Talk about bad sales + email marketing.
I just received this email from someone wanting to sell me email marketing lists. Let's assume they are of quality as they got my email address from somewhere, would you do business with these folks?
I won't get hung up on the fact that I am not looking for marketing lists (read my post on buyer signaling) but come on, this thing is ugly, has way too many words, and is the type of thing you send someone when they ask…not to start the conversation.
That's my budget plan for the U.S.
No politics, no policy, no ideology. Just take 10% across the board from all programs and expenditures.
Yes, I know that this is more important than that or another program is key to us "winning the future" or whatever the tag line of the day may be. That is the beauty of this approach – everything is treated equally with no influence, lobbying, or pet projects.
Get it from cutting waste, making operations more efficient, or even (egad!) innovating around people, process, or technology.
It won't solve the problem of our national debt but it will get us started without this nonsense of who goes first and who is more "extreme."
Most of us (hopefully) have a budget or spending plan. It's not ideal to reduce it by 10% but it can be done.
Why can't all these really "smart people" we elect do the same?
Thank you for your support in 2012…
Wow. Hard to believe I started doing this four years ago today.
I re-read my first post again and wanted to share this excerpt as it continues to be the rough theme that I try to stick to with my posts:
My selection of "Reply to All" as a title of this blog is indicative of the challenges and habits created by our technology "enablers" in our modern workplace. I seek to touch on how we communicate as people and how young companies struggle and strive to make the process better, faster, cheaper, etc.
Thanks to everyone who reads my posts regularly and to those who stop by no matter how briefly. I'm glad I added this to my life four years ago and look forward to doing it for many more to come.
This is a follow up to my Sales = Support post about how the delivery and consumption of web-based products is changing the way we need to think about aligning around the end-user.
Like many of my blog posts, this was inspired by a conversation (an email exchange in this case) about whether to focus on adding features or focus on the user experience given limited resources.
I had been meaning to write this for some time so decided to post here what I shared with a friend:
Do one thing and make it really simple (to start). There are always features to add and complexity to consider but people use products and unless they have to use it (do x to get paid/keep your job, etc.) they choose to use products based on value delivered.
I definitely believe that product = experience in an on-demand world. You want people to find, try, use and love your thing with limited to no involvement on your part. This makes it all about experience. You get involved when they have a question or observation: sales = support. The product = experience blog post is coming soon:)
That said, if you are not quite to the point where the one thing you are doing really well doesn't solve someone's problem yet, then focus on that.
Consider a product like Dropbox. They get a lot of buzz but one of the things that stands out to me is not their fame but how dead simple the product is to use and works itself into my existing knowledge. I didn't have to learn how to use it, it works like a file finder/manager – looks the same, even integrated into that view.
They are not the first (or last) company to do cloud-based file backup but they made it work for me with limited brain cycles to learn it. Most people are not curious enough to figure it out so the focus has to be on quick time to value.
Bottom line – it's all about the "cat strat."
This is an entertaining commentary on our on-line lives and worth a watch. Thanks Andy Sernovitz for sharing it!
This is a great two minute video from Will Smith. I run and agree with his point about conquering the little voice and read as much as I can (but not enough). Take two minutes and watch this (thanks Dan Martell for sharing it).
B2P = Business to Professional
The broad definitions of defining a target market for a technology product or service have a new addition and it is you.
Traditionally, consumer products were Business to Consumer (B2C) and business products were Business to Business (B2B) primarily based on who and how the decision to purchase is made. Consumer traditionally via an individual and Business via procurement or the like.
Now that products can be delivered via the web, apps, app marketplaces, mobile, etc. a new way to look at how and who you market to has emerged.
Businesses have employees and those employees are people. People who now are able to find, try, and even purchase products on their own and bring them to the workplace. They can then share them with others without central coordination or control. While not always perceived as a good thing from a IT risk management perspective, this is driving a whole new level of innovation inside businesses.
B2P requires consumer marketing savvy combined with enterprise marketing reality. Solve a problem but do so in an interesting and even entertaining way that matters to the individual first.
What do you think? Leave a comment below or send me an email.
I had the opportunity to hear Jeffrey Cole of USC's Annenberg Center for the Digital Future present earlier this week at the FT Global Investment Series forum in Seattle.
He did a really nice job covering the current state and future of media. Here are some highlights:
I also met some really nice folks and definitely appreciated the invitation to attend.
An extremely worthwhile 10 minute video about living your life for you. What small things will you do tonight or tomorrow to enrich your life for you?
Best quote "don't wait until retirement to have a life."
Great thinking here from Nigel Marsh.
In the small but noisy universe of technology startups, there has been a growing chorus of voices about the utility and value of marketing.
This peaked over the last few days with Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures eviscerating the function and its practitioners followed by a similar post from Foundry Group's Brad Feld – Why a New Startup Shouldn't Have a Marketing Budget. Fred went on to issue a 'bug report' on the first post with some amendments but of similar negative tone and smart folks like Rand Fishkin and Ben Casnocha weighed in with thoughtful counterpoints. Also, be sure to read the comments across all these posts. Lots of opinions from all sides.
I have enjoyed Fred's writing for many years and always respect his point of view including this post. I have also worked with Brad and didn't notice him vomiting in his mouth in my presence although I must admit I wasn't specifically looking for it (to be clear: Brad is one of the best VC board members I have ever worked with and I am a huge fan).
But even before all of this, I had been thinking about it after reading Rebecca Lynn's post about why engineers make better marketers.
People, developers + designers do not equal a business. Just ask the gnomes.
What I find most distracting about all of this is that it is devaluing the role one group of people play in a startup. If marketing folks aren't worth the air they breathe, what about financial-types, HR folks, or even salespeople?
I am not trying to defend the marketing profession or those who profess expertise in it. I disdain experts. And yes, there is no shortage of morons that want to sell you marketing services or any other business or technical service for that matter.
I do believe this conversation needs to elevate a bit beyond job function to skill set.
The best and most effective marketers have an analytic approach – numbers, spreadsheets, metrics, etc. I have a degree in finance, an MBA, worked as a consultant for many years, and never sought a career path to become a Vice President of Marketing. I was intellectually curious about the problems the products I was part of were trying to solve and managed to be somewhat good at explaining what it did and why you should care (product marketing).
I have written code. Yes, it was many years ago and no it was not my life calling but I have done it. And, more importantly, I respect the people that do it. It is a very, very different role in a startup compared to those who have to take what is developed to market, find the people who care about it, and extract payment.
Writing code definitely requires brains but also delivers immediate feedback in a highly controlled environment – it compiles or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, debug it line by line until there are no more bugs. Then figure out a way to improve it by doing it with less lines of code. This is a focused activity where you are working to a definitive answer where no ambiguity remains.
Taking a product to market couldn't be more different..especially a new product. Create a hypothesis (these people will care), figure out a way to test it (ask them/create an offer), and measure the results.
Oops, we were wrong. Let's debug it and compile again. Oh wait, we can't. Was it the wrong audience, the wrong message, was the offer not compelling, too many alternatives, not a big enough problem, missing features, wrong time, etc., etc?
Marketing in a startup is about two core things:
What is most ironic about Fred is that he is really, really good at what he clearly doesn't respect – marketing. He has an audience, interacts with it often to promote what is important to him, and pushes his message to the market. His post even lays out an eight step startup marketing plan.
So, let's stop with the marketing bashing, agree that an analytic approach is best, and understand that we are all trying to build great products and make them market successes.
Venture Vice 