“Marketing is the price you pay for being unremarkable”

Quote from Robert Stephens, founder of the Geek Squad - via Carsonified.
I've read this quote before, but it hit home this morning having just gone through a big PR push for GigPark.
I chose to interpret the quote like this: Rather than spending a lot of money on marketing, it's always better to spend your time and money building a remarkable product/company that people want to talk about and journalists want to write about.
I still believe that PR/marketing/advertising experts can be an incredible resource to help you spread the word, but they shouldn't be used to drum up interest in a product or company that isn't, in some way, remarkable.
Avoiding the hype cycle
Startups and hype seem to go together like women in Vancouver and yoga pants - they're inseparable.
Women might need pants, but my question is do startups really need tech hype? Do they always benefit from it?
Valleywag re-posted their hype cycle chart today...
This kind of technology hype is obviously important for companies targeting the web2.0 crowd. It will make or break brands like twitter, Joost and Justin.tv. But for companies with a different target why not stick to the tried and tested model: identify your audience and approach them with a compelling proposition and a solid product.
Sometimes I think startups are too quick to target the tech media, hoping for coverage and, well, hype. Maybe they think this is the only way? The classic marketer in me would ask: If your target audience isn't reading TechCrunch then why do you need a story from them so badly? Do you really need all of the visitors that will come from an appearance on the front page of Digg if they're not the type of customer that will stick around and make your business a success?
Of course all businesses have several target audiences, and one that IS reading the tech media are investors. So maybe my point is that there is a time for tech hype - and that some startups can get ahead of themselves. Let's see if I still agree with that in 9 months when I have been through a bit of a hype cycle myself ;).
If you’ve ever wondered, this is what a public relations disaster looks like…
Check out this train wreck of a video.
It was taken at the PowerSet party on Saturday night. The comments on the TechCrunch story are a good read too. My favorite: "I am a VC who has invested $100,000 in PowerSet and am desperately worried."
Does consumer PR sell products or stock?
I had a beer a couple of weeks ago with Ian Barr from Hill and Knowlton, a large PR firm here in Toronto. We were chatting about how PR is used in modern business. One question I had was how many clients were coming to him to promote a new product versus coming to him explicitly wanting to impact their share price? Now, I'm not talking about investor relation or corporate PR - that's always been focused on share price. I'm talking about consumer facing communications.
Ian said effecting the share price was not the main reason clients gave for planning a consumer campaign but that the conversation was coming up a lot more in meetings.
I guess the point behind my question was this: In a world where citizens create the media (blogs, etc), and the investment community monitor that media, the line between investor relations and consumer PR is blurring. If you want to effect share price in this scenario you put an ad on TV (or on YouTube) - not just in the business pages. Or to stick with the PR story - you message the masses, not just the business journalists.
I wonder how long it will be until the scales tip and marketing managers talk about share price first and product launches second? Maybe soon if the Bombardier commercials that played during the Superbowl are anything to go by.



