7 ms·

So here's the thing. It takes work and effort to get attention. "if you build it, they will come". Never has one cliche been so exactly wrong. Programmers, my

So here's the thing. It takes work and effort to get attention. "if you build it, they will come". Never has one cliche been so exactly wrong. Programmers, myself included, believe(d) that the code is the product. That the code will speak for itself. That being "better" (for some definition of better) is enough. If I build it, they will come. The truth though, the code is about 10% of the effort to make a successful product. It is much more work, and frankly harder work, to to the marketing to get the product in front of the customer. It is then much more work to turn that into a sale (if your work is commercial.) For decades I've heard programmers lament that they do all the hard work, they deserve the lion's share, all those guys do is sell it. So here's the thing. Your code does not just "get attention". You earn that by investing time, and money but mostly time, in getting that attention. That means going to where your target market is. Showing them you can add value to the group (I spent a lot of time answering unrelated questions.) showing how your offering can add value to the group. You do not "get" attention, you have to _earn_ it. So, if you want your product to get more attention, then by extension you need to personally get more attention. You need to find your target group, be useful, be helpful, engage with them, built trust. So you've made a tool for people without a smart-phone. OK, not a market I would have chosen[1], but that's not relevant. The thing you need to figure out is how to reach those people. Since they are not online, you will need to reach them offline. You need to go to where they are, not expect them to find you. [1] choosing a market first, one you have a strategy to reach, then making a product is usually better than the other way around. Not least because joining a community, and adding value there for s while, before making a product, builds trust. It also helps you build a product they will find useful, not just something you randomly thought of. This is life; through failure we learn more, through persistence we achieve.

anonymouse008 4y ago
Here’s the deal - if you build (great things) they will come. The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.” If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherwise, yes, you will slog with the rest in SGA and CAC games. scale isn’t the only way to success.
- wbsun 4y ago
  > The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. +1000! Praising is cheap.
- bruce511 4y ago
  >> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. Oh, I think they are. You just haven't seen them (yet?) and you probably never will, because their creators are slaving over perfection, somehow expecting the randomverse to spot it. The winners are the ones who accepted imperfection, who were brave enough to show the incomplete, who were prepared to make the effort to do more than just write code. VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product. For every success there are 10 guys with a story about how their effort was better, how the winner was rubbish. But the winner always won the marketing game. Too many coders are playing the perfect game of checkers, in a world where everyone else is playing an average game of chess.
  - anonymouse008 4y ago
    I love this very much. Yes, so many creators never even show their work - I'm guilty and a multiple offender here - but the error is a far cry from the 'marketing' or 'product manager' position that's usually portrayed. > VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product. While these are tantalizing examples on the surface - if you dig deeper, you'll see they are all failures to give a damn about the end user. I'll just take the first at first level: Betamax didn't allow for competition in the production of the tape player, thus being hundreds of dollars more for marginal improvement in picture quality. They ignored the end user over partnerships - aka they didn't build something great. I'll step in your shoes and say one could argue that Apple proves that marketing matters, but that too, misses the big picture - Apple's iPod specs may have been less technically proficient, and though there was marketing - the very first time you felt aluminum and the glossy plastic in your hand - it was a completely different world of experience, in spite of its technical standing - that product was just great, period.
baxtr 4y ago
One of the best comments I have ever read on HN. Thanks. And: I fully agree!
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
Sounds like advertizing gospel to me. It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false. If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world. Maybe even a better one. A world where companies aren't asking "how can we fool people into buying more of what we're already making" and instead ask "what can we make that's so good it practically sells itself?" Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.
- throwaway4good 4y ago
  “ Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.” That is definitely not a law of nature.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Depends on how big the quality difference is, if it is big enough then your product will grow exponentially via word of mouth, like Google did for example. That is just simple math, if you are good enough that people want to tell others about it then it will grow. Problem is that today most technological needs are already filled by good programs so adding significant new value to peoples lives is extremely hard, so it is very unlikely that you can make naturally growing programs today on a tiny budget.
    - necovek 4y ago
      Google initially targetted a niche (geeks and nerds like us) with no-fuss, no-ads search experience where weight of the result depended mostly on how many citations it had. They were very present at conferences related to free software, for instance (which I'd consider investment in marketing). And this group was the one in charge of "fixing their relatives' computers", so we were all too happy to tell them about Google: this is how word-of-mouth worked for them.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    Then why do all social animals organize into hierarchies?
arinlen 4y ago
Outstanding comment. Thank you for investing your time writing such a gem.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." It's true that effort helps success, and working for visibility is as important as working on making something great. But sometimes life is just arbitrary. Anyone who has worked in the "pop" media knows this. Artists pour their life and soul into films, symphonies and albums that get no listeners. They practice guitar for 10,000 hours and agonise over each note of a composition. They push and nothing happens, and they live in perpetual hope of "being discovered" in a world of overwhelming over-supply. One day some kid sticks a bangin' donk on a boing sound and it goes straight to the top of the charts with no explanation. Unfair? Unjust? Not really, if you allow for the essential randomness of things. Perhaps we put far too much belief in our ability to value things, and that includes marketing and communication as much as "quality" of design and execution.
- bruce511 4y ago
  >> Unfair Of course its unfair. Life is unfair. There is quite literally nothing in life that is "fair". Fairness is the worst hope you can have. If you are waiting for life to treat you fair, then you will die disappointed. And if you are reading this, then likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back. If you have success, then the best thing you can do is spread some unfairness around. Help others up, you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do. Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Almost. I love the bold poetic of how you put it. But let's please s/fair/equal/. The vernacular use of fair means something more than "equality". The idea that life could be equal is patently ridiculous, and self-evidently undesirable. Equality is the worst hope you can have. > likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back. That's a bit too pared down for my tastes. It supposes a linear, monotonic, single dimensional quality of life upon which we all agree. None exists. The best candidate - per capita GDP - is fatally flawed, as discussed here in many vibrant exchanges. As if some (disastrous) communist type reckoning could "reset" the world to parity? No, of course it never could. For one thing we'd all be in different physical locations, different ages, mental abilities, and so on, each dimension having its attendant pros and cons. In such a transformation many aspects of "Our western life" would actually improve, and not to see that would be parochial. I'd say, if you're reading this; you're probably in an position, intellectually, to appreciate how an imposed "equality" would radically change your life, and make it worse in many ways but better in some others. Such a thought ought to shine light on the richness of life and culture that makes this unfair world such a beautiful place. What I love about your comment is that compassion is not made a dependent of any schoolboy ideologies about equality or fairness. > If you have success, spread some unfairness around. Help others up. you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do. Absolutely. Bravo. > Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have. I find this "empowering others" an ideal that resonates with me as a subversive stance against brain-dead systems that hold people back so that the chosen few might rule. It's spreading "fairness" by spreading "unfairness". Tactical dissemination of knowledge (fairness redistribution) is, for me, a core true hacker value. Code is one of the most extraorinary ways to transfer power. Like blatantly telling my students how to game and hack the Kobayashi Maru dreamed up by "well meaning" but ignorant administrators.
Lurkars 4y ago
Yes I think you're totally right. That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time. Of course it's naive and not totally right, but to some point I would say, I am immune to advertising. If I need something, I do research if there is something valuable. If someone wants to sell me something, in the end I am even more skeptical about the product. Anyways, I didn't thought my post will get that much attention, it was more for my self-compassion. Because I know, how I at least COULD try to fix the issue. But I just don't want to. From another comment here: > but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions In the end, it comes down to this. So yes, there is now solution. I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.
- bruce511 4y ago
  >> That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time Exactly. And you don't need to. No one says you _have_ to market. But marketing leads to attention. So I think you know the cause effect here. >> . I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best. I'm not sure I can say this without being a dick, which is a pity, because I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying this out of a place of respect. There are around 8 billion people on earth. I promise you that if I did all the research I'm pretty sure (statistically) your projects are not the best. There's an even chance they are not even average. Plus, I'm guessing there are likely 100 projects that do what your do. Should I do a deep dive into each one. Do a comparative analysis? 1 hour on each? Say a month's full time job? Repeat for every bit of software I've ever installed? Did you install each BSD build and every Linux distribution, and every other OS out there before you selected one for your computer? Did you try Oberon or reactOS? Surely you did your own research for this most critical part of computing? Of course not. We outsource our research. We Google. We solicit the opinion of others. We use whatever is convenient, available, and in front of us. Me, I did research. I decided that people who were prepared to put effort into marketing would make a product that better fitted my needs, because they are showing interest in customers. Again, I say this not to be a dick. You have choices. You understand cause and effect. You are welcome to do the work, or you are welcome to labour in obscurity. It's your choice. But make no mistake, you are not doing your own research, and you are not making the best product. I'm sure you are making things with value, but if you don't get it out there, we'll, the result is well understood.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

anonymouse008 4y ago

Here’s the deal - if you build (great things) they will come. The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.” If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherwise, yes, you will slog with the rest in SGA and CAC games. scale isn’t the only way to success.

wbsun 4y ago
> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. +1000! Praising is cheap.
bruce511 4y ago
>> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period. Oh, I think they are. You just haven't seen them (yet?) and you probably never will, because their creators are slaving over perfection, somehow expecting the randomverse to spot it. The winners are the ones who accepted imperfection, who were brave enough to show the incomplete, who were prepared to make the effort to do more than just write code. VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product. For every success there are 10 guys with a story about how their effort was better, how the winner was rubbish. But the winner always won the marketing game. Too many coders are playing the perfect game of checkers, in a world where everyone else is playing an average game of chess.
- anonymouse008 4y ago
  I love this very much. Yes, so many creators never even show their work - I'm guilty and a multiple offender here - but the error is a far cry from the 'marketing' or 'product manager' position that's usually portrayed. > VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product. While these are tantalizing examples on the surface - if you dig deeper, you'll see they are all failures to give a damn about the end user. I'll just take the first at first level: Betamax didn't allow for competition in the production of the tape player, thus being hundreds of dollars more for marginal improvement in picture quality. They ignored the end user over partnerships - aka they didn't build something great. I'll step in your shoes and say one could argue that Apple proves that marketing matters, but that too, misses the big picture - Apple's iPod specs may have been less technically proficient, and though there was marketing - the very first time you felt aluminum and the glossy plastic in your hand - it was a completely different world of experience, in spite of its technical standing - that product was just great, period.

baxtr 4y ago

One of the best comments I have ever read on HN. Thanks. And: I fully agree!

hypertele-Xii 4y ago

Sounds like advertizing gospel to me. It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false. If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world. Maybe even a better one. A world where companies aren't asking "how can we fool people into buying more of what we're already making" and instead ask "what can we make that's so good it practically sells itself?" Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.

throwaway4good 4y ago
“ Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.” That is definitely not a law of nature.
- Jensson 4y ago
  Depends on how big the quality difference is, if it is big enough then your product will grow exponentially via word of mouth, like Google did for example. That is just simple math, if you are good enough that people want to tell others about it then it will grow. Problem is that today most technological needs are already filled by good programs so adding significant new value to peoples lives is extremely hard, so it is very unlikely that you can make naturally growing programs today on a tiny budget.
  - necovek 4y ago
    Google initially targetted a niche (geeks and nerds like us) with no-fuss, no-ads search experience where weight of the result depended mostly on how many citations it had. They were very present at conferences related to free software, for instance (which I'd consider investment in marketing). And this group was the one in charge of "fixing their relatives' computers", so we were all too happy to tell them about Google: this is how word-of-mouth worked for them.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  Then why do all social animals organize into hierarchies?

arinlen 4y ago

Outstanding comment. Thank you for investing your time writing such a gem.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." It's true that effort helps success, and working for visibility is as important as working on making something great. But sometimes life is just arbitrary. Anyone who has worked in the "pop" media knows this. Artists pour their life and soul into films, symphonies and albums that get no listeners. They practice guitar for 10,000 hours and agonise over each note of a composition. They push and nothing happens, and they live in perpetual hope of "being discovered" in a world of overwhelming over-supply. One day some kid sticks a bangin' donk on a boing sound and it goes straight to the top of the charts with no explanation. Unfair? Unjust? Not really, if you allow for the essential randomness of things. Perhaps we put far too much belief in our ability to value things, and that includes marketing and communication as much as "quality" of design and execution.

bruce511 4y ago
>> Unfair Of course its unfair. Life is unfair. There is quite literally nothing in life that is "fair". Fairness is the worst hope you can have. If you are waiting for life to treat you fair, then you will die disappointed. And if you are reading this, then likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back. If you have success, then the best thing you can do is spread some unfairness around. Help others up, you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do. Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Almost. I love the bold poetic of how you put it. But let's please s/fair/equal/. The vernacular use of fair means something more than "equality". The idea that life could be equal is patently ridiculous, and self-evidently undesirable. Equality is the worst hope you can have. > likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back. That's a bit too pared down for my tastes. It supposes a linear, monotonic, single dimensional quality of life upon which we all agree. None exists. The best candidate - per capita GDP - is fatally flawed, as discussed here in many vibrant exchanges. As if some (disastrous) communist type reckoning could "reset" the world to parity? No, of course it never could. For one thing we'd all be in different physical locations, different ages, mental abilities, and so on, each dimension having its attendant pros and cons. In such a transformation many aspects of "Our western life" would actually improve, and not to see that would be parochial. I'd say, if you're reading this; you're probably in an position, intellectually, to appreciate how an imposed "equality" would radically change your life, and make it worse in many ways but better in some others. Such a thought ought to shine light on the richness of life and culture that makes this unfair world such a beautiful place. What I love about your comment is that compassion is not made a dependent of any schoolboy ideologies about equality or fairness. > If you have success, spread some unfairness around. Help others up. you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do. Absolutely. Bravo. > Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have. I find this "empowering others" an ideal that resonates with me as a subversive stance against brain-dead systems that hold people back so that the chosen few might rule. It's spreading "fairness" by spreading "unfairness". Tactical dissemination of knowledge (fairness redistribution) is, for me, a core true hacker value. Code is one of the most extraorinary ways to transfer power. Like blatantly telling my students how to game and hack the Kobayashi Maru dreamed up by "well meaning" but ignorant administrators.

Lurkars 4y ago

Yes I think you're totally right. That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time. Of course it's naive and not totally right, but to some point I would say, I am immune to advertising. If I need something, I do research if there is something valuable. If someone wants to sell me something, in the end I am even more skeptical about the product. Anyways, I didn't thought my post will get that much attention, it was more for my self-compassion. Because I know, how I at least COULD try to fix the issue. But I just don't want to. From another comment here: > but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions In the end, it comes down to this. So yes, there is now solution. I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.

bruce511 4y ago
>> That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time Exactly. And you don't need to. No one says you _have_ to market. But marketing leads to attention. So I think you know the cause effect here. >> . I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best. I'm not sure I can say this without being a dick, which is a pity, because I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying this out of a place of respect. There are around 8 billion people on earth. I promise you that if I did all the research I'm pretty sure (statistically) your projects are not the best. There's an even chance they are not even average. Plus, I'm guessing there are likely 100 projects that do what your do. Should I do a deep dive into each one. Do a comparative analysis? 1 hour on each? Say a month's full time job? Repeat for every bit of software I've ever installed? Did you install each BSD build and every Linux distribution, and every other OS out there before you selected one for your computer? Did you try Oberon or reactOS? Surely you did your own research for this most critical part of computing? Of course not. We outsource our research. We Google. We solicit the opinion of others. We use whatever is convenient, available, and in front of us. Me, I did research. I decided that people who were prepared to put effort into marketing would make a product that better fitted my needs, because they are showing interest in customers. Again, I say this not to be a dick. You have choices. You understand cause and effect. You are welcome to do the work, or you are welcome to labour in obscurity. It's your choice. But make no mistake, you are not doing your own research, and you are not making the best product. I'm sure you are making things with value, but if you don't get it out there, we'll, the result is well understood.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]