A Quick Lesson in Internet Time

So I'm searching Google earlier today and, surprise surprise, I came across another Marketing To Me listing. One click and off I go to this placeholder web site that on first look appears to be a simple case of domain squatting -- somebody has built a marketing to me domain web site, complete with some intro BS on the home page and a full-site, Ipsum Lorum template. My first thought is, "Wow, somebody is reading my blog." But it gets better. Throughout the day, the idea is just grating on me, sitting there in the back of my mind -- when I went through the hoops finding a blog title, "Marketing To Me" wasn't really an obvious choice, it was more like what I got to after I went through my list of top picks. How odd was it originally -- well, as I mentioned it to friends in the early months, most commented about being unable to find it. It's kind of funny how, within the past month, some guy can fire up a blog, secure a domain, start building a site, and, oh, climb over the top of your still breathing concept in some sort of attempt to carry the ball like you own it. It's not that I'm taking it personally -- few things are really new -- it's just kind of funny watching the echoes ripple into space.

But for all of the me, there's really not much worth writing about if there isn't a take-away for you, so here's a couple of things for you to keep in mind from this whole lesson:

1. There are going to be copies. From internet start-ups to musical acts, there are legions of goomers who are convinced that your idea is okay, but that they could do better. If your not careful, don't execute well, or aren't true to the essense of the vision, they just might beat you.
2. If your IP is strong, protect it. If Oreo is going to be the greatest Internet cookie on the planet, then you're going to need to spend the money to secure Oreo.com, .net, .org, and maybe even .co.jp. If you're just experimenting, there's a tremendous likelihood that someone will see some glimmer of your success and gamble that it will be worth more to you later.
   
3. The copiers are relentless. Recently, I was working with a company who had thirty-year old trademarks on products in a couple of unique market segments with a very select handful of customers. A couple of years ago, a Russian company entered the market and tried to compete against them in those markets using an obvious knock-off of their marks. Eventually, the trademark infringer gave up and disappeared, but the probably managed to grab a few dollars from unsuspecting customers before they left. If there are 100 pennies sitting on the counter, never underestimate some people's willingness to attempt to grab one.

In keeping with my previous post, I think that the real question here is, has blogging under the "Marketing To Me" title crossed the threshold of too many users -- has "Marketing To Me" jumped the shark?

The Inverse Ratio of Web 2.0 Technologies

As a term to describe technology, Web 2.0 appears to be fading in popularity very quickly -- 'tis the nature of buzzwords and spin. But regardless of the fashion status of the buzzword, many of the technology ideas that have been mapped to 'Web 2.0' still hold true -- and will continue to shape our software technology into the future.

One of those Web 2.0 concepts that is an aspect of web software is "the more people that use the software, the more useful it becomes." Take LinkedIn as an example. As a employment social network, if LinkedIn only had 100 users, few people would find much use for it -- there wouldn't be enough of a user base to attract job posters, to build community discussions, or really anything to get you to use the software. If you've ever received invites for 'Yet Another Employment Social Network Site', you've probably experienced this. The question you ask yourself when you debate about whether to use it or not is, why is this worth my time?

The flip side of this principle and one that I haven't seen as much discussion about is a sort of fashion corollary -- the more people use a service, the less exclusive it becomes and the less useful it is. While it's not frequently discussed -- fashion and exclusivity are things that many 'Web 2.0' sites take into account. Consider the 'membership strategy' -- invitation-only memberships are used to help market to the fashion-exclusivity factor.

My question -- and the thing that started me thinking about this over the weekend -- how many users does it take for a given service to 'jump the shark?' Or, phrased in a more traditional way, did Facebook become less effective when it opened up from invitation only? Do you have a more exclusive window into a job opportunity using LinkedIn if everyone and their dog uses the service? To paraphrase Woody Allen, would you really want to be in a club that I'm in?

A Recent Discussion with My Marketing Colleagues

Recently, one topic thread that came up in conversation -- based on my recent post about tradeshows, was some speculation about correlation between the economy and tradeshows. Our brief review of the tradeshows that we've attended this year is that attendance is steady or up, with lots of interest.

So the question on the table now is -- does a sour economy translate into people (potential customers) doing more research into the options available for their dollar?

There Are Still Good Tradeshows

This week has been busy with a nice little tradeshow here in San Jose,
Photonics West. As I walk down the aisles, I keep hearing two things
-- comments about how the bad economy is not hurting this industry and
comments about how this show appears to be very successful for the
companies that are exhibiting here. Admittedly, real ROI can't be
measured until it all turns into orders, but this certainly looks
promising.

The overall traffic reminds me of MacWorld in that it's much, much
better than I expected or would have predicted. So, is it just these
shows, these industries, or are things just not as bad as all that?
Personally, I think that it's the right show and the right industry --
and even then, I don't think that the print pub advertising sales
people are having a good time, evenwith the crowds and the optimism.

"Must Have A Rolodex of Journalists"

Whenever anyone parses through a list, they always start by setting up filter criteria that define what is interesting and what isn't. If you're looking through a list of job postings, maybe it's listings that include the word marketing, Web 2.0 or SaaS. And in the same way, you also use filters to determine items that you use to filter out results -- intern, associate, engineer.

Recently, one of those flags that really makes me laugh is the "Must Have a Rolodex of Journalists". Say what you want about PR and the evolution of communication that takes place, what really sets me off about this one is what it says about the opportunity -- and about the expectations that the hiring organization has for the person stepping into that role.

Quick flashback to my post from December, PR and 'New Media' - What's in Your PR Wallet? -- How do bad PR people get created? By setting the wrong expectations from the start. With the "Must Have a Large Rolodex" listing, what the organization is basically saying is "we want you to cram yet-another-mediocre down a bunch of journalists throats."

What happened to the "we've got such an awesome product that we're being bombarded with inquiries and we need guidance in managing this traffic and our message?"

I know the economy is bad and finding a job, much less THE JOB, is tough. Personally, I'm looking for an opportunity and an environment that's excited about the product, because I'm thinking I'm thinking that the position isn't defined by expectations that are doomed from the start. Good luck with that.

You Could Probably Hear The 'Doh' From Where You Are

Here's a quick update on a previous post -- a post correction/addendum. In my A brief history of the financial crisis post, I referenced an article by Michael Lewis. Then, as I was clicking through Amazon, trying to secure some last minute Christmas gifts, I noticed my Amazon search history and the "you might also be interested in" section. Since I referenced the link to Liar's Poker, the book mentioned in the article, Amazon reminded me of all of the other books that Lewis has written. In case you don't remember who he is, one of these book titles might jog your memory.

Panic: The Story of Modern Financial Insanity
The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game
The Real Price of Everything: Rediscovering the Six Classics of Economics
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
The Money Culture
The New New Thing: A Silicon Valley Story
Losers: The Road to Everyplace but the White House
Next: The Future Just Happened

If the sort order seems a bit chaotic, it's just following the order that came up when I searched Amazon. When the artwork showed up, it was one of those -- Oh, that Michael Lewis! And that was about the time when you heard the 'Doh'.

Happy New Year 2009

Rather than start out the year with a marketing post that I've been working on, I wanted to wish everyone a happy new year. Do you have New Year's resolutions? I don't usually do resolutions because the whole concept seems a bit strange to me -- if you've made a decision to change something that doesn't involve coordinating with a group or other calendar limitations, why would you delay the implementation of that change? Today is the day to begin following the path that leads you to the better you. Well actually, yesterday was the day.