I guess I’m all grownsed up.
I’ve moved Brett’s Blog over to a new location, MarketingInProgress.com. So, for those of you that visit regularly, I encourage you to subscribe to the posts at this location and don’t worry about those here at brettduncan.wordpress.com much longer. This also accounts for my recent lack of posting, which I offer all apologies for.
For those of you scoring at home, I’m moving from a WordPress.com blog platform to a WordPress.org platform.
I can’t say I’m over-the-top crazy about the way MarketingInProgress is currently looking, but I’m also no designer. Be patient, as I’m sure there will be many changes to the site in the coming months.
Still, here’s what you’ll get – the same great marketing rants and obversvations with a twist for small business. Just now, it will be a little bit more professional with more robust features.
So, do this –
- Go here.
- Hit the orange “subscribe” link.
- Tell all your friends.
- Tell me what you think of the blog.
In the meantime, I’ll keep this site going for about another month or so, simply copying the posts from MarketingInProgress.com here. So don’t linger – change your feed settings, etc. And, thanks for checking it out.
Spike Jones clarifies an often timidly believed principle in marketing: to get someone to want what you’ve got, it helps to make them think they might not get it. It creates a sense of urgency.
In his post, Spike has this to say about barriers of entry:
Barriers bring with them a sense of exclusivity. Everyone wants in the party that hardly anyone gets into. I’m not saying this is right for all social networks, but before you throw open the doors to the entire world, why not invite those true kindred spirits – those biggest fans – to the party first. Hell, let them be the gatekeepers even. And then watch how the barriers can become assets.
In reading through this, I started thinking through random situations where this works. Please add your own ideas in the comments:
- Traffic going in and out of a sports arena or concert.
- The ride with the longest line at the fair.
- Blogging consistently for more than a year (or more) before the studs of the blogosphere acknowledge you as legit.
- Sam’s Club and Costco – becoming a member before you can take advantage of their discounts.
- Waiting a little longer for the sou flee to cook at a top restaurant.
- A doctor who’s first opening for an appointment is in 5 weeks.
- The Red Sox having to pay $51 mil. just to make an offer to Daisuke Matsuzaka.
- Waiting 3 months for your Nintendo Wii to arrive.
- Paying high annual fees to the home owner’s association of your ritzy neighborhood.
- Getting asked to a friend’s poker game.
Making it harder sometimes makes it better.
There seems to be a disturbing trend in today’s workforce. Too many supervisors are asking their employees to write their own job description.
This is stupid, and speaks volumes about the management (basically, that it sucks).
A job description should be written to fill a need of the business. It’s purpose is not to communicate what an employee can do, wants to do, should do or hopes to do, but rather what the employee filling that position must do to fill the need designated by the business.
Therefore, if a manager asks you to make up your own job description, they’re basically telling you they don’t know what the business needs, and they don’t know what you’re doing there.
Unfortunately, too many managers are asking their employees to fill in the blanks and make up their job description. Often after they’ve been working in a certain position for quite some time (who knows what they’ve been doing up to this point). The manager may see it as an opportunity for feedback, or empowerment, or input, but it’s really just a result of either laziness or cluelessness, both of which are deadly.
If you’re a manager, know what you want. Write the job description, then find someone to fill it. Never ask someone to fill in the blanks when it comes to what you, and the business, expect them to be doing.
Yes, I watch The Bachelor. That’s not the point here . . .
The point is that every single teaser before the last segment of The Bachelor is concluded with, “Coming up, the most dramatic rose ceremony yet.”
This has been going on for about six years. It rarely lives up to the billing, and now it’s a joke.
The real point is that you need to be realistic with what you communicate. If it’s really the best and most ever, then say it. If it’s not, don’t. Like the little boy crying wolf, promising “the most exciting product extension since the iPod Nano” will get old and wreak of distrust. You’ll become a joke.
I haven’t written a post in almost a week, which is fairly rare for me. The fact is, I haven’t really had anything worth saying, or an urge to say it. I’ve got nothing to bring to the table. And for once, I think it’s better to say nothing than to say anything.
I am offering no value to you, the reader.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t always abide by these rules. I confess, I’ve occassionally posted some real crap over the past year just so I could just have something new up on Brett’s Blog. But I knew it was crap, and I bet you did, too. Sorry about that.
I’m hoping to provide value from here on out. Whether it’s a rant, an observation, a link to something else valuable, a stat, a question or a service, my goal is that each post has value. Obviously, you might not agree with me on what is and isn’t valuable, and we can figure that out along the way. But I have to at least personally think it’s valuable before it can be any value to you.
The principle obviously isn’t limited to blogging. Does your new product add value, or do you just need to launch something? Is your email newsletter adding value, or do you just need to get it out there cuz that’s what you do once a month? Is your time with your kids valuable to them (and you), or are you just clocking in so you feel better about yourself?
The point: Figure out how you can add value, find new ways of doing on a regular basis, and if it’s not valuable, don’t do it.
Jason Tanz wrote an excellent column in this month’s Wired magazine summarizing the great job the Ron Paul campaign is doing leveraging social media to raise money, and, more important, votes. In his words . . . .,
All that buzz might be easy to dismiss but for the fact that Paul — unlike most other Web 2.0 phenoms — has managed to convert eyeballs into dollars. On Guy Fawkes Day, he set a record for one-day fundraising by a Republican, pulling in $4.2 million in online contributions. He outdid himself just six weeks later, tapping the Internet for more than $6 million in a single day.
The Ron Paul candidacy is a lot like the first wave of Facebook apps: thrilling as a notion, disappointing as content.
Tanz captures an idea that’s as relevant to marketing and business as it is to politics. Flawless execution of marketing tactics is hugely important. Leveraging new communication tools is hugely important. Raising venture capital is hugely important. But if the product itself fails to deliver, fails to be remarkable, then everything else can only take you so far.
I’m not completely anti-Paul; I think some of his ideas are really good, and I think it would be wise for the next President to give him a cabinet position for both his support and the support of his supporters. My problem with him, similar to Tanz’, is he just doesn’t seem presidential, and some of his ideas are simply too far out there to be practical.
The lesson? Buzz is crucial, fans/evangelists are a product’s lifeblood, but if what you’re selling has issues, it will catch up to you.