Is “Marketing” by “Wants” dead?

Seth Godin has made the argument that traditional marketing as we know is DOA (these are the points made by Mr. Godin in my language but I think I’ve given an accurate portrayal of his views):

1. People aren’t buying new products… they can’t afford it, they don’t have the time to use/enjoy it or they just plain don’t want it.
A. Budgets are stretched to the point of snapping for the consumer, the business and the government. The ability to buy unknown and unfamiliar products is small.
B. No one has time. At least that’s what everyone says. If they perceive they don’t have time they are hesitant to get involved with any product or project that is going to cannibalize even more of their time.
C. We have “everything” we want. The person of today lacks very little and we just aren’t as needy as we use to be.
D. Even if we do want it the selection afforded us in virtually every product category and service is limitless and due to overcapacity and competitive pressures usually very affordable and accessible.

Mr. Godin point out that in the last 20 years or so, we have gone from having more time/fewer choices to little time/more choices. That being the case the way we marketed products 20 years ago (or less) can’t work in today’s environment.

In today’s market the consumer will:
1. Will ignore you… they have too many messages directed at them and are quite frankly bored with the whole process.
2. Will not tell his or her friends of your superior product/service because no one has the time to do that.

The typical markets are gone… anything from frozen pizzas to pain relievers to books on yoga to ebooks on selling products on Ebay. All have reached the point of oversaturation.

The old rules just don’t work anymore.

Do you agree with Seth Godin?

And if you agree (even a little) what do we as marketers of products and services do about it?

If you don’t agree I would enjoy hearing why…

Take care,

Mike Winicki

I really don't understand this argument.

If frozen pizza isn't selling, why do they stock the fridge at my local supermarket full of them?

If people have less time, then why has E-bay exploded in popularity? Seems kind of odd that-- if people have less time, they are somehow able to spend hours browsing and bidding on E-bay items. Especially nonsensical items like packing popcorn in the shape of Elvis.

If people don't "need" anything anymore and don't have time to experiment with new products, then why are so many brick and mortal companies finding success on the internet? (Despite the .com bomb).

And how would Godin explain the phenominal interest in the "IT" people mover invention?

I just don't buy Godin's argument. Maybe it seems this way to him because his last book sold so poorly. :)

- Adam.


Dog Training Information... Get your dog to listen to you, anywhere you go!

> I really don't understand this argument.

> If frozen pizza isn't selling, why do they
> stock the fridge at my local supermarket
> full of them?

The point about the "frozen pizzas" is not that they aren't selling it's that there are tons of companies selling them, which makes it an extremely difficult market to break into. As are most markets... again overcapacity and oversaturation have created a bonanza for the consumer and a huge road-block for new competitors in that market.

> If people have less time, then why has E-bay
> exploded in popularity? Seems kind of odd
> that-- if people have less time, they are
> somehow able to spend hours browsing and
> bidding on E-bay items. Especially
> nonsensical items like packing popcorn in
> the shape of Elvis.

That is exactly why people have less time. You and I may agree that searching for packing popcorn shaped like Elvis maybe a complete waste of time but to the people doing it, it is extremely important. You as a marketer now have the daunting task of trying to get this consumer to stop looking for Elvis long enough to pay attention to your marketing message.

> If people don't "need" anything
> anymore and don't have time to experiment
> with new products, then why are so many
> brick and mortal companies finding success
> on the internet? (Despite the .com bomb).

You see that is exactly why the brick & mortar and catalog companies are doing so well on the net--they bring years of relationship building to the table. People deal with Dell, LL Bean, Lands End, Blair and the others because they've dealt with them off-line. It was the companies that had no prior relationship that got killed. Amazon paid and continues to pay a steep price for doing things the "new" way and trying to forge a relationship where none existed before the Internet.

> And how would Godin explain the phenominal
> interest in the "IT" people mover
> invention?

I'm not familiar with this so I can't comment.

> I just don't buy Godin's argument. Maybe it
> seems this way to him because his last book
> sold so poorly. :)

Maybe it is.

> - Adam.

> The point about the "frozen
> pizzas" is not that they aren't selling
> it's that there are tons of companies
> selling them, which makes it an extremely
> difficult market to break into. As are most
> markets... again overcapacity and
> oversaturation have created a bonanza for
> the consumer and a huge road-block for new
> competitors in that market.

I still don't buy his argument. It reeks of, "Oh, how things were so much better in the good 'ol days."

There is a larger market today, with greater demand for frozen pizza than ever before. This is why there are more companies selling frozen pizza. Plus, technology and advertisers to reach consumers more effectively (cheaper) than ever before.

> That is exactly why people have less time.
> You and I may agree that searching for
> packing popcorn shaped like Elvis maybe a
> complete waste of time but to the people
> doing it, it is extremely important. You as
> a marketer now have the daunting task of
> trying to get this consumer to stop looking
> for Elvis long enough to pay attention to
> your marketing message.

People don't really have less time. They only THINK they have less time. The average work week has gone from 14 hour days to 8 hour days in the last 100 years, while the amount of disposable income and size of the market has increased.

> You see that is exactly why the brick &
> mortar and catalog companies are doing so
> well on the net--they bring years of
> relationship building to the table. People
> deal with Dell, LL Bean, Lands End, Blair
> and the others because they've dealt with
> them off-line. It was the companies that had
> no prior relationship that got killed.

I disagree. This a myth that has been perpetuated by the media. The truth is: Companies with poor business models got creamed. In contrast, companies with no prior relationship have prospered. Small, local businesses no have access to consumers in other markets. For example, my father's small sign shop in S. Calif. now does 30% more business than before the internet, to business on the other side of the country. They had no prior relationship with him, and because of geographic distance, would have NEVER known of him.

> Amazon paid and continues to pay a steep
> price for doing things the "new"
> way and trying to forge a relationship where
> none existed before the Internet.

No, Amazon pays a huge price for trying to train make the consumer do things in a new way. And because their business model has very low profit margins.

> I'm not familiar with this so I can't
> comment.

> Maybe it is.

I don't know... I've just never been a big fan of Godin. I've wanted to be... as he has a knack for picking topics that are very interesting to me... but he just neveer seems to deliver on the follow through.

I signed up for his e-zine when his "Permission Marketing" book came out, and to date I think I've only received on e-mail from him. This could be a fluke... have you received regular e-mails from him?

- Adam.




Dog training information: Secrets of a Professional Dog Trainer... click here...

> For example, my father's
> small sign shop in S. Calif. now does 30%
> more business than before the internet, to
> business on the other side of the country.
> They had no prior relationship with him, and
> because of geographic distance, would have
> NEVER known of him.

Our family business rents cottages on the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. MacLellans Cottages online is responsible for 30-35 percent of all bookings... maybe more.

We've noticed a number of these people who found us on the web have become repeat customers every year.

Regards,
Steve MacLellan




homebusiness-websites.com

Yes... I've noticed the same results with people out here in Texas. One guy who owns an 8,000 sq. ft. B&B said that he does no marketing at all... 100% of his business has been from the net.

...selling by numbers. Both metaphorically and actually.

The rules of selling and marketing *have* changed. How could they not in the explosion of the Information Age?

Most problems in increasing market share stem from using outmoded tools in a changed world.

As an experienced professional who sells direct to business owners I know the massive shift that has taken place.

They are astute people and they are fed up to the back teeth of almost any kind of cold approach. And they get loads..and it increases by the HOUR!

It must be like being the only good looking girl in a night club of leering men

The old sales reality says 'just keep asking her out...its a numbers game'

While the New Reality screams for God's sake do and say something *different* that *works*!

New tools are needed in a New Reality

Its likely that anyone increasing market share today (generally speaking) is unwittingly using some of the New Reality strategies...or...they are ranked well in search engines in a profitable niche.

The problem being if it is a niche attracting people to spend others (in the information age) will soon get to know so success can be shrtlived.

Understanding the New Reality and using the right tools is the only long term solution in warp speed times.

Great thread. Take care,
Andy


Selling in a New Reality

I'm no expert. I can only speak about my
own buying habits:
generally I don't buy what I "want" but
I buy "what I think the product can do
fro me".
Just my point of view.

> I'm no expert. I can only speak about my
> own buying habits:
> generally I don't buy what I
> "want" but
> I buy "what I think the product can do
> fro me".
> Just my point of view.

Every product on the market can do something for you. But you narrow your selection because of some underlying want you may or may not be aware of.

For lack of a better example right now, let's say I want to color my hair to cover my gray. I know EVERY hair color product out there will do the job. Some better than others.

I know I WANT to look good, so that eliminates some of the products due to my preceived knowledge of given products... i.e. I want a natural color, not a brassy redhead or platnium blonde.

One would ASSUME that the more expensive the product, the better job it would do, but that may NOT be the case, so I do a bit of research on the 'Net and/or through Consumer Reports.

The point I am trying to make here is that even though I have decided on a given product that I THINK give me a good natural color I still WANT to look good.

The underlying want is to look good. The decision gives the product I think will accomplish this.

> I see your point; but I would buy
a hair product which I think would
give me the look I want which would
satisfy my need to have a nice hair
color(which is what the product is
doing for me:giving me the look I
like)
We could go circular with this argument;
but the bottom line is I look for something
more other than just "wanting it"...
Let's not take it any deeper-I know what
I mean for myself.
Thanks for your opinion

Every product on the market can do something
> for you. But you narrow your selection
> because of some underlying want you may or
> may not be aware of.

> For lack of a better example right now,
> let's say I want to color my hair to cover
> my gray. I know EVERY hair color product out
> there will do the job. Some better than
> others.

> I know I WANT to look good, so that
> eliminates some of the products due to my
> preceived knowledge of given products...
> i.e. I want a natural color, not a brassy
> redhead or platnium blonde.

> One would ASSUME that the more expensive the
> product, the better job it would do, but
> that may NOT be the case, so I do a bit of
> research on the 'Net and/or through Consumer
> Reports.

> The point I am trying to make here is that
> even though I have decided on a given
> product that I THINK give me a good natural
> color I still WANT to look good.

> The underlying want is to look good. The
> decision gives the product I think will
> accomplish this.