – Hm… a marketing campaign or the product? Because my argument is that the product has to have integrity and value, and then the marketing campaign automatically becomes a part of it – the argument of the book Baked In. You can have a marketing campaign with integrity and still have the product fail… right?
@ Ryan S – Yeah, you’re talking about blogging, and I’m talking about product design though. I do think the principles are the same, but the idea that great products have the marketing baked right in them – that good spreads for that reason – is actually pretty revolutionary. Most companies don’t do this, and most companies fail for that reason. Entire marketing departments are built to deal with the fact that marketing isn’t baked in. Is that an oversimplification? No. Sometimes the greatest things are the most simple, and completely overlooked.
Also, usually I do have the feed flare that allows you “Twit this” – it’s just being cranky, apparently : )
I would definitely say that good spreads especially when it comes to service/products. I will never be an “early adopter” of anything because I need someone to refer it to me before I try so I kind of depend on good spreading (except for that Powermat thing. That looks cool and I’m sure it was the advertising that “got me”.)
I’m not sure how/if this applies to bloggers or people who supply content, though. They still seem to need the promotional push element.
I purposely added Hotmail in b/c I knew you were under the impression I was talking about blogging b/c of my first example.
And I still think it’s pretty intuitive (granted we live in a pretty insular bubble.) Apple’s products are good and talk-worthy hence they’ve been successful. Easy enough. I’ve spent the better part of a half hour (to no avail) looking for an really good article I read about 4-6 months ago that articulates a very similar point to the one you’re after here, complete with examples across a few different verticals.
And most companies don’t do it b/c it’s hard…
And I apologize if it seems like I’m being difficult. Maybe Carlos’ post is subconsciously rubbing off on me today.
@ Marie – Haha.. yeah, I’m an early adopter in some cases, but with other things, like Netflix, it took me forever. And I agree, blogging is a tough cookie to add in the mix here.
@ Ryan – Don’t worry, I’m being difficult on purpose since it entertains me : ). I don’t understand your point about most companies don’t do it bc it’s hard. But I will say that each example you’ve given is a tech example. Despite that, it seems like we mostly are on the same page, no? The book Baked In gives numerous examples in different industries. Take a peek, it’s the type of book I’m guessing is right up your alley.
@Rebecca I went in assuming the product was good…
If it isn’t? Well…my argument=fail.
I think what you are arguing misses that point that marketing is not just about getting the word out. Marketing (in its often misunderstood ways) includes all of the 4 Ps – product, price, place (distribution) and promotion. “Good” is embedded in the first three – if you offer a good product at an appropriate price and have an effective or innovative distribution model (=”good”), then promotion (by the company), isn’t always a required 4th. Craigslist would be an example.
It’s not that a good product doesn’t need marketing. The fact that the product is good IS part of the marketing mix.
I agree with Trina. I think this depends a bit on your definition of marketing. I remember reading one definition that defined marketing as “the entire company as seen through the eyes of the customers.”
I agree with you that if people love a product (broadly defined) they will want to tell others about it, and the presence of something like a TwitThis button won’t motivate them to do so.
Also, I feel like I should add that I live in China, where Twitter and Facebook and (most recently) bit.ly are blocked, and therefore it takes me a bit more effort to share things on Twitter even if the button is there.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post. Keep up the good work!
I am a late commenter, but I liked the post, so I figured I would comment none the less.
When it comes to the question of marketing verse “Baking In” consumer insight, I think there’s really a duality that has to take place. In my experience, it’s a matter of potential for success.
I have seen phenomenal products that infused all it could into its product that did no marketing and suffered because of it. It lacked the catalyst to truly take advantage of its customer-centric brilliance.
By the same token, I have seen products that threw the same kind of money Tiger is throwing at his miss-haps to keep them quiet at their marketing, and the product still went nowhere. Because fundamentally, when you lose the integrity, you’re probably going to lose the customers.
“I’ve found that individuals with smaller numbers – whether it be traffic or subscribers – often have just as much influence, if not more than those with large badges on display.”
You’re right on about this. The people who are passionate about your product/brand (even if it’s your personal brand) will be your influencers, because they believe in it. Being new to PR, this is one thing that I’m trying to educate about. Yes, having a ‘big’ social media persona say something about your brand would be great, but having someone who will tell all of their friends about your brand and how much they love it will be worth more.
Miss ya,
K
Check out Unleashing The Ideavirus by Seth Godin – it pretty much summarizes the ideas discussed in this article – mainly an inherently good product virally spreading on its own merit rather than the spray and pray approach.
Concerning the following of individuals based on their endorsements of products and ideas – sometimes I view this as appropriate. While I certainly don’t believe in sheep-like behavior, it can be valuable to use trusted resources as a filter.
Kind of funny how this subject of influence vs trust has taken on a whole new wave of controversy and Buzz lately.
I’ts likely that the truest definition and context for “influence” needs to be more specifically limited to include variables of enduring and self directed impact.
Perhaps the real measure of influence isnt the first, initial and potentially fleeting behavior change biut what really matters is how much that person has truly changed their behavior over time.
The latest fastcompany “influence” project really lumped influence in with ego, manipulation and misdirection so much that its not really a measure of true influence but just how much people are willing to trick their traffic into a click in a shady effort to get a “vote” and increase their image.
Action that actually betrays trust may get a vote or a click or a purchase but that doesent keep the influenced and the influencer working together very long.
Influence is really more about whether the recipient feels like a victim or an empowered ally.
anyway i get what you mean here . there’s a lot of ways of looking at this.
if the real definition or recipe for influence were simple to encapsulate, it would also be too easy to be gamed and abused.