Silicon Valley, Disrupt Thyself
Two founders of a stealth startup reached out to me on LinkedIn recently asking for 30 minutes to provide feedback on their idea. They were struggling with product market fit and seeking perspective from seasoned marketers.
In chatting with them, I was impressed with three things:
Unlike many entrepreneurs who wait to test their assumptions, these founders were doing research before they spent a lot of their investors’ money
They were responsive and grateful for my detailed critique
They had no idea what they were doing
Essentially these entrepreneurs were trying to solve a problem — with AI, of course — that didn’t exist in the first place. Their web widget I believe, and they came to agree, would have made webpage navigation more confusing instead of less.
“They lacked even a glimmer of a minimum viable product.”
The burning question is this: How did they get funded? Apart from possessing Silicon Valley’s preferred gender, skin tone, and elite educational credentials, it was hard to see how this duo had attracted dollars from its nameplate investors.
They were smart and earnest young fellows, but they lacked even the glimmer of a minimum viable product. More worrisome is that they didn’t seem to have the capacity to even imagine what might be useful to an average human visiting a website, which any of 8 billion marketers on Earth (made-up number) could easily take an educated guess at.
VCs expect to make money on roughly one out of 10 investments (NOT a made-up number), and I’ll bet this helps explain why the success rate is so low: Very few VCs have marketing expertise so they discount its value. A natural result is misplaced bets and unrealized business potential.
Anecdotally, I find that many – although certainly not all – in the Valley think of marketing as a thin veneer of words and design, slapped on the product as it ships. In fact, marketing gives the customer a seat at the table during product design, helping tune both product and messaging to customer needs and delivering creative assets only in later stages.
In a nutshell, marketing is only as important as your customer.
Okay! Time for audience questions.
“But don’t the engineers need to get the product right before we talk to prospects?”
Of course you need to be certain that the product is viable. But who’s to say what the “right” product is if not the folks who will use it?
2. “How can we do research when we didn’t build time or budget into our plan?”
First off, you should have – and your VCs / board should have helped you with that.
Secondly, with market research, you can get prospects’ feedback at the concept stage – before developing a product with low market potential. You might need to pivot, but you’ll be pivoting much faster — increasing your likelihood of being among the 10 percent of startups who make it. This is especially true given that basic research can be ridiculously quick and affordable.
“Silicon Valley’s overall success doesn’t mean it ain’t broke.”
Another anecdote: I recently worked with a serial entrepreneur who wanted my help repositioning his company due to a misfire on the target audience.
He’d burned through most of his Series A funds developing a product based on what seemed like strong market potential. Very late in the game, he learned that the audience his product was designed to help had no purchase authority and that the people who controlled the purse strings had zero interest in supporting the first group.
So he was spending his last A-round pennies retooling towards this new audience although a quick round of market research one year earlier could have saved him all of that struggle.
This man is a highly educated, very successful entrepreneur and investor who has been in the business for decades. When I mentioned that, for his other startups, we could conduct research earlier in the process to identify the key purchase dynamics, he waved off the idea.
This is how the Valley does business all too often: Investing huge amounts of time doing things they’re comfortable doing while claiming there isn’t time or money to talk to the customer prospects who are ultimately going to make or break their success.
Maybe this complaint seems silly given the Valley’s status is a history-defining powerhouse of innovation and capital generation. I have all the respect in the world for that (and for its impact on my property values – thanks!) But at the same time, that doesn’t mean it ain’t broke.
This is capitalism with a literal capital C leaving money and efficiency on the table simply because it’s used to doing things a certain way. Venture is thrilled to disrupt other industries, but the benign tweak that I’m suggesting seems too “risky” for most. Of course, VCs’ management fees blunt the impact of unsuccessful portfolio companies. But the startups themselves enjoy no such cushion.
Silicon Valley, here’s an idea worth funding: Disrupt thyself. #sos #sendmarketing
Challenger brand case study: Reverse engineering the Harris-Walz creative brief
I used to cover presidential campaigns as a political reporter. Today I look at them through the lens of a strategic marketer.
What I’m seeing is a challenger brand, Harris-Walz, that is truly nailing its campaign strategy: Developing a fresh narrative and tone, harnessing cultural tailwinds, rapidly prototyping messaging, and using insight to find its way into the audience’s consideration set despite an entrenched competitor.
Whether it ultimately works remains to be seen. The election is weeks away, honeymoons end, and Republicans have an electoral college advantage. It’s worth noting that while the Democratic National Convention averaged 3 million more viewers over four nights than the Republican National Convention (21.8 million v. 18.9 million), Donald Trump retained a lead in most swing states even in the heady days following the DNC, according to realclearpolling.com.
So Harris-Walz is still the underdog. But underdog brands have the opportunity to excite and inspire their audience with a fresh story, which is harder for an entrenched brand. Just ask Joe Biden. And Donald “They stole the election four years ago” Trump.
In the wake of last week’s Democratic convention, here’s a thought exercise imagining the creative brief for the Harris/Walz challenger brand campaign and, in the table below, key ways the campaign team has delivered so far.
HARRIS-WALZ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CREATIVE BRIEF
Summer 2024
ASSIGNMENT
Develop a visionary Challenger Brand Strategy to reverse the Democratic slide and put Harri-Walz in the White House.
OBJECTIVES
Persuade middle class moderates and swing voters to support Harris/Walz
Overcome Democratic voters’ enthusiasm gap. Excite them to feel great, donate, vote, volunteer, and advocate
AUDIENCE
Moderates and swing voters aren’t choosing Trump’s negativity as much as it’s been a dominant narrative that has come to feel inevitable. It grows stronger by feeding on itself with no compelling alternative. Democrats are frustrated by their side’s lack of vision and vigor. The erosion of personal freedoms and macroeconomic forces feed feelings of middle class hopelessness. Trumpism’s dark narrative has started to feel inescapable – even normal.
INSIGHT
People aren’t mired in fear and negativity because they want to be. There’s a latent appetite for a different kind of story: an inspiring, positive vision that can invigorate people and help them feel part of something bigger.
MAIN MESSAGE
“Together let’s build a bright future of joy, freedom, and unity.”
PILLAR MESSAGES
Joy, Freedom, “Do something”
TONE
Joyful, Self-assured, Spicy
HOW THE CAMPAIGN IS DELIVERING ON ITS STRATEGY
How talking to just 12 “real people” opened up a universe of business opportunity
Just 12 interviews yielded revelatory insights that moved the messaging from good to great.
Of the eight months I recently spent crafting brand strategy for a consumer technology client, two days stand out as by far the most valuable: the days I interviewed “real people” – gen pop tech users.
Just 12 interviews with U.S. homeowners yielded revelatory insights that moved the messaging from good to great. While surveys had told us what people know they want from their home technology, actually speaking with them unearthed a value proposition that would surprise and delight them.
It’s easy to under-estimate the importance of qualitative research because the results aren’t statistically significant; quant is an easier sell to the cerebrum. And quant is critically important as a baseline. But the difference between echoing what quant will tell you audiences want – versus providing them with unexpected and exciting messages based on insights from real conversations – can be the difference between white noise and category leadership.
While popular culture tends to diss qualitative research (“focus groups are rigged”) asking your audience about their challenges and preferences is very much an act of respect. And when your company’s communications are interesting and useful, the value flows back to your brand.
“Note to cerebrum: statistics aren’t the point of qual.”
An investment of less than $3K for our recent recruit yielded 12 hours of great video conversations and, ultimately, a unique positioning that simply wasn't foreseeable from within the four walls of the marketing department.
Maybe that’s surprising given that we spoke to only 12 homeowners out of more than 100 million wifi-using households in the U.S. That’s statistically as unreliable as you can get. But, note to cerebrum: Statistics aren’t the point of qual.
If your cerebrum is standing between you and connecting in this way with your audiences, here some data points that can help resolve the cognitive dissonance:
The alternative to talking to a small sample of people is talking to none. Yes, per the above, you can and should survey your audience for a baseline understanding. But to explore ideas and connect the dots between your offering and peoples’ actual lives requires real human interaction. To understand how people think and feel, you need to hear their voices and see their faces. So it’s important to talk to people – and twelve is a lot more than zero.
A well-crafted recruit will ensure you’re pinpointing relevant folks. Your screener should reflect the bullseye of your target audience on filters like household income, purchase stage, and product usage. On criteria that don’t directly relate, it’s best to find a well-rounded mix. Recruits should also pass an articulation test so it’s clear they can communicate well.
Consistency is reliable. People have very different opinions on topics like, say, who should be president. But on many topics – say, the family refrigerator, or the benefits of working from home – the spread will be narrower. The learnings are in the patterns that emerge. If no clear patterns emerge, you may need to narrow the parameters of your recruit or you may have introduced a topic people don’t know or care much about. Which may turn out to be the answer to your question.
You can, and should, replace any duds. If an interviewee isn’t providing sufficient answers, you can end the interview with a thanks and have them replaced. I discovered recently that one interviewee wasn’t actually in the market for the product we were discussing – she had lied on the screener. I ended the interview, told the recruiter, and they ate the cost. They also removed her from their database. It’s on your recruiter to find useful subjects that don’t waste your time and money.
Face-to-face research is one thing I’ve never regretted in nearly 20 years as a creative and brand strategist. This is a perfect time for all good cerebrums to get in line!