Seth Godin's Blog, page 154

Templates for organic and viral growth

Each of these examples is different, but they all share common traits.

Invent a connection venue or format, but give up some control.

Show it can be done, but don't insist that it be done precisely the same way you did it.

Establish a cultural norm.

Get out of the way...

Crossfit

EDM shows

Do Lectures

The Girl Scouts

Airbnb listings

No kill shelters

Vertical TEDx's

Meetup events

Night basketball

Farmers' markets

Rock climbing gyms

Alcoholics Anonymous

Ultimate frisbee leagues

Independent record stores

Grateful Dead cover bands

True Value hardware stores

Habitat for Humanity chapters

            

Comparison, escalation and the golf clap

We've all encountered a tepid group, an audience that won't make noise, a bunch of disaffected students, or perhaps the distracted masses.

Cat taught me this trick, which gives great insight into human nature.

"Can everyone give me a golf clap, a level one clap, a quiet, polite amount of applause?"

Of course, everyone can do this. This is risk-free, enthusiasm-free and easier to do than not.

"Okay, what does level two sound like? Can you take it up a notch?"

And within a minute, she's created a level-ten tsunami of sound.

Comparison and escalation are at the heart of what makes our culture work.

            

Interesting

If you think about it, there's generally no correlation between how much something cost to make and how interesting it is.

There are boring movies that bomb... and that cost $100mm to make. And the sound of a crying infant in the next room costs nothing at all, but it certainly gains your attention.

A video made for free can go viral, and we'll happily ignore an ad campaign that cost a million or more to make.

So, if money isn't related to interestingness, why do we worry so much about spending more on the media we create?

Over-the-top production values are sometimes a place to hide. It's tempting to cover up boring with polish, but it rarely works.

Stories and relevance are far more important than budgets.

            

Embellishments

What are they for?

Absolutely nothing.

Well, that's not true. The fact that they aren't directly related to what you're trying to deliver is precisely why they exist. The 'nothingness' of their value is why they are valuable. An embellishment, a garnish, a filligree... it exists because it means you took a little extra time, you cared enough to add some beauty or rhythm to the thing you brought me.

As soon as we can afford it, as soon as we care, we pay extra for beauty.

            

"All other difficulties are of minor importance"

The Wright Brothers decided to solve the hardest problem of flight first.

It's so tempting to work on the fun, the urgent or even the controversial parts of a problem. 

There are really good reasons to do the hard part first, though. In addition to not wasting time in meetings about logos, you'll end up getting the rest of your design right if you do the easy parts last.

            

More pious

Tribe members often fall into a trap, a trap created by the fear of standing out, and a natural avoidance to question things.

"You're not wearing the proper tie."

"That's not how someone like us gets married."

"My tweets are of the proper format, yours aren't."

"The way you are teaching your kids the rules is wrong."

"That symbol of purity isn't good enough for my family."

"Your version of the way things should be is a compromise."

"What, you're not wearing an official jersey to the game?"

As soon as someone says, "I am more pious than you," they've chosen to push someone down in order to pull themselves up, at least in feeling more secure as a member of the tribe. This might be good for the hegemony of the tribe, but it ultimately degrades the spirit that the tribe set out to create.

            

Announcing my candidacy

Today, with just 495 days before the election, I'm announcing my run for President of the United States.

I'm well aware the that electoral politics have been transformed by the collision of semi-modern marketing techniques with the money necessary to implement them. The TV-Industrial complex demands ever more partisan politics, more tribal division, more vote-suppressing vitriol. As we've turned raising money into a game similar to box office returns (where quantity appears to equal quality), candidates have almost no choice but to sell themselves to the highest bidder of the moment, again and again and again.

Once you see this, it's hard to miss, even though candidates and the media work to conceal it with big promises and lots of apparently retail politics.

Is it any wonder that voters are cynical? Marketers and marketing made us that way.

My candidacy, on the other hand, will be marked by stunning transparency:

I'm not promising to get anything done, anything at all, so there is no chance you will be disappointed.
I'm selling slots in my campaign to the highest bidder, Google style. Digitally organized bidding makes it easy for any corporation or mogul to determine what something will cost, and real-time auctions will maximize the return.
I'll just keep the money, because TV ads merely coarsen our political discourse, almost never leading to a more informed electorate.
Most of all, once elected I'll stick to talk shows and other feel-good interactions, which is what the public wants most from its President.

Marketing has changed, but someone forgot to tell the inside-the-beltway power brokers. Brands aren't built the way they used to be, but politicians insist on the impatient churn-and-burn mass market awareness that even Procter & Gamble is choosing to leave behind.

Consider this: In the 2016 election, the candidates for President will together spend more money on advertising than any single US brand. That's never been true before--and it's because marketers today know something that impatient, self-centered politicians don't. Money isn't enough.

The brand of the future (the candidate of the future) is patient, consistent, connected, and trusted. The new brand is based on the truth that only comes from experiencing the product, not just yelling about it. Word of mouth is more important (by a factor of 20) than TV advertising, and the remarkability word of mouth demands comes from what we experience, not from spin or taglines or a campaign slogan.

Movements have leaders, but mostly, they have a place to lead to. And their leader can't stop, won't stop, has no choice but stay connected, keep raising the bar, continue to cycle forward.

So no, of course I won't be running (but I was a candidate for six paragraphs).

If the history of politics catching up with commercial marketing is any guide, I think that we're about to see a fundamental shift in how we talk about our leaders (and they talk to us), and perhaps (we can hope), the media will respond in kind.

And in the meantime, your brand, your campaign, your project, will benefit from what's happening now, which is marketing, not advertising, which is connection, not interruption. We've moved past the long-lost Mad Men era. Don't do marketing the way they do.

            

What happens when things go wrong?

Service resilience is too often overlooked. Most organizations don't even have a name for it, don't measure it, don't plan for it.

I totally understand our focus on putting on a perfect show, on delighting people, on shipping an experience that's wonderful.

But how do you and your organization respond/react when something doesn't go right?

Because that's when everyone is paying attention.

            

The rejectionists

We can choose to define ourselves (our smarts, our brand, our character) on who rejects us.

Or we can choose to focus on those that care enough to think we matter.

Carrying around a list of everyone who thinks you're not good enough is exhausting.

            

Buzzer management

I started the quiz team at my high school. Alas, I didn't do so well at the tryouts, so I ended up as the coach, but we still made it to the finals.

It took me thirty years to figure out the secret of getting in ahead of the others who also knew the answer (because the right answer is no good if someone else gets the buzz):

You need to press the buzzer before you know the answer.

As soon as you realize that you probably will be able to identify the answer by the time you're asked, buzz. Between the time you buzz and the time you're supposed to speak, the answer will come to you. And if it doesn't, the penalty for being wrong is small compared to the opportunity to get it right.

This feels wrong in so many ways. It feels reckless, careless and selfish. Of course we're supposed to wait until we're sure before we buzz. But the waiting leads to a pattern of not buzzing.

No musician is sure her album is going to be a hit. No entrepreneur is certain that every hire is going to be a good one. No parent can know that every decision they make is going to be correct. 

What separates this approach from mere recklessness is the experience of discovering (in the right situation) that buzzing makes your work better, that buzzing helps you dig deeper, that buzzing inspires you.

The habit is simple: buzz first, buzz when you're confident that you've got a shot. Buzz, buzz, buzz. If it gets out of hand, we'll let you know.

The act of buzzing leads to leaping, and leaping leads to great work. Not the other way around.