Pokémon Go vs Growth Hacking | Hacker News Reader

Pokémon Go vs Growth Hacking

medium.com

33 pointssamsolomon15 comments

Twitter didn't used to send random push notifications like "@justinbieber is trending on Twitter. Follow them." either. Tumblr didn't used to send random push notifications with 80% emojis. But now they do, and super annoying.

Whenever I see a company start sending these random "retention" push notifications I know they're fucked and they're just trying to stop a leaking bucket.

Pokemon is not at that stage yet, so this article is missing the point. I will bet that Pokemon will start doing this in the near future when the novelty wears off and they need to live up to the stratospheric expectation the media has built up for them.

I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing that at some point. But it is quite amazing and notable that Pokemon Go achieved this level of success without any of it. Other highly visible brands still employ traditional growth tactics. Star Trek Timelines pushes me like 10 times a day smh.

Doesnt need any of these things for it has: 1. Huge loyal fan base built up since 90s 2. People post their Pokemon Go experiences naturally on FB/ Snapchat/ Twitch due to the visual nature of the content (i.e. Pokemon are cool looking when imposed on real world things) 3. When you see people walking weird with their phones out you automatically know its Pokemon Go. Great constant real world promotion

Yeah. Pokemon is a brand that a lot of people already recognise and care about. Your project you're 'growth hacking' for likely isn't.

Then again, Pokemon GO does show the value of one other thing:

1. Having a really cool idea and actually implementing it.

Miitomo (Nintendo's previous mobile app idea) didn't have this, and hence its popularity has fell off a cliff. Pokemon in the real world is something people wanted. Random customise esque social app based around questions and answers wasn't.

Honestly, I found this post really weak.

'Pokemon Go does (or not) X, Y, Z, it's growing real quick, think about what you are doing!'. There are thousands, if not millions, of apps that do the same things but they end up nowhere and have total of 3 downloads (one of them is the developers mother).

It's like a list of '10 personality traits of successful CEOs', ignoring millions of people sharing the same traits and stuck at a cubicle and a dead-end job (or collecting unemployment benefits).

Also, it is missing one of the key points: 'Pokemon Go is using an extremely recognizable world wide brand'. We can't pretend that the 'Pokemon' bit of 'Pokmenon go' doesn't matter.

Especially in light of Ingress before it

I did say "strength of brand [...] is everything". I think we are saying the same things :)

My bad, sorry!

I think the point wasn't so much to say that Pokemon Go doesn't need these things and so your puny startup app doesn't either; but rather to compare Pokemon Go with other games that are equivalently-huge IP licenses, and notice that in those—where the brand is already so strong—the ones that do apply growth-hacking tactics (i.e. every other major company) seems to be suffering as a result of it.

So, if you're a mobile-game "growth hacker" working at EA or Activision or wherever, maybe pay attention.

Pokemon has grossed something like 46 billion dollars.

http://www.pokemon.co.jp/corporate/en/data/

Its already pretty big. How much growth hacking do you need when everyone already knows about you. All the kids who grew up in the 90s now this game. They are now adults with kids of their own. I see parents and kids playing together. When someone comes up with a startup no one knows about you have to be creative in getting users. Even Facebook did a lot of spammy things to get users.

This isn't an apples to apples comparison. The Pokemon Company is over 18 years old and has brand recognition.

Kinda ironic considering the girl who wrote this works for Periscope.

A lot of highly visible brands use a lot of growth hacking in games, and in my experience this is true with brands that are sub-licensed to small studios. Final Fantasy RecordKeeper, Star Trek Timelines, The Walking Dead Road to survival...they all send push notifs many times a day, have frustrating stamina/fatigue mechanics, etc. They are also all very similar to each other in terms of game mechanics.

Pokemon Go manages to surpass them all without the same kind of growth hacks because of brand, yes, but also because it's a unique and compelling experience for the mainstream.

Anyway we are literally saying the same thing :)

Uh, Apple could put a picture of a penis on the upper right of every iPhone, and they'd still sell like hotcakes.

Established brands do what they do, and get away with what they get away with. "Bob's Great Hello World App" isn't going to get rocketed to the top because they mimick a couple of things Pokemon Go is doing.

As much as I think the original article is bullshit, I still think it's not just about the brand.

According to that logic, any project that involves well recognized brand should succeed.

That is far from true. Especially in mobile games, if you look closely the ones who spend the most on promoting their games are the biggest brands. You still need to spend tons of money on marketing if you're building is just another candy crush clone or just another temple run clone.

As an example, I do not think if Niantic came out with a sequel--say a super mario version of Pokemon Go--it would succeed as much as they did with Pokemon Go. It's not just about the brand. It's also about luck, timing, and how it makes people feel.

Oh, absolutely. People are ready to ditch anything that doesn't deliver enjoyment. Good brands selling a shit product or two. The original article is definitely more about the layers of marketing bullshit on top, than the actual content.

I do agree that the tactics they tick off are all annoying garbage. Nonetheless I'm frustrated with the article's bad logic, which I think everyone here is also saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com