Make something people want to have
by asi
Thank you herdmister for starting this discussion I’ve been thinking about for a while now.
There seem to be almost obsessive fixation with the idea of influence in the brave new world 2.0.
If only we will out-reach to the right influencers they will help us take our product/service/brand to the masses. But influence is the wrong holy grail or at least only half of it.
I blame Malcolm Gladwell. Such a simplistic view of human behaviour is true perhaps only in the world of fashion – get Kate Moss or Paris Hilton to wear the most hideous thing and you most likely see blind influence in action. But not so for the majority stands of life.
Simply put, if your product sucks, or to be more precise if your product isn’t brilliant enough, you can get all the influencers in the world, they probably won’t make it for you. I hate myself for using that example but did Apple seek any influencers to help them get the iphone out? Nope. They’ve created something so great that people want to have, to adopt, to own.
Make something brilliant that people want to adopt, to mimic, to emulate and suddenly the idea of influencers seem far less crucial.
Read more from Duncan Watts here
I used to work in PR and saw similar short-sightedness you’re talking about. The example that most annoyed me was an initiative someone took to plant people on the Tube, all reading the same novel and telling other passengers about it.
The idea, obviously, was to get other people interested and wanting to buy the book themselves. sigh.
The people telling me this idea never once mentioned the quality of the book itself or hinted that might be a factor in the book’s success. I’m all for lighting a fire, but come on, at least make sure your product is flammable.
I’m thinking of starting an agency called Point Blank. Basically we put a gun to people’s heads and make them consume our clients’ products. They’ll then pass on this aggression to others and the product will be a global success. That’s patented btw. Don’t steal it.
“Make something brilliant that people want to adopt, to mimic, to emulate and suddenly the idea of influencers seem far less crucial.”
very true. I would add that brilliant is not always neccesary.
Sharing is. be it in the creation, profit, fame, loss etc.
Getting people involved, by whatever way appeals to them is a way to create hits. Like Tupperware and Herbalife, lottery..
Guilty by association seems like a cynical strategy to create positive spread of the word, about something, but then again I never met
a parent that thought/said their own kid was ugly
haha Andy, i now need to clean my screen from drops of snort.
i guess that it is the quest for the magic formula, time and again that make marketers so short-sighted…
“I’m all for lighting a fire, but come on, at least make sure your product is flammable”
your words are like poetry – can I at least steal that one?
sure thing
Just don’t take Point Blank.
I love the term influencers…. I still laugh everytime I see a girl with short blonde hair like Agnes Deyne.
I did a post on this a while back
http://thingsdonotchangewechange.blogspot.com/2008/02/influentials-are-they-new-black.html
I dont think its about influential people. I think its about something interesting be it message or a really good product. At how to identify it
[...] on from the myth of influencers post, perhaps the biggest myth of social media is what you can call the false causality belief. Probably [...]
[...] other, interrelated challenge is the idea of tracking and sourcing influentials. As much as i share Herdmeister’s point of view regarding the dynamics of influence, I still think it’s [...]