I was checking out an article by Brian Morrissey in Adweek titled These Brands Build Community that focuses on how such companies as Zappos, Craigslist and Yelp build their brands by building community. I was actually trying to find out more about Yelp.com but I got distracted by a couple of bizarre quotes that seemed either disingenuous or downright inaccurate.
From Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster:
"All we do is try to respond to what users are asking for…That’s how we set our priorities. Users aren’t asking us to run ads, so it doesn’t come onto our radar."
Gee, Jim, given that the last time I checked, Craigslist makes money by charging advertisers in a few big cities for jobs and certain real estate related listings, you mean the users asked you to do that?
No, of course they didn’t.
From Umair "I drank all the Web 2.0+ Kool-Aid" Haque:
"The entire economic rationale for brands is gone…Interaction is too easy now for brands to have power."
Say what?
Having read quite a bit of Haque’s online writing and having tried to ask him questions on his blog, I know that you gots to pay to get a meaningful explanation including Haque’s Kool-Aid recipe. So the concept of brands losing their "economic rationale", as absurd as it may sound, may have a backstory that makes sense.
You know, like in the Bizarro universe where Haque has been relentlessly building his own brand.
Seriously, it’s a different world for brands but in a time of attention deficit and heightened noise, a strong brand is more valuable than ever. What has changed for branding is the nature of what constitutes a strong brand and the methods for building such a brand.
Would you say that Google’s brand has no "economic rationale"?
I wouldn’t but I’m more of a coffee drinker myself.
Hi,
Perhaps I didn’t provide a full rationale for both examples. Yes, it’s true that Craigslist charges brokers and job seekers in a few cities. But the economic argument is that by charging, it’s actually improving the user experience. Those listers are more motivated to be relevant. Putting up contextual ad listings on all the pages is about revenue maximization. Craigslist, to be sure, isn’t a charity. As I point out, it has a revenue-per-employee ratio that’s off the charts.
Similarly, Umair’s quote about brands losing their rationale really was referring to classic brands that acted as important signals when the cost of interaction was high. His point is now that the cost of interaction is low — that is, we can find out exactly what’s up — that rationale is gone. It doesn’t mean brands are over, just that rationale for them. Google’s rationale is not based on scarcity or high cost of interaction. I think Umair would think it proves his point, not disproves it.
Sorry I didn’t include more about Yelp. I live in a world of scarcity: there wasn’t enough space for the print story.
Thanks for reading,
Brian
I appreciate what you’re doing and I don’t mean any disrespect but you definitely set them up for attack.
In the context of your article those look like pretty clear absolute statements that don’t hold up.
Then again, your follow up on Craigslist doesn’t really address his statement regarding their rationale for not having ads.
But you do give Haque a moment of redemption in your comments here though his tendency to make sweeping all-or-nothing claims actually counters many of the points he makes elsewhere.
Then again, if he’s doing corporate consultating, from my experience of talking to corporate types over the last few years, they love that all-or-nothing, drink the kool-aid stuff cause it makes them feel like they know what’s going on when they usually don’t. So he’s speaking to a very specific market that he’s attempting to monetize while claiming that monetization is not the point.
Hey, thanks for dropping by!