Comment by kristianc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristianc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This post is incredibly reductive and feels like a restatement of Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap - which doesn't tell us much in and of itself.

I'd argue that much of the time, the distrust of marketing becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Marketing does a bad job at highlighting what it can provide to the business, and thinking strategically about what it can achieve.

This leads to resourcing conversations largely focusing on 'we need someone to write one or two blog posts' - meaning that marketing in startups is often staffed by 2-3 people.

These 2-3 people are then burdened with keeping the entire marketing machine for the company (blog posts, website updates, organizing trade show stands, PPC, SEO, whatever the CEO feels like doing this week).

Surprise - much of the work ends up being crap. Poorly executed and overly broad PPC campaigns to badly optimized landing pages that burn money. Piecemeal SEO efforts that damage brand visibility. A lack of co ordinated PR that rewards 'coverage' over strategic outcomes. Thin 'me too' blog posts that don't add anything new to the conversation. Webinars where more than 70% of people are inactive after the first ten minutes because of poor storytelling.

And then, the OP wants to sell us a 'framework' that is going to fix it! Sorry - I don't buy it. The ability to sort 'leads into buckets', content marketing, nurture marketing and other tactics like that are definitely useful - but only steps that can be taken if the rest of the puzzle is in place.

Hmm. Doesn't sound like you read this closely.

For one thing, the subtitle of my post says "In which the tech industry's stigma against marketing creates a SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY that leaves a trail of failed products, fire sales, and wasted years in its wake."

There is also a big header that says "Our anti-marketing bias has created a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Not quite sure how you missed both of those.

Also, the entire point of the article (and the framework I'm promoting) is that building the right marketing foundation is one of the major keys to getting "the rest of the puzzle in place."

The core of the framework itself has nothing to do with sorting leads into buckets, content marketing, nurture marketing, etc.

It is about building the right foundations. It is about solving the puzzle. It is about getting to the center of the Maze.

But perhaps "The Maze is not meant for you."

We're in disagreement about the source of the problem. You say it's SV anti-marketing bias. I'd disagree and say the problem is more nuanced than that.

CMOs can expect to make top top money. Most of the big problems that businesses face and that CEO's prioritize have their roots in marketing. In recent years at large enterprises the CMO has begun to challenge the CIO for who runs IT overall.

On the whole though, those marketing staff do a poor job of communicating what they can achieve to the business. Some of this is because they're old school campaign marketers who simply don't understand what is possible. Some of it is because they lack the technical ability to successfully implement cross channel marketing. So they fall back on what they know - which is a slick website and the same tired content marketing tricks everyone else is using.

It isn't Silicon Valley's distrust of marketing that is causing campaigns to be poorly executed - it's that when asked, marketing fails to present a strategic vision for what could be achieved.

It's hard to judge what your framework does - and what you quantify as building the right foundations - as this post is just a laundry list of stuff you don't like.

Again, not sure you read the article closely.

I think I made it clear that it's a case of "Yes, and..." not "either/or"

The bias is not the only source of the problem. As you point out correctly, the marketing staff falls short, too.

The real problem I define is the never-ending feedback loop between Silicon Valley's bias against marketing and the relatively low quality of marketers in the talent pool that results.

Hard to say whether the chicken or the egg came first, but it doesn't really matter.

As for the framework vs the "laundry list of stuff" I don't like...

This is just the opening salvo. IMHO, great marketing and great products often (not always) arise from a deep understanding of and insight into big unsolved problems, unmet needs, and unfulfilled desires.

This post is my articulation of a very big unsolved problem and all of its consequences.

More on the solution soon.

A huge part of the problem, which you continue to exacerbate is the conflation of the terms 'marketing' and 'advertising.' It seems you understand the difference, but look throughout the 59 comments in this discussion and you will see people use the term marketing where advertisement or advertising would be the more appropriate term(s); not to mention the places where promotion was conflated with marketing.

There are many people that seem to think marketing is the sophisticated way to say advertising, and it makes nuanced discussions difficult.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com