The Elephant is Not its Trunk: Stop fooling yourself about marketing

http://slash7.com/2009/12/11/the-elephant-is-not-its-trunk/

by ahoyhere • 17 years ago

30 24 17 years ago

Some salient and insightful points - but hard to reach because of all of the shameless anti-geek stereotyping (coming from an alleged geek no less).

Protip: When trying to convince a bunch of programmers that you're right, painting them with a broad, stereotypical brush is generally not helpful to your cause, like:

"But only stupid people fall for marketing"

"Please tattoo your name in binary on your forehead. It would make social interaction ever so much more functional."

"I failed Art class because my teacher took exception to me pointing out that her grading formula was calculated incorrectly!"

"Geeks tend to think that marketing is nothing but deception."

... etc. I've met very few people, computer geek or otherwise, who actually think/talk like this. By filling your article with caricatures and stereotypes like these, you're simply reducing the ability for people to identify with it (not to mention being insulting to the reader's intelligence).

There are some good insights in the article - but I do not think these points are as mind-shattering to the average geek as the author seems to believe. Marketing is not intrisically scummy and scammy? You don't say! Marketing need not be deceptive? What a concept! Marketing can be honest about its products? Woaaaaaah, duuude.

derefr• 17 years ago

I don't think this article was targeted at us. There are people like he describes, but they don't develop for the web, think about becoming entrepreneurs, or socialize on sites like this. By and large, they're dysfunctional people; introverted to the point that it hinders their success in most things they attempt. That it seems they do not exist is simply sampling bias—there aren't many "sightings" of people that don't want to be seen, let alone remembered. This has nothing to do with those of us who are willing to imagine another's viewpoint long enough to reason that they might need some convincing to buy our stuff, even if it would be useful to them.

potatolicious3• 17 years ago

I think the author's a she.

> There are people like he describes

No doubt there are - but in my experience they are few and far between. There's no need to call out a vast minority of people to try and make the point that this sort of anti-marketing belief is widespread... it is not.

I work with other programmers every single day, most of whom do not read HN, nor have entrepreneurial ambitions. More than a few are your stereotypical hackers whose sole purpose in life appears to be hacking on code.

Yet I have yet to meet someone who fits the profile the author describes. I'm sure they are out there, but to suggest that this is common, or even anything but a remote minority is absurd.

ahoyhere6• 17 years ago

I'm ny particularly pleased to burst your bubble, but this spirit is alive and well even here on HN. I know it's more fun to think of this as a bastion of rationality and reason, but it's not. Mote importantly, holding rationality and "facts" above all else is another source of different but related problems.

Not involving elephants.

Remember, the more sure you are of something, the more you are likely to be blinded to its flaws.

misuba2• 17 years ago

>"I do not think these points are as mind-shattering to the average geek as the author seems to believe. Marketing is not intrisically scummy and scammy? You don't say! Marketing need not be deceptive? What a concept!"

So all you really have is a different set of stereotypes about geeks than the author has. Who's right?

I'm starting to think the question "what is a geek" is the ultimate elephant of our time - no two geeks anywhere are feeling the same body part. (No jokes, please.) We all mistake our own local, small sample sets for the totality, and anyone who tries to make a general assertion just gets picked apart by a million people who have exceptions to bring up.

It's distressing to me, because we need powerful marketing conversations, and conversations that are all about exceptions aren't very powerful.

forensic• 17 years ago

>I'm starting to think the question "what is a geek" is the ultimate elephant of our time

The very definition of geek tends to include words like "non-conformist" and "totally focused on some tiny tiny niche that no one else knows anything about"

ahoyhere6• 17 years ago

It really isn't a relevant question. Anyone who self-identifies as a geek has skin in the game when it comes to my article because it's so much more about (self-limiting) self-image than my conception of what a geek is.

Hint: if it pissed you off, it hit a nerve.

ahoyhere6• 17 years ago

Please. I'm not anti-geek.

It was a deliberate exaggeration in order to highlight the absurdity of the actual arguments MOST geeks do make. And, for the record, I've heard various forms on those actually used - well, except the binary name one. And that one was a joke.

I totally understand that my writing is not for everyone, but it seems like you are deliberately misinterpreting it. I mean, that phrasing was couched between "tailywaily" and calling an elephant "muscly cookie dough." Surely it was obvious that while the content was serious, the delivery was not.

There is a pattern - yes, even on HN - of saying "I'm bad with names" or "I'm not an artist" -- and then turning around and denigrating those skills that other people have taken the time & effort to develop.

They hide behind a shield of überrationality instead of admitting that they find marketing & other social skills distasteful or frightening because they are hard.

Maybe as a designer/writer/social butterfly in addition to programmer, I have more of those comments directed at me than you do. Or maybe I just notice them more readily.

potatolicious3• 17 years ago

> It was a deliberate exaggeration in order to highlight the absurdity of the actual arguments MOST geeks do make.

And that's the unnecessary bit - by caricaturing whatever real perceived problem there is you've both lost credibility and created a strawman where none needed to have been created.

If geeks make these absurd arguments, then repeat them, let your readers be the judge of it. As it is all you have are farcically exaggerated fake quotes, which does little to convince the reader that any problem even exists.

> I've heard various forms on those actually used

I've also heard new programmer hires exclaim "what's SQL?!". This doesn't mean it's a common (or even uncommon) occurrence. I too have met people (from all walks of life, mind you) who are vehemently against product placement and advertisement in any form... doesn't mean they are common, and certainly I do not get the impression this attitude is more prevalent in the geek community than elsewhere.

> "I'm bad with names" or "I'm not an artist" -- and then turning around and denigrating those skills that other people have taken the time & effort to develop.

I agree with you here, but again, this is not a problem unique to the geek community. It's a problem that seems to span all of humanity... e.g., "I'm no computer whiz / What a nerd!" Calling out the geek community on this is unnecessary and distracts from the fact that it's a far more fundamental human issue.

Confusion2• 17 years ago

Perhaps, but if that is the case, then I don't doubt someone corrects them and they learn. Then their stance becomes "I'm bad with names and while I understand it can be an asset, I don't believe it is worth my time" and "I'm not an artist, but I understand how designing a UI is tricky work and I'm glad we have someone who is good at it. If I had to design that UI, it would suck.".

The next stage of enlightenment may come when they say such things to equivalents of their historical selves and someone yet again adds something to their understanding, for instance by pointing out how they could understand these skills better and how that are perhaps even more worth then they thought. Or by pointing out that while they were paying lip-service to the concept with their 'I respect that' utterings, they actually still seem to look down on the skills.

Finally, some people really are unmovingly convinced of something seemingly ludicrous, but they can defend that position, even when we disagree. Instead of bashing them for not conforming, we can sometimes learn from them, because they make us reconsider a core assumption. Perhaps 'marketers' really are all lying scumbags, but we don't see that, because people like you keep nuancing and defending what they do, which keeps hiding their actual natures.

Edit: To explain that last paragraph some more: sometimes there aren't multiple levels of enlightenment and you were right in the first instance. While everyone is busy sketching complex, nuanced, faceted, balanced accounts of the issue, all they are doing is in fact trying to straighten what is bent beyond repair. Why? Because society asserts it is straight and we try to fit in.

As an example, most atheists (want to) allow for religions in their world view. Everyone, them included, bash those 'intolerant' atheists that firmly hold there should not be any room for any religion. But the latter party may simply be right in asserting that humanity will be best of if we started a hundred year effort to get rid of all the religions. If that were the case, then a seemingly simple view would yield the best results, while all the nuanced accounts turned out to be nothing but fog.

thesethings• 17 years ago

Hmmm. I didn't interpret the article as stereotyping, but rather a writing style I think of as "Making room for skepticism." Basically sympathizing with the (stereotype) profile/skepticism/opposition the writer anticipates before putting a forth an idea.

I read this style all the time, and take it for what it is: a construct that makes things easier to digest, even when neither the argument, nor counterargument, apply to me.

Again, I usually find it helpful/intellectual lubricant, and did in this case.

That said, I can't deny your experience. If you felt friction, there must be something to reconsider in this style of presentation. Thanks potatolicious for taking the time to describe how it make you feel. I will consider your ideas the next time I have to present slightly counter-intuitive things to folks. (I often present really technical things to business people who are handicapped not by their lack of technical skill, but extremely conservative approach to risk.)

And thanks as well to ahoyhere, who posted the article. Good stuff.

robotron• 17 years ago

Why did you change the title when posting it here. Odd choice of wording...

weaksauce• 17 years ago

I would guess that the original is too long for the length filter.

trafficlight• 17 years ago

She lost me at "Or their cute little taily-wailies."

teej• 17 years ago

Then you missed the part where she says she doesn't water down her marketing messages, because it filters out people who won't be satisfied buying her product. Doing that lead to a < 0.1% return rate on her Javascript ebook.

csmeder• 17 years ago

"Geeks are used to being smart and thinking about things, so they assume that if they hold an opinion, there must be a smart and thoughtful reason for it. Everybody on the face of the planet does this little Post-Hoc Justification Dance a million times a day, but geeks are used to being proved right by outside circumstances. So they believe it even more than other people."

I agree 100%, the more you realize you do this the better your company will be in the long run.

viraptor• 17 years ago

To be honest, I don't believe much from that article... No, not the things that the author writes. I mean the general image of marketing. It's like I would talk about software that does everything you want and never crashes. It would be a really nice thing if it existed outside of some completely separated mini-universe.

"If people don’t like reading about unicorn tears on the sales site, there’s no way they’re going to like the book. [...] Only one person has ever taken advantage of the 30-day refund."

Yes - that's because people are a) lazy, b) trying to justify their choices. They did not bother to return the book; they got it as a present; they resold it on ebay; etc. etc.

Marketing in real world that we walk through every day is about selling you as many products as possible as fast as possible. That's how the performance is measured typically. That's why it doesn't matter anymore if a real person calls you. It's cheaper to do an automated call to 100 times more people, because someone will respond. That's why spam works!

"marketing is about support" may work for a 1-person shop. Sure - you will get the information you need, because that person knows his business. Then at the size of ~100 people there will be a buffer of 2 managers between him and the standard worker - each manager with their own decisions and measured by performance. They know that there's a support department and they know what it's for - answering the questions about the shit people bought. That's why you'll get a call to ask you whether you want to upgrade your service from a person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Both marketing people and programmers have the same problem - there are loads of drones in their business. It would be foolish to judge marketing by the article's author and it would be foolish to judge programming by DJB's code. They're one in a million. And the rest will work great together - one side will create millions of lines of crappy code and the other will sell it like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

The author may be describing correctly her own environment and her workplace, but... please, stop fooling yourself about marketing ;)

ahoyhere6• 17 years ago

Hey, I'm on my iPhone so I will write a more thorough response later, but --

My book is an ebook, not a physical object. I offer a very strong refund policy and getting a refund is as easy & instant as emailing the address listed on the site & book. Typical return rates for other ebooks range fro 3-5%, based on my convos with other people selling info products.

Also, when I say "support," I mean it in the traditional sense. I don't mean "customer support" as in "answering emails." Remember that that term predates that particular meaning.

Support, as I explain in my article, means helping people. I create products, first, with a goal of helping my customer make themselves/their lives better. That is my guiding purpose.

Then, with my marketing, I help them decide - really - if the product is for them or isn't for them. I make it extremely clear who the product will help, I don't cast as wide a net as possible.

Helping people realize "this product is NOT for me" is respectful of them & their time.

SapphireSun• 17 years ago

Heh, she's marketing marketing. I think my brain exploded. A lot of other threads are taking issue with her style and some of her points but you're really missing the point. She's trying to make marketing sound like something you want to do and dispel impressions of it that I know that I (and some of my friends however small a sample that may be) had at one point. It's not about logical implications, it's about creating an amenable atmosphere. Can you see yourself doing marketing? If not, then this might be an article you should read.

On the other hand, I would hope that any serious entrepreneurs on HN would already have grasped the point that marketing is good for business, so it might be a bit redundant.

The Elephant is Not its Trunk: Stop fooling yourself about marketing

Related Stories