Does Marketing Matter Within Web 2.0?
I was reading a story last night about MySpace in the latest issue of Wired, and it twigged me about a discussion I had with my brother, Sean, about whether marketing really matters within Web 2.0. If you think about it, many of the biggest brands and most popular services - MySpace, Google, YouTube, PhotoBucket - were mostly created on the strength of low-cost viral marketing and word of mouth. There were no expensive advertising campaigns or well-crafted public relations initiatives. Instead, these companies offered compelling and useful services that resonated with consumers. So what role does marketing play within an environment that prides inside on low development, distribution and marketing costs? Is there room for hotshots like Tara Hunt, who expound new marketing theories for the Web 2.0 world. You could probably make a good argument that Web 2.0 companies with interesting and useful services can get away with a single marketing person (albeit someone who can wear a variety of hats). Instead of marketing campaigns, companies should just focus making their services, meeting the needs of users, and using nontraditional tools (blogs, podcasts, self-generated e-mails from the CEO when someone signs up for a beta, etc.) to build a community and create a brand. Of course, you could argue these are marketing tools but they are grassroots as opposed to hiring some slick marketing agency to "build" your brand.
Update: Ben Barren has a few bon mots about the Wired story while Om Malik takes the opportunity to highlight a Business 2.0 story he wrote on News Corp.'s Internet strategist, Ross Levinsohn.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Dan Dickenson made a comment on his blog (copied below) about Jonathon Ehrlich's session at the MESH conference. In essence, great product alone does not result in success but you need a great product to make marketing effective. Whether this holds true in the Web 2.0 world is anyone's guess. However, I am cynical to the belief that youtube, myspace etc did not do any promotion…
“The best point of the day, I thought, went to Jonathan Ehrlich from Chapters Indigo, who simply stated that you can have the best marketing in the world, but unless you have a kickass product behind it,the marketing’s pointless. To me, this seems like common sense, but some people actually debated him about it. Specifically, they claimed that it was marketing that made the iPod great; Ehrlich’s point was that the product was good first; then came the top-notch marketing. Good product + great marketing = #1; great product + shite marketing = Creative Labs. Their players have more functions, longer battery lives and better prices. Ever heard of ‘em? Exactly.”
June 28th, 2006 at 10:05 am
I don't think the theory is that marketing/promotion doesn't matter. More that mass media marketing has not been the vehicle to success. The comparison to iPod is interesting, but it's a bit apples to oranges (no pun intended). Asking someone to drop a few hundred bucks on a consumer electronics gadget needs mass branding appeal and an apparent cool factor. While I could be completely off base, Web 2.0 services by definition seem to require a community based approach to adoption. Google is a great example - in its early years, it was the posterchild of the post-bubble Internet. As the 800 pound gorilla of search, there certainly are a few more questions floating around about its “Do no evil” mantra. How much traction is gained by a small, Web 2.0 company just by being a small, Web 2.0 company?
In a very un-scientific test case/example, I looked at the Google careers site. Even after looking at only a few locations (US and International), there are a fair number of marketing jobs on offer. (Not surprising.) YouTube - zero.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:41 am
The only time these Web 2.0 companies will use traditional advertising is when they reach critical mass and are sold to a big media company. That's when they really “jump the shark” and are no longer relevant.
PardonMyFrench,
Eric
June 28th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Since the beginning, the web has had a habit of deciding that certain products and services really just need one dominant brand online. The Economist coined the phrase 'technopoly' to capture this idea that society is well served by delegating certain things to institutional brands. Competition doesn't always improve the breed, see, and sometimes it complicates things. So we just kind of organically anoint a brand… that's how you get category dominant brands that appear to have built their franchises without reaching out somehow. But those brands are dangerous models. The information superhighway - remember that, all you Negroponte fans? - is littered with the smoking hulks of wonderful businesses that thought they could make it happen with just three of the four Ps. In a quarter of a century of doing this brand stuff, I can tell you I have never not once seen a business succeed in a competitive category without telling the world about itself somehow. If a business idea can build a franchise without competing for attention, then what you have there is a commodity waiting to happen. It pains me to see all the Cluetrainers heading over the same cliff as their predecessors. I just want to give them all a big hug and say, 'guys, really, if you're respectful and truthful, people actually like it when you tell them about yourself. It makes them feel like they matter.'
June 29th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Hi, Mark. It's true that MySpace, Google, YouTube, etc. were mostly created on the strength of low-cost viral marketing and word of mouth. However, you're only looking at the best success stories in Web 2.0.
Companies that aren't necessarily going to become Billion dollar businesses (and don't need to in order to claim success) are still going to rely on marketing to get them there.
Having said that, viral marketing, blog and WOM strategies must be developed and become part of any marketing plan.
Conclusion. Traditional marketing is losing ground but still remains relevant for all the companies that didn't achieve YouTube viral marketing success.
p.s. funny story about the 6-year old losing his wi-fi connection.
Best,
George
June 29th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Maybe it's the title, but the more I think about it, rather than “marketing”, does mass media matter to Web 2.0 companies? While the usefulness of marketing won't change, how/what is delivered may. Shouting from the mountain tops is ineffective and difficult for Web 2.0 companies. As Forrester notes, “Successful marketers will instead facilitate word-of-mouth campaigns, keep customer advocacy top of mind, and integrate themselves into the community to gain consumer buy-in.”
August 9th, 2006 at 2:53 am
Hi there,
If your looking for an automated, hands free way to begin earning bundles of cash 10 minutes from now then head on over to http://www.typeathome.biz