Monday, January 16, 2006
Geeks vs Droids, pt 1341
You know, one thing I've been going on about for ages is the disconnect between Silicon Valley geekitude and the deep understanding of consumer behaviour that drives branding and marketing innovation.
I think Limbo may be a case in point.
Let me explain. It's strategies like this that make Media 1.0 suck - they exploit information asymmetries among consumers. You kept buying records you knew were sh*t because you couldn't talk to anyone and find out otherwise.
Limbo is the same - if you don't know who the sucker is, it's you. In this case, it's consumers. Limbo is exploiting asymmetrical info to push-market goods thru an obsolete mobile value chain.
Note how misaligned with industry economics that is. First, revolutionaries are doing the opposite - bringing consumers together to arbitrage these info asymmetries (the community becomes a better record label/publisher/etc - you know the score). Second, this enables pull models to emerge.
So, I think Limbo is (really) lame. Because it's dominated economically - it's marketing 1.0 disguised as 2.0, but the emperor still has no clothes.
This looks like a good post, but some of your shorthand is escaping me. What exactly allows pull models to emerge? (And is that a good thing?)
And how is Limbo dominated economically -- dominated by what strategy?
Limbo is dominated by what I described - strategies that arb information asymmetries ("aggregate" stuff), letting pull models emerge, reshaping traditional value chains, etc, etc.
Push marketing in general is dominated the economics of attention scarcity.