4 ms·

I agree. Marketing anecdotes are always fun to read, but it seems like nearly every marketing expert that comes through these pages is suffering from a serious

by crux 16y ago

I agree. Marketing anecdotes are always fun to read, but it seems like nearly every marketing expert that comes through these pages is suffering from a serious case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc with a side effect of confirmation bias. The nature of business competition is such that this author, or Malcom Gladwell, or whoever happens to be trying to find a thread of causality that they can build a strategy out of, is nearly always going to be able to find a dozen examples that bear out a given strategy, and a dozen that clearly argue for its opposite. But 'differentiate yourself early with a product that fits the needs of the market and low overhead, grow steadily, and once you become big enough to sustain multiple operations, devote some resources to experimentation in order to keep your brand vital without diluting your core message; also, make friends with governmental agencies' doesn't roll off the tongue, and doesn't seem to the be cutting insight we're looking for. The only one-sentence business strategy I've heard of seems to be 'Work hard, even if you don't see any immediate payoff, and get a little lucky.' Of course then again the fact is that most business authors are not as good as the people actually working at MacDonalds and their ilk. The author sees the way things are and can only conclude it's because they're following a natural and immutable law: MacDonald's pizza failed because it didn't conform to their natural state. But as you point out, Coffee (and biscuits) are just as unnatural if you assume that your 'one thing' is what you are right now, which is a burger stand. The reason that nearly all businesses succeed is because they have been shrewd—or lucky—enough to decide on their own form. Paring down to your core competency—which is tacitly assumed to be the thing you're best at RIGHT NOW—is sometimes a part of this process, as is experimenting with new shapes, as is finding previously-undetected connections between the two.

karjaluoto 16y ago
I'd love for you to read the rest of the book (several chapters are already online for free). I'd be interested in seeing how you feel about it after doing so. We've worked with a number of small organizations in helping them find their stories and tell them. Largely, what we've come back to is similar to what you're stating here: there are very few immutable rules. You just have to figure out what you're doing, try things out, and make the best choices you can. The challenge for the marketer (or writer in this case) is to try to find patterns and distill meaning from them. The truth is, marketing--and business success--is hard to pin down, or repeat. Nevertheless, owners of small companies often seem to think (erroneously) that the big guys have it all worked out, and that it's easy for them. What I worked to do with this book, was outline a set of good, solid suggestions, peppered with anecdotes relating to those who seem to have been successful, as well as those efforts that haven't. It's imperfect, but I believe there are useful suggestions in there; it's up to the reader to determine what might work for them. For the record, I like the strategy: "Work hard, even if you don't see any immediate payoff, and get a little lucky." The tough part is that there are a number of other questions that such a suggestion won't help answer. At those times, we have to dig deeper and get into the more gray areas. It's harder to make clear and irrefutable statements about those, but no less important to try to find some plausible arguments.
crux 16y ago
karjaluoto: I will happily read the rest of the chapters you've got up there, as I quite like your writing style. Though, as I said above, I do think that some of the overall conclusions you've drawn might end up finding lessons and principles in models that are too complex—if not chaotic—to bear them, I like much of the pragmatic advice you gave. Elements like opportunity cost and brand continuity are always good things to reason from, even if there might not necessarily be a 'And THAT'S why MacDonald's doesn't sell pizza' Just-So bow on the top. As far as what I might offer as an alternative to the specific Macdonalds pizza lesson we're discussing here, I might say that what it really comes down to is knowing WHAT you're doing, and WHY. I really do think that being prudent and judicious with the directions you take your business is very important, just as I think it's very important to continually innovate and reevaluate the market, its technologies, and its material resources. The key is that if you chase after new opportunities just because they're there, you're just as sunk as if you continually 'double down' (as they odiously say) on the same form you've already built just because it's worked in the past and it's what the subhead on your stationery says. Both of these tactics will be necessary. And maybe even still when you're young and agile. The most important thing is understanding what factors in your market will encourage one approach, and what factors will encourage the other, and to be able to explain to your team and your customers (and yourself) why a certain course is best. Mindfulness and all that. I think a lot of the industrial companies of the 19th and 20th centuries are interesting in this regard. You could take someone who made a fortune on rubber boots for 40 years. If you ask his customers what his brand stands for, they'll say it's boots. Thus making a whole new product, like tank treads, looks like trying to install a pizza oven in a burger joint. But if the Great War comes, you're gonna have a very new and very big market in rubber treads. And it turns out that a boot company making tires is more like a burger joint selling coffee: the products use a lot of the same techniques to produce and sell and it turns out that your core competency isn't boots at all, but rubber manufacturing. Of course as noted , the ability to see the commonalities between burgers and coffee or boots and tank treads is maybe irreducible.

by crux 16y ago

karjaluoto 16y ago

I'd love for you to read the rest of the book (several chapters are already online for free). I'd be interested in seeing how you feel about it after doing so. We've worked with a number of small organizations in helping them find their stories and tell them. Largely, what we've come back to is similar to what you're stating here: there are very few immutable rules. You just have to figure out what you're doing, try things out, and make the best choices you can. The challenge for the marketer (or writer in this case) is to try to find patterns and distill meaning from them. The truth is, marketing--and business success--is hard to pin down, or repeat. Nevertheless, owners of small companies often seem to think (erroneously) that the big guys have it all worked out, and that it's easy for them. What I worked to do with this book, was outline a set of good, solid suggestions, peppered with anecdotes relating to those who seem to have been successful, as well as those efforts that haven't. It's imperfect, but I believe there are useful suggestions in there; it's up to the reader to determine what might work for them. For the record, I like the strategy: "Work hard, even if you don't see any immediate payoff, and get a little lucky." The tough part is that there are a number of other questions that such a suggestion won't help answer. At those times, we have to dig deeper and get into the more gray areas. It's harder to make clear and irrefutable statements about those, but no less important to try to find some plausible arguments.

crux 16y ago

karjaluoto: I will happily read the rest of the chapters you've got up there, as I quite like your writing style. Though, as I said above, I do think that some of the overall conclusions you've drawn might end up finding lessons and principles in models that are too complex—if not chaotic—to bear them, I like much of the pragmatic advice you gave. Elements like opportunity cost and brand continuity are always good things to reason from, even if there might not necessarily be a 'And THAT'S why MacDonald's doesn't sell pizza' Just-So bow on the top. As far as what I might offer as an alternative to the specific Macdonalds pizza lesson we're discussing here, I might say that what it really comes down to is knowing WHAT you're doing, and WHY. I really do think that being prudent and judicious with the directions you take your business is very important, just as I think it's very important to continually innovate and reevaluate the market, its technologies, and its material resources. The key is that if you chase after new opportunities just because they're there, you're just as sunk as if you continually 'double down' (as they odiously say) on the same form you've already built just because it's worked in the past and it's what the subhead on your stationery says. Both of these tactics will be necessary. And maybe even still when you're young and agile. The most important thing is understanding what factors in your market will encourage one approach, and what factors will encourage the other, and to be able to explain to your team and your customers (and yourself) why a certain course is best. Mindfulness and all that. I think a lot of the industrial companies of the 19th and 20th centuries are interesting in this regard. You could take someone who made a fortune on rubber boots for 40 years. If you ask his customers what his brand stands for, they'll say it's boots. Thus making a whole new product, like tank treads, looks like trying to install a pizza oven in a burger joint. But if the Great War comes, you're gonna have a very new and very big market in rubber treads. And it turns out that a boot company making tires is more like a burger joint selling coffee: the products use a lot of the same techniques to produce and sell and it turns out that your core competency isn't boots at all, but rubber manufacturing. Of course as noted , the ability to see the commonalities between burgers and coffee or boots and tank treads is maybe irreducible.