Marketing used to be a contest for attention
But now, marketing is a contest for CONNECTION
Whoever owns the connection, wins
Marketing isn’t a scam
Marketing makes change happen. Marketing makes your creations known
I'll share some tactics & frameworks I use
How to get lucky in marketing in 2021:
Marketing used to be a contest for attention
But now, marketing is a contest for CONNECTION
Whoever owns the connection, wins
Products that make you feel good or defend you from being cancelled, spread fast
Ex: Make clothes out of recycled plastic
Point: People want a chance to show they stand for something
Some of the world’s biggest brands were catapulted in the 1960s via TV
Brands bought TV ads. Captured attention
Working with creators is like buying TV ads in the 1960s
Point: Co-building with the right creators is like fishing with dynamite
Prediction: every public company will own a media arm
It’s a magical shortcut to building true fans
Ads just don’t hit the same way
Scarcity creates tension
Scarcity creates word-of-mouth
Scarcity sells
Limited number of physical pieces
Limited number of NFTs
Limited number of events
Limited spots in your community
A drop is a product (often separate from your brand) that creates viral moments in your community
I'd suggest creating a "Drop Roadmap" launching 3-4 drops per year
Goal: to create trust and spread the word
Point: drop the ads, and build drops
Have you subscribed yet?
https://t.co/F3G2HRaeqB
More from GREG ISENBERG
More from Marketing
The emergence of many new hypocrisies typically heralds an emerging new cultural synthesis.
Are you disturbed that you agree with one of those viewpoints? Or perhaps that other people you respect do?
1/x
Let me offer a framework for thinking about things like this, something called an “Omega Event.”
It was first described to me by Erik Martin, one of Reddit's first community managers:
In governance, Omega Events exist due to the fact that no system of beliefs, no worldview, no set of rules, can account for everything that will ever happen.
Eventually someone (or some group) will do something that lies outside the scope of all existing rules, and you will have to make decisions again from first principles.
Sometimes the Omega Event emerges from the confluence of many unrelated factors. When it does, it is wholly different from anything you’ve encountered.
Are you disturbed that you agree with one of those viewpoints? Or perhaps that other people you respect do?
1/x
\u2014 HYPOCRISY \u2014
— emily (@emnode) January 9, 2021
\U0001f4cdFree market conservatives outraged that a private social media company can decide who has access to its service.
\U0001f4cdSo called liberals overjoyed at the prospect of powerful corporations taking control of the content and information we're allowed to see.
Let me offer a framework for thinking about things like this, something called an “Omega Event.”
It was first described to me by Erik Martin, one of Reddit's first community managers:
In governance, Omega Events exist due to the fact that no system of beliefs, no worldview, no set of rules, can account for everything that will ever happen.
Eventually someone (or some group) will do something that lies outside the scope of all existing rules, and you will have to make decisions again from first principles.
Sometimes the Omega Event emerges from the confluence of many unrelated factors. When it does, it is wholly different from anything you’ve encountered.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
