I have been through quite a bit - big companies, small companies, failed start-ups and successful ones, big companies pretending to be start-ups and start-ups pretending to be big companies - and despite my sincere efforts, I am yet to discover how to market a start-up.
One could indeed say that about Marketing itself: John Wanamaker's "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half" has been embraced as the justification of the marketing practise. However, while this may sound playful or funny in a big company, such an approach is plain fatal. The company could easily die, and mostly die, before ever reaching the useful part of marketing.
But, then, this is perhaps a starting point to talk about marketing a start-up. That there is no money to waste, and therefore, no money to spend on marketing without knowing what works. Which is basically to say that start-ups must market itself differently from the big companies, which creates its own problems because every conversation, case study or formula in the Marketing profession is either for the big companies with budget, or hyper-funded start-ups with unlimited money.
When I asked a famous Marketing Professor why there is so little on marketing of start-ups, his answer was, "because they do not think!" But, as I know, they think, think hard and almost think so much that they die - but that was another matter. My intuitive answer, which was gained through the years in the front-line including the years of running my own start-ups is that it is because there is no commercial reason for anyone, consultants or professors, to think about start-up marketing. So, while it is urgent and important - do we not talk about enterprise economy all the time - there is little conversation out there about how start-ups market themselves.
While thinking about it - and the trigger perhaps was a two-day branding workshop that I recently attended, which was all about applying the big company branding principles to start-ups - I have cobbled together a set of insights that may help a start-up owner to think about Marketing. Insights they are, as I wanted to present them as they came, not as Rules with claims to 'science' or a Manifesto with world-changing ambition. But, even without claims to any authority, I think this is just right for the personal, less definitive world of the start-ups that I live in.
1. Start-ups are NOT Small versions of Big Companies
I am quoting Steven Gary Blank, and I think he is spot on. Too many teams think this way, and they are always building small versions of big companies, hiring people who spent life in big companies, throwing money at fancy branding and campaigns, and doing other things as big companies will do as a way of life. The point, of course, is that much of it is not just wasteful, it is plain subversive, because big company thinking destroys the key reason why start-ups exist: To explore and to learn.
Essentially, that is Steve Blank's point: Start-ups are learning entities, it is an entity in search of a business model. The big companies are just the opposite - it is about execution of a working business model. And, marketing, accordingly, for start-ups is about generating the insights and learning from the market, and not like big companies which is about educating the marketing.
2. Start-ups Learn from Data, But Unexpected Things
One of the perils of Big Company thinking in Start-ups is how they use data. The big company culture of many start-up owners and investors insist on a data-driven culture. However, the problem in data-driven culture in a start-up is that they do not often know what they are looking for or they are looking at. They would often mimic big companies and create models as they do, using the little data they have. But, as anyone sane would know, little data often misleads, making one extrapolate trends when there isn't one, and labelling important insights as outliers because the frame of reference may be misdirected.
I have seen this play out with hilarious, if tragic, effect, with start-up teams celebrating meaningless achievements, and discarding useful suggestions because they did not want noise in their data models. But, my beef is not with the data itself, as learning requires feedback: It is that many start-up owners tend to look for patterns too early and with shallow data, and by doing so, they close themselves off alternative possibilities. The start-ups relationship with data is often a quest, rather than a decision exercise. It is about generating and participating in conversations, than creating the pretence of knowing everything beforehand. Unfortunately, the VCs like that, and this is how people live in big companies where these pretences are highly valued, but this has a disastrous effect on Start-up decision making.
3. Start-ups seek Scale, but only those who Connect get it
Start-ups seek scale: This is natural because scale makes them real. However, too many start-ups build for Scale, and scale alone. All the conversations centre around this obsession, and anything not scalable is not considered unworthy of trouble. But this is where big company thinking is in action again, as Connections make a start-up successful in scaling.
The objective of the Start-up Marketing is to establish this connection. And, in a way, premature quest for scale gets on the way, as connection requires humility and commitment that run counter to building scale. Too many start-ups want to be Facebook, and miss the whole story about Facebook being created dorm-by-dorm, being a personal thing with a limited context.
4. The Authoritative Start-Up is A Myth
When a company is a start-up, it is best to admit it. Many start-ups want to claim history, mostly of their Founders', or of some supposedly famous invention (which, in today's start-up scene, is mostly about graduate papers written in business schools), and come to market as authoritative ones. However, without the hyperfunding of silicon Valley type, it is far easier to go for authenticity, and define oneself not by history but by desire! I know the merits of faux authority, but it is often unsupported by reality, so these start-ups face the problem of 'not wanting to be the member of any club that will take them as a member'. All those brand consultants hung up on archetypes and narratives would readily concede that it is hard to be something one is not; and yet, the start-up scene is littered with false claims of authority and businesses that are so patronising that no one wants them.
5. The Inauthentic Authentic should be Resisted
Authenticity is a much abused word, particularly in big company marketing. In fact, of late, marketing function has taken upon itself the task of manufacturing authenticity. Despite its implausibility, fake autheticity is a real thing, therefore.
Once they have fallen into the branding trap, Start-ups often forget why they exist. Big companies have more money and can attract better staff, and hence, should be able to, in theory, solve all the big problems. Yet, they do not, and often Start-ups do, because people often wants start-ups to do this for them. This is primarily because the start-ups are more authentic - they can engage and do things differently from a bureaucratic machinery of a big corporation. One of these endearing attributes of a start-up is that they are authentic, even in their failings. And, hence, authenticity is one of the last things that a start-up should give up.
In practical terms, any Start-up Founder who is unwilling to maintain a Twitter feed (or, in an ideal world, a blog) should not be a start-up founder. If they are not finding time to converse or connect, they are in a wrong place.
6. Social Responsiveness is the Default
Social responsiveness is like Authenticity for a start-up: This is one of the reasons start-ups exist. The handicap for big companies is that they are too distant from any society: They do not belong anywhere anymore. in contrast, Start-ups are, and have to be, fully embedded in their surrounding, drawing people, ideas and often funding from it. Social Responsiveness for a start-up is not a slogan, but just its way of being. So, that Start-Up Founder who can sincerely and unshamedly talk about a local/ social issue on their Twitter feed, or believe in a cause (Anita Roddick comes to mind), has more chance of success than the others bleached clean of controversies by PR professionals. Social passion is the best PR for a start-up.
7. First Customers Are Co-Creators
For a Start-up, its first customers are partners, at least in most cases. They help build the solutions, they contribute in the conversations, they establish the models. Too many start-ups overlook this, particularly those seeking scale and try to sweep the first customers rather like embarrassing uncles whose money one craves but not company. Sometimes, these custmers are treated as useful trophies, but no sense of acknowledgement. But customers make the brand, even for big companies (the suggestion that Facebook should give one share to each member is more than just a ridiculous slogan), and start-ups can only ignore this at their peril.
Indeed, my broad point is simple: Start-Ups are a business form that can harness the power of enterprise to solve problems, but not until they are self-aware and do things differently from the big companies. And, the best approach to marketing for start-ups is based on a quest for authentic conversations, based on real human connections and social responsiveness, and in partnership with its customers. Any start-up that pretend to be a big company, one that treats itself as God's gift to humanity, or one that try to read insights that were not or create illusions of certainty through fragments of data are dangerously missing the mark.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Reli
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
As India's democracy reaches a critical juncture, with a very real danger of a authoritarian take-over, Rabindranath Tagore's birth anniversary is a perfect occasion to revisit the founding idea of India once again. There are many things in his politics that we may need to dust up and reconsider: Tagore's political ideas, because of his inherent aversion of popular nationalism and enthusiasm about Pan-Asianism and universalism, were outside the mainstream of the Indian National Movement, seen as impractical and effectively shunned. He was seen mostly as the Poet and the mystic, someone whose politics remains in the domain of the ideas rather than action. Tagore himself, after a brief passionate involvement in politics during the division of Bengal by Lord Curzon in 1905, withdrew from political action: He never belonged to the political class, despite his iconic status and itinerant interventions, such as returning the Knighthood after the massacre of Amritsar in 1919.
The story of British influence on Indian Education, to which Macaulay's Minutes of 1835 belong, has been told in six distinct phases. Syed Nurullah and J P Naik's very popular and influential History of Indian Education calls these 'six acts' of the drama: From the beginning of Eighteenth Century to 1813 The British East India Company received its charter in 1600 but its activities did not include any Educational engagement till the Charter Act of 1698, which required the Company to maintain priests and schools, for its own staff and their children. And, so it was until the renewal of its charter in 1813, when the evangelical influence led to insistence of expansion of educational activities and allowing priests back into company territory. From 1813 to Wood's Education Despatch of 1854 The renewal of Charter in 1813 re-opened the debate, which seemed to have been settled in the early years of the company administration, between the Orientalis
I spent the last week at the Ideas for India conference in London. This conference had different strands, and brought the diaspora Indians, India watchers and a number of delegates from India together. Because Rahul Gandhi chose to attend - a rather last minute thing which changed the published agenda somewhat - the media narrative revolved around his 40-odd minutes of talk. And, of course, a sense of discomfort hung over the whole conference: A wholly new thing for me and it shows how much India has changed. Somehow, the people in India seemed to think that no conversation about India should happen anywhere else in the world, a strange thing for a country which is anxious to assert its global importance. Additionally, anything outside the official channel is seen as conspiracy. Gone are those days when the presumptive opposition candidate, the current Prime Minister, could freely interact with the diaspora Indians and slam Dr Manmohan Singh's lack of initiative; today, this wou
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.