3 ms·
All the answers seem to be from "early influencers" (Scoble most of all) advancing a view in which they're the gatekeepers. The problem with that is that you en
by ojbyrne 16y ago
All the answers seem to be from "early influencers" (Scoble most of all) advancing a view in which they're the gatekeepers. The problem with that is that you end up building products for the particularly narrow niche that is Northern California Tech PR professionals.
I can think of several huge successes that as far as I can tell, were huge long before the Tech PR community discovered them.
Facebook - built an audience at a single colleges first.
Groupon - never heard a thing about them from the PR community, until boom they were everywhere.
Zynga - just pure evil marketing crap, but seemed to work spectacularly well.
So I think that completely ignoring the "early influencer" crowd and doing plain old marketing (find a market, advertises, promote, etc) is more likely to result in huge success than is playing the SF/NYC/SxSW "influencer" game.
- nextparadigms 16y agoFacebook sort of followed the model. It built for a niche first, then for other niches, then the niches collided with each other and they start building for mainstream and standardizing their product. Chasm Companion book(and Crossing the Chasm, Inside the Tornado) explains this very well. http://www.princeton.edu/~guanchun/Books/The%20Chasm%20Companion.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~guanchun/Books/The%20Chasm%20Compa...
- ojbyrne 16y agoI have read the book. I just think that the people who style themselves as "influencers" no longer fit the model's early adopters. Mostly because they've been professionalized. PR people aren't early adopters, they're PR people.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]