My Photo


« Results: Will or Environment? | Main | Getting Out of A Rut »

January 25, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Arturo F Munoz

It seems to me, Robert, that we often base our marketing on science fiction principles because we don't deal directly with the customer but with a figment of our imagination.

You said that people will only act in their own best interests, and that they need to have some degree of familiarity, trust, and information about a service before they will take the next step. This puts the burden on us to ask them for what they want rather than presume we know what they want.

The former case takes time and effort that we fear will cost us an opportunity NOW, when in fact sidestepping it only costs us the actual opportunity.

Where lies the balance between the time you take to validate your assumptions about your target clientele and what you need to leave untested to not let opportunity pass you by?

Judy Murdoch

I loved the article title. Made me laugh and I don't often laugh first thing in the morning.

From my perspective, the biggest problem with a lot of marketing in general is it never takes into account how people actually behave.



robert, it is surprising, how many people talk this way - about their 'marketing plans'.
when i was into advertising and marketing communication design business, i found 98% (not statistically, just figuratively) people (entrepreneurs, SBOs) talk this way.
and when asked a little more probing questions, the pat response was: "why are you so negative? how are you so sure it will not work? whats the harm in giving this a try? somebody will respond positively."

at that time, i had no clue how to shift their thinking from the 'imaginary mode' to the 'reality mode'.
but, since then i have found - and this is a saving grace - that when it comes to doing (without talking; conceptualising; justifying or explaining), most people have a 'reality gene' which is far wiser than this 'story-teller' gene.
what i mean is, on the field, they are more 'real' and wiser than in their ideations and talks. and what is amazing is, most donot recognise this difference in their approach.

(this is what i have encountered and experienced - in india. and my context could be very much the cause of what i experienced. what i am saying is, i wouldn't tag this as 'the truth' - even for myself)

The comments to this entry are closed.