Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

I picked up a copy of 'The 4-Hour Workweek' at the airport, just finished it. Need a break from cards after my worst [censored] day ever, so I decided to try my hand at employing Indians to sell crap online on my behalf.

There's just one problem: marketing. Great gift idea for the holidays! Free refund if you don't like our product! (lol they should try that one in Russia) Sign up for our newsletter! Testimonials! Only $(round number minus one or five cents)! Only 4 days left to cash in on our special discount! You Need A Vacation - Specials For This Weekend! Flashy ads. Etc etc.

I hate it all with a passion. If it were up to me, all marketing/advertising would be limited to a list of products in a place where I can find it, and that's it. But apparently the rest of the world feels differently, and these piles upon piles of bullcrap make some people good money.

If that's what it takes to get rich off of selling stuff - I might not be able to do it. There's no way I would be truly committed. I would have no choice but to view my customers as suckers, which I think is pretty hypocritical.

See post title. How far do you think I would get if I kept all that crap to a minimum, and just had useful info on my site regarding the product, and that's it? In the book (and elsewhere) the advice is given to 'be part of your target audience', to be able to estimate what people want. Well, are there enough people like me in this world?

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

The problem is that you need to still get people's attention.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

Dale,

Short answer is, yes.

However, to succeed with that approach, it generally takes a best-of-breed product that is leaps and bounds above the competition.

I'll try to circle back here with examples when I have more time.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

Oh [censored] I sort of crossposted in BFI where I had an earlier, more ranty draft set to 'preview', then went here because I thought I'd get better responses. Sorry about that, write it off as tilt please.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

DD,

No worries, I dunno what the exact 2+2 rules are, but I personally have no problem w/ crossposting good stuff and at times think it's a really good idea.

The question you pose is a really good one.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

Bill Hicks on marketing. Pretty much says it all.

edit: I realize this is woefully unproductive for an ELD Forum post, so I'll try to collect my thoughts and include something beyond my righteous indignations.

Long story short, the non-BS approach works better in a world in which information is applentiful, and (conversely, and paradoxically) rational analysis of information is somewhat lacking. Advertisements that seem irrational work because our brains aren't "rational" in the sense that we expect them to be.

As El D said, in order for a rational argument to be more convincing than "SUPER FLASHY LIGHT HOT BABES IN BIKINIS!!!!!", you're gong to need a basis for this argument (your product) that is very, very convincing.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

eh - most people/companies are horrible at marketing so most of what we see sucks. i could write pages and pages, but the most important thing to know is that it's a science not an art. just because something may look cheesy to you doesn't mean it's bad marketing. good marketers have an intimate understanding of their target.

also you at least need to believe in what you are doing to some degree, so this:

"I decided to try my hand at employing Indians to sell crap online on my behalf."

probably doesnt bode too well.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

One man's BS is another man's eyecatcher.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

This is funny, this was the first thread that caught my eye and I just got off the phone with another marketing guy essentially about the same topic.

With my site I have had to compromise my ideas a bit but not so much. Most of the money I make comes from my model, not necessarily the site that I am known for. But the people selling for me can easily point to this is Beanie, he is real cool with blah blah blah. I like to think I am in the Neiman Marcus business but the reality is if you look at a brand like Macy's they also have Target. Target is helped by that association (at least I believe this is the case I know Marshall Field's bought Dayton's/Target and Macy's bought Marshall Field's).

At some point an idea can be fantastic but you have to pay the bills. My only job in life is to never really have a job and only do the things I enjoy to do. So far so good.

Long and short you will have to sell out a bit but if you have to sell car insurance for a living it isn't like the end of the world. I sold cars for a while and absolutely loved it because I felt I was an advocate for the customer. I routinely sold 30 cars a month. I did get fired however for clueing the customers in too much at one point which I sort of hold as a badge of honor.

No matter what you do you are selling out a little bit just keep it as close to your life paradigm and I think you aren't being insincere, and ultimately customers will see that.

Re: Marketing - is there any merit to a no-BS approach?
 

No or minimal marketing is generally needed if the product is clearly superior. The problem is that such superiority will be short-lived--how short depends on the product and industry obviously--as the competition strives to catch up and surpass.


The best example I can think of is a sporting goods company that basically revolutionized its industry with a new technology, carbon. The company sponsored no pros and had minimal, basically zero advertising. Yet the product was so much better than anything else available that word of mouth, recommendations from store owners, and favorable press coverage made marketing unnecessary. The product was so good pros from other brands would buy the items and then dye them to make it look like their companies product.

As technology progressed though the edge slowly dwindled and now basically all the products from the leading companies, most of which are high quality, are basically interchangeable. Thus marketing grows much more important to distinguish the product.

I would imagine this is the case with most industries but I'm no business expert.

Thinking of industries like the shoe industry there is definitely quality differences between products aimed at the high/middle/ and low end markets but within a price range the quality seems to be relatively similar. Marketing serves to distinguish a brand.

Personally, I could never tell the difference between top-end cleats from shoe companies. Some of my teammates would swear by company A's, or B's, or C's, product but I never really bought the argument and was happy with whatever we were supplied with in a given year. They all seemed to perform for me.