Unpopular popularity

"Nobody goes there anymore, its too crowded" is one of my favorite 'Yogis', so named for the famed Yankees catcher who is perhaps as famed for his unique turn of phrase as his play on the field.

In a study released by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, however, we find that, once again, there is a lot of truth to what Yogi Berra has to say. The study illustrates that the fall of an item or style in popularity mirrors its rise to popularity, so that items that become popular faster also die out faster.

These, my friends, are called fads. The study's authors were quoted as saying that “While it is easy to see products, ideas, or behaviors catch on in popular culture, less in known about why such things become unpopular." And this question is as critical a question to marketers as any.

In a cross-cultural, non-commercial study that harkens to Levitt's book Freakonomics, study authors Berger and Le Mens analyzed baby names in France and the US over the past century. The two researchers found a consistency in the rise and fall of given names - that the longer it took for a name to become common, the longer it took for the name to fall out of use. Parents interviewed indicated that they were simply unwilling to risk saddling their child with a name they perceived as 'faddish'.

For marketers, these results indicate that it is the perception of a trend that makes the creation of a fad self-fulfilling. While somewhat intuitive, there is often no scarcity or other economic factor that forces certain trends that 'hockey stick' in popularity to die out faster. Instead, the concept of 'the harder they fall' is based in the idea that people, for all their concern about fitting in, don’t want to be seen as following the herd. The key is perhaps in not controlling the growth, but in marketing the message - even as sales rise without apparent assistance from 'those guys in marketing' - that the growth is because of the value offered by the fast-growing product or service, and not transient fads.

And that will mean that in addition to trying something, marketing will keep people coming back, even as it gets more crowded.

Then we set his hair on fire...

A note on the death of the King of P.. pitchmen - from this outstanding obit:

"Cast as a god, the man embraced the role, seeking to remake himself in a pale, childlike image only he could understand. The endless cosmetic surgeries, the reclusive years at the Neverland Ranch and the bizarre pronouncements and behaviors are the stuff of legend. Of course, being reborn was something he could never achieve in life. The mighty, moon-walking King of Pop, largely a media construct himself, lost sight of the fact that we're simply not our own creations. Perhaps by now, an ever greater power has reminded him of that."

Certainly personal branding is important, but it is equally important to remember that ultimately, it all ends the same for each of us.

Because Results Matter

Because Results Matter. I own that phrase as a domain. It is the Strategy180 slogan, and more than that, its the way we approach clients and projects. It is also the way that I think that all agencies - and their marketer clients - should view their relationships.

But they don't, and in the process, lower the bar of expectations and underestimate the value and influence of marketing.

And now the King himself - the Burger King - must understand that 'visibility' and 'mindshare', even 'frequency' and 'reach' are tools and metrics, not goals. This article in Ad Age indicates that the award-winning Burger King campaign is failing to gain ground - even cedeing it - to that ubiquitous clown and his league of banal but effective advertising and market positioning. When the much-lauded ROMI (Return on Marketing Investment) is in negative territory, even today's stock market looks like a better bet.

Because Results, after all, Matter.

Related articles by Zemanta

• What were you thinking Burger King? (petpeeving.com)

Ahead in the Clouds

Once upon a time, Henry Ford said that cars could come in “whatever color you wanted, as long as it is black”. Then along came Harley Earl of GM who tapped into a nascent consumer demand and created a wider expectation for making annual design changes that accelerated GM’s dominance of the automotive market. (Well, for a few decades, anyway.)

Similarly, there was a time among established software developers (and users) when cloud computing (aka, Software as a Service, or SaaS) was viewed as too risky, too unstable, too limited in its feature set to ever truly replace local desktop software installations, excepting perhaps for CRM applications.

Today as WiFi/WiMax and general connectivity become increasingly ubiquitous, that desired connectivity is further leveraged by smartphones, net-reliant hardware and similar tools to make great inroads in market share. Laptops outsell desktops. The handset war (iPhone, Palm Pre and Blackberry Bold) is the new Coke and Pepsi, each phone the supposed savior of their respective companies. All this is driving a new expectation among the broader public for ubiquitous connectivity regardless of time, place or device. (Woah, déjà vous: I think I typed that on a PowerPoint slide back in 2001 regarding Unified Communications.)

Take note: The desire for always-on connectivity isn’t the driver – that was an assumed trend as early as 1998 – as much as it is an enabler. The real driver is the community of data and applications that the Web represents.

More proof: Microsoft Money, a desktop-based financial management package that had Microsoft power behind it and once enjoyed first-mover advantage, has been shelved by the Redmond behemoth, as they recognize the customer’s demand for integration and collaboration available with the SaaS models used by Intuit and Mint, among dozens of others – including their own MSN Money service. In rare candor, Microsoft states: “With banks, brokerage firms and Web sites now providing a range of options for managing personal finances, the consumer need for Microsoft Money Plus has changed.”

Note that Microsoft addresses the cloud not for its constant availability, but for the benefit of integration with the complementary applications, vendors and informational websites (“…banks, brokerage firms, and Web sites…”) that are facilitated through the web, and specifically, the collaboration that is common to Web 2.0. Intuit simply gets that the user experience matters, online and offline, and has always has outperformed Microsoft... nothing new for those of us tethered to their Office applications.

Web 2.0 is not just a curiosity or new marketing tool, but has now matured into a critical element of product development – today, mainly for software vendors – but tomorrow, perhaps also for manufacturing concerns. Like the new GM?

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Intuit managed to hold off Microsoft (news.cnet.com)

The Rules Of Business Still Apply

Remember the dot-com days? When profits didn’t matter, and the new currency was ‘click-thrus’ and ‘page views’? The bubble was built by the general public’s fascination with this new thing, ‘the Internet’, and e-commerce companies along with their telecom counterparts (installing ever-greater capacity) rode the bubble toward a sudden and inevitable burst.

Social Media is beginning its shakeout. MySpace is struggling. YouTube is gaining traction as watching video online becomes a standard media, and Facebook is seeing continued growth, but much of it outside the U.S. as this market becomes saturated and curious Boomers drop off the site. LinkedIn integrates a number of useful applications and solidifies its position as a professional’s social media rolodex.

Now comes Twitter, off its highs of the CNN / Ashton battle for a million followers, a month after an Oprah mention, a curiousity to most and not yet monetized. Studies have indicated that most new visitors stop visiting after a month, and now a report that May’s growth on Twitter was anemic, although, importantly, the time spent on the site (by its active members) grew substantially.

So what’s next for Twitter? I’m not certain, but it is critical to recognize that Twitter’s celebrity users are essentially spokespeople and pitchmen for the site, not a business model in and of themselves. According to the rules of business where a company has an established and vocal ‘tribe’ of followers in its niche, the focus should be to provide value to its most loyal customers (visitors). This may mean perhaps, more integration with the hordes of third-party Twitter applications being developed, recognizing its role not as an interactive medium but a broadcast medium and provide services accordingly, and determine the best way to monetize the platform without alienating a customer base that is not used to be ‘pitched’ with advertising. It is then that Twitter can begin to expand and regain interest among businesses and individuals who will leverage the platform and applications using methods tested and proven by the early adopters.

‘The Oprah Effect’ will only get you to the lip of Geoffrey Moore’s chasm. The rules of business still apply as Twitter attempts to cross it.

Full disclosure: www.twitter.com/jimgardner