RE: [uk-netmarketing] Re: The Rules

[Mat Morrison]

[Sam says: warning! this is a long post]


The frames issue seems to be resolving itself. Those old-skool people with

experience on their side, and a deep understanding of both what the web is

for and how it works seem to be fighting my battle for me.


There are a few issues of CLARITY that are being uncovered. I think that

maybe some of these rules aren't exactly self-explanatory. 


But, on the whole, they are intended to be new media marketing rules, rather

than "web" rules. You may be thinking a little close to the website build

business -- and (to be fair) why wouldn't you? A website is, however, only

part of the picture.


I'm using Ben's critique as a staging post to try and clear things up. I

will rewrite these.


> -----Original Message-----

>

From: Ben Thompson [benbabyhippo [dot] com (mailto:benbabyhippo [dot] com)]

> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:28 PM

> To: uk-netmarketing from chinwag

> Subject: [uk-netmarketing] Re: The Rules

> 

> 

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:15:26PM -0000, Mat Morrison wrote:

> 

> And some comments, but as I know the value Mat will place on 

> them I'll be outspoken.

> > 

> > THE RULES:

> > 

> > Open systems, good; closed systems, bad

> 

> It's all about support and easy of enhancement. Open systems 

> are fine provided you have or can afford the staff or 

> consultants to support them. [deletia]


Sorry. Not talking software here. Talking about business models. A lot of

product businesses try to "own" the audience, develop artificial

"stickiness", refuse to share information -- even when it is to their

advantage. Witness eBay's moves to restrict biddersedge.com -- a symbiotic

relationship. And witness the success of the Progressive Insurance model

(sell competitors' products -- attracting audience and information). You

can't be protective in this marketplace -- advantage comes from linking,

intermediating, and sharing. We can argue this point, but I'd rather not.



>  

> > If you want to sell it, it should fit through the letterbox

> 

> Hmm, only works for small cheap items where delivery does not 

> require a signature. [deletia]


Sorry -- the "letterbox" here is being used almost figuratively. What I was

trying to get across is that (a) you must consider the physical aspects of

the business. Let me pitch you a business: "I want to sell high street

clothes at high street prices but you can't try them on, and I'll deliver

them three days later". 



 

> > Take the product to the customer, don't bring the customer 

> to the product


Thinking of restating this as "Take the proposition to the consumer, don't

bring the consumer to the proposition".


Your audience is out there doing things. Put your product/proposition in

front of them. Don't compete with the telcos, ISPs and portals at their own

business. Don't build a "Heinz Baked Beans" shop, a "Persil Automatic" shop.

Do deals with retailers for distribution. Manage your channel. 


Of course you can build a website. But don't obsess about it and miss the

main opportunity.


 

> > Frames restrict access,

> don't aid navigation and confuse search engines totally.


Yeah. Think this one's covered, now. 


>  

> > Commercial communities aren't.

> Communities are what their members want them to be. Motley 

> Fool is a commercial entity but it is very much a  community. 

> The book reviews in Amazon could be called a community. 


Lack of clarity. I have a lot of product based clients who'd like to build a

"Community". They've read Hagel & Singer, and they're probably listening a

little closely to McKinsey's et al. who have a bee in their bonnet about

this.


What I mean is -- A "Persil Automatic Washing Community" is doomed to

failure. As is a "Heinz Baked Beans Kids 'n' Parents Community".  Product &

Brand Managers should think hard about this. There are  UKNM people --

please think hard before exposing yourselves to ridicule by debating this

point, or telling us about your 'case studies'.


 

>  

> > All splash screens are evil

> But not as bad as poorly implement flash detection or worse 

> flash based splash screens.


Only Robin Edwards has tried to debate this, I think. There's an old arab

saying: "Even a cockroach is a gazelle in it's mother's eyes".


> Pop-up window adverts are of course the spawn of the devil.


Yes. Yes. But I can't say that until I stop our creatives doing them

whenever I'm not looking.

  

> > The last thing people want is more websites.

> 

> More good websites will be fine. More dedicated, specialised 

> websites fine.[deletia]


You're missing the point, all of you, I think, who called me on this. Nobody

wakes up and thinks: "What I need is for someone to start a site about X".

What they do think is: "I need to know more about X", "I need better

service", "I wish Yahoo! would do something about Y". Their needs & wants

are NOT the same as the solution.


  

> > What counts is traffic through your server, not traffic 

> through your web

> > site.

> 

> What counts is loyal customers and visitors that contribute 

> something. It may be cash, content or recommending other 

> customers. [deletia, especially the "pratt" bit]


Sorry -- reference to white-labels, distribution rebadges, in situ affiliate

partnerships etc. We have a LOVELY client, 75% of whose significant traffic

comes from three nice portal deals we negotiated for them. That 75% is

primarily branded in the livery of the referring portal. If we removed ALL

references to our client's brand, we'd probably keep that 75% traffic. And

if we keep the traffic, then we keep the revenues & marketing data that

those people bring in. No?


 

> > A website is just one way of letting people play with your 

> information.

> 

> and possibly less embarrassing. 



V. funny. But this hasn't met with much of a challenge.

  

> > Online, brand is a function of utility

> 

> Pass, but the usual methods of branding (TV adverts, 

> radio...) are far to expensive for a discount cheap medium. 

> The land grab has finished and it appears that AOL, Yahoo and 

> Amazon have won.


(Yes) Even Robin didn't challenge this. Good.



> 

> > The online equivalent of space is time. Don't waste people's time.


> But time is money and they are still interchangable. The 1995 

> ideal that shopbots and other agents would destroy the 

> economic theories on cost of information hasn't come to pass. 

[...]


Yeah. Whatever. Robin's point re: "Entertainment Sites" isn't relevant to my

marketing perspective. These are rules for marketeers, not showbiz people.


> > Don't be big brother.

> Do onto others as you would have done unto you.


No argument here.

> 

> > Our busines is people, not demographics

> Demographics hide trends. However people are too random and 

> small. Groups are easier to deal with.


Demographics <> Groups. People often plan by numbers, rather than thinking

about the kind of person they're trying to talk to.


 

> And as a final thought:-

> 

> Everything I've learnt online comes from the porn industry.


Me too. Me too.