March 29, 2017
The Iznogoud Syndrome can be defined as follows:
A startup strives to disrupt existing market structures instead of adapting to them.
In most industries, existing relationships are strong, cemented and will not change due to one startup. Therefore, a better strategy is to find ways of providing utility in the existing ecosystem.
The name of this startup syndrome is based on the French comic character who wants to “become Caliph instead of the Caliph“, and continuously fails in that (over-ambitious) attempt. Much similarly, many startups are over-ambitious in their attempt to succeed. In my experience, they have an idealistic worldview while lacking a realistic perspective on the business landscape. While this works for some outliers – for example Steve Jobs – better results can be achieved with a realistic worldview on average. The world is driven by probabilities and hence it’s better to target averages than outliers.
I see them all the time. Most startups I advise in startup courses and events aim at disintermediation: they want to remove vendors from the market and replace them. For example, a startup wanted to remove recruiting agencies by making their own recruiting platform. Since recruiting agencies already have the customer relationships, it’s an unrealistic scenario. What upset me was that the team didn’t even consider providing value to the recruiting agencies, but intuitively saw them as junk to be replaced.
Another example: there is a local dominant service providing information on dance events, which holds something like 90% of market (everyone uses it). Yet, it has major usability issues. Instead of partnering with the current market leader to fix their problems, the startup wants to create its competing platform from scratch and then “steal” all users. That’s an unrealistic scenario. All around, there is too much emphasis put on disintermediation and seeing current market operators either as waste or competitors as oppose to potential partners in user acquisition, distribution or whatever.
Startups should realize they are not alone in the market, but the market has been there for a hundred years. They cannot just show up and say “hey, I’m going to change how you’ve done business for 100 years.” Or they can, but they will most likely fail. This is all well for the industry in which it doesn’t matter if 9 out of 10 fail, as the one winning brings the profits, but for an individual startup it makes more sense to get the odds of success (even average one) greater. So you see, what is good for the startup industry in general is not the same as what is good for your startup in particular.
The Iznogoud syndrome is similar to “Market education syndrome”, according to which an innovation created by the startup falls short in consumer adoption regardless of its technical quality – many VC’s avoid products requiring considerable market education costs. Whereas the Market education syndrome can be seen a particular issue in B2C markets, the Iznogoud syndrome is more acute in B2B markets.
Simply put, startups should learn more about their customers or clients. They need to understand their business logic (B2B) or daily routines (B2C) and how value can be provided there. In B2B markets, there are generally two ways to provide value for clients:
If you do so, potential clients are more likely to listen. As stated previously, this is a more realistic scenario in doing business than thinking ways of replacing them.
I’m into digital marketing, startups, platforms. Download my dissertation on startup dilemmas: http://goo.gl/QRc11f
March 29, 2017
Update [24th March, 2017]: In addition to the formula explained in the post, I would add the following general criteria for a good AdWords case: 1) Low-Medium competition (high CPCs force to look for alternative channels), 2) Good website/landing pages (i.e., load fast, easy to navigate, have text information relevant to the keywords.
Google AdWords is a form of on-demand marketing which matches demand (keywords) with supply (ads). Because it provides good relevance between demand and supply, it efficiently fulfills the core purpose of marketing which is, again, to match supply and demand. However, while this property of AdWords makes it generally much more effective than other forms of online marketing, it also leads to a major limitation: the campaigns cannot scale beyond natural search volumes.
I often tell this to my students participating in the Google Online Marketing Challenge (GOMC), but a few of them always fall into the “trap of low search volume”. I will explain this in the following.
First, the relevant dimensions for assessing the potential in AdWords are:
These can vary from low to high so that
Low geographic range x Low product range = Trap of low search volume
Low geographic range x High product range = Potential risk of low search volume
High geographic range x Low product range = Potential risk of low search volume
High geographic range x High product range = High search volume (Best case for AdWords)
In other words, this formula favors companies with nationwide distribution and large product range. These campaigns tend to scale the best and offer the best ratio between cost and value of optimization. In contrast, local business with one or two products or services are the least feasible candidates.
Well, first of all it means the spend will be low. In GOMC, this means some teams struggle to spend the required $250 during the three-week campaign window.
Second, and more importantly, it means these cases are less interesting for marketers. They offer little room for optimization (because spend is low and there is very little data to work with).
Also for this reason the management cost of running these campaigns (=the amount a marketer can charge for his/her services) can become unbalanced: for example, if the yearly spend of a low-volume campaign is, say $400 and the marketers charges $100 per hour for his/her work, there is no point for client to pay for many working hours, as their cost quickly exceeds that of the media budget.
As a marketer, you always want to select the best case to amplify with your skills. You can think of it through two dimensions:
By multiplying them, we get the following.
Bad marketing x Bad product = Bad results
Bad marketing x Good product = Okay results
Good marketing x Bad product = Bad results
Good marketing x Good product = Good results
The same in numbers:
0 x 0 = 0
0 x 1 = 0
1 x 0 = 0
1 x 1 = 1
In other words, it makes sense to choose a case which is good for you as a marketer. A good case will work decently with bad marketing, but not vice versa. And only coupled with good marketing will the maximum potential of a good product be achieved.
March 29, 2017
I teach this very simple formula to my students when they are required to write a pre-campaign report for the Google Online Marketing Challenge (GOMC).
You want to report metrics in a table like this:
budget ctr cpc clicks impressions
250 0,05 0,2 1250 25000
(The numbers are examples.)
To calculate estimates for a campaign plan, you only need to know three figures:
In the case of GOMC, the budget is set to $250. In other marketing cases, it is based on your marketing plan.
Goal CTR is what you want to accomplish with your ads. I usually say a CTR of 5% is a good target. Based on bidding strategy and competition, however, it can range between 3 and 10%. Less than 3% is not desirable, as it indicates poor relevance between keywords and ads.
Goal CPC is what you want to pay for clicks. Ideally, you want the CTR to be as high as possible and CPC as low as possible to maximize traffic (website visitors). The actual figure will be based on competition as well as your quality score (to which CTR contributes, among other factors of relevance).
Quality score can be enabled by customizing columns in keyword view; the bid estimates for your keywords can be retrieved via Keyword planner, as well as by looking at bid estimates (first-page and top-of-page) in the keyword view. In Finland, I usually say €0.2 is a good target for average CPC. In other markets, the CPC tends to be higher.
Out of the previous figures, you can calculate other metrics:
The calculation assumes full usage of budget, which is not always possible when organic search volumes limit the growth (this is just a general limitation of search advertising).
March 29, 2017
I’ve been doing a lot of Facebook advertising. Compared to Google AdWords, Facebook Ads is missing a lot of features, and has annoying bugs. I’m listing these problems here, in case anyone working at Facebook would like to have an advertiser’s opinion, and that people working with programmatic ad platforms see how difficult it is to create — if not perfect, then at least a satisfactory system.
A caveat: although I’m updating the list from time to time, it might be some bugs are already corrected and the missing features added. The ones fixed have been pointed out by strike-through.
Acknowledgments: A big thanks goes to Mr. Tommi Salenius, who is my right hand in digital marketing.
Problems in Page Insights:
Want to contribute? Send me bugs and/or missing features and I’ll list them here.
Dr. Joni Salminen holds a PhD in marketing from the Turku School of Economics. His research interests relate to startups, platforms, and digital marketing.
Contact email: [email protected]
March 29, 2017
I keep forgetting this stuff, so noting it down for myself (and others).
1. Don’t ask “would you” questions, ask “did you” questions. People are unable to predict their behavior.
2. Don’t ask about your product, ask about their problem. Wrong question: “We have this product A – would you use it?”. Right question: “Do you ever have this problem B?” [that you think the product A will solve]
3. Only in the very end introduce your solution. Then ask openly what he or she thinks about it: “What do you see problematic about it?” Also ask if they know someone who would like this solution.
4. Listen, don’t pitch. Pitching is for other times – you DON’T need to sell your product to this person, you only need to hear about his or her life.
5. Repeat what he or she says – many times people think they understand what the other person is saying, but they don’t. Only by repeating with your own words and getting them to nod “That’s right” you can make sure you got it.
6. Make notes – obviously. You don’t want to forget, but without notes you will.
7. Make “many” interviews. Many = as long as you notice there are no more new insights. In research, this is called saturation. You want to reach saturation and make sure you’ve identified the major patterns.
8. Avoid loaded questions. False: “Is this design good?” Correct: “What do you think of this design?”
9. Avoid yes/no questions. What would you learn from them? Nothing.
10. Focus more on disproving your idea rather than validating it. In philosophy of science, this is called falsificationism. It means not claim can be proved absolutely true, but every claim can be proved wrong. Rather than wanting to prove yourself right (at the risk of making a false positive), you want to prove yourself wrong and avoid wasting time on a bad idea. Remember: most startup ideas suck (it’s true – I’ve seen hundreds, and most will never amount to business – be very very critical about your idea).
As hinted in the previous, customer developing is like doing real research. You want to avoid false positives – i.e., getting the impression your idea is good although it sucks; and false negatives which is to conclude the idea is bad although in reality it’s not.
In general, you want to avoid respondent bias, recall bias, and confirmation bias. These are fancy names meaning that you want people to tell you honestly what they think, and you want to interpret it in an objective way, not being too fixed on your initial assumption (i.e., hypothesis). Be ready to change your opinion, like Gandhi advised.
About non-interview methods, i.e. testing via landing pages.
a. Force customers to pay from the beginning – this way you see if the thing has value to anyone.
b. Needless to say: MVP. Create first the non-scalable, bare minimum solution. This is not even a product, it’s a service. Use manual labor over technology and get the user information through free tools like Google Forms.
c. If you get a high dropout, you need to make sure people understand the USP. For this, you CAN ask your friends’ opinions: “Do you get it?” But prefer friends without prior knowledge on the project, because they have fresh eyes.
Before conducting any interviews or tests, do some market research based on facts. Yes, I know Steve Blank says to “go out of the building” straight away and forget about traditional market research, but he’s not a marketing expert. Think a bit before you fly out the door: Who are your customers? Why them? Do they have money? Do they want to buy from you? etc.
You can use this spreadsheet for segmentation (not my doing, just copied it from Sixteen Ventures):
Example questions from Cindy Alvarez:
More points from Cindy (she’s a real specialist):
Here are some useful links:
If you have to read one book about this topic, read this one: http://www.amazon.com/Interviewing-Users-Uncover-Compelling-Insights-ebook
If you want to read another book, then it’s this one: http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Customer-Development-Building-Customers-ebook
If you need to read a third book, then you should stop doing a startup and become a researcher 🙂
March 29, 2017
Here’s an example on how to do PR for a crowdfunding campaign. It should be sent at least a couple of weeks prior to launch.
this is [yourname] from [yourcompany].
We are preparing to release a new product in [yourplatform], and I wanted to give you heads-up since you wrote about [a competitor] six months ago. Our product is similar, but better 😉
Here’s why it is better:
Here’s a link to press material including pictures and more information: [link]
The campaign will be launched on [date], so I hope you’d publish an article about us at around that time.
In the meantime, I’m of course available for any questions / comments!
Have a nice day,
[yourname] from [www.yourwebsite.com]