Size Does Matter

Alex and I came up with an idea for a talk at this year’s Web 2.0 Expo in NYC. Here’s our idea as we submitted it to them.

Short Description
Drawing on our experience with some of the world’s biggest brands, we have a bold recommendation: strive for smaller things. The world’s going that way, in biology, culture, and politics. So why are marketers still chasing big impression numbers? Why are we obsessed with the idea of scale? Let’s make small, awesome things, rather than big, crappy ones.

Long Description
Things want to be small.

Our talk provides a new perspective for the digital world that celebrates the self organization of people into groups that are smaller, harder to find, and harder to communicate with, but ultimately more valuable to marketers.

Our talk begins with our experience in helping some of the world’s biggest companies set their digital strategies, and builds on those insular learnings with those from other fields. We’ll examine lessons from biology, politics and popular culture to show that networks inexorably trend toward smaller and more specific iterations on the norm. For nations, it’s a yearning for autonomy; for field mice it’s an adjustment in width and length based on competition; for culture, it’s smaller, yet more complex ideas that create interest (see Steven Johnson).

We hope that learnings from other fields and the metaphor of “small” will help marketers in the digital age. Our mission is to break the advertising model where companies are more concerned with collecting impressions than making them.

Our three rallying cries:

Forget scale. It seems that everything is growing online except for trust in marketers. We’ve been obsessed with collecting more fans, gaining more views and bombarding more people. We want a new strategy for the next billion people to migrate online, one that is more about quality than quantity.

Design for one. Here, we challenge people to think about concept first and audience second. Also, to break away from the comfort of large caricatures of society like “millenials” and “baby-boomers.”

Segment for value. Using the Gini Coefficient (and the Lorenz Curve) we show how a small world view can help segmentation. To date, we’ve been unnecessarily inefficient with our messages by shouting them into a crowded room. Instead, we should speak softly to only those that matter.

With the internet as a catalyst, people are less and less willing to be forced into groups that don’t help them identify, belong and produce. We hope that people leave the talk with a new perspective on boundaries, measures of success and a new understanding of what’s to come for marketing.

What do you think? If they don’t pick us, we’ll do this talk somewhere else.

Comments

5 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. Jen,

    Love it – looking forward to seeing how you gents address concept first, audience second. Doesn’t a concept generally address the need of an audience, even if it’s just one person? Assuming you will flesh this out in your talk – best of luck to you two!

  2. Natalie B,

    you guys make a great team : D if you don’t know it yet i guess you’d like that book: S,M,L,XL by Rem Koolhaas and Bruce Mau (http://lava.ds.arch.tue.nl/books/koolhaas.html)

  3. Mark,

    The Gini Coefficient. I haven’t seen that since undergrad :)

  4. Great stuff as always guys, good luck!

    On the gini front, I wrote this post back in 2007, take a spin:
    http://whatconsumesme.com/2009/posts-ive-written/gini-coefficient-for-online-participation/

    But since I wrote that, I think the idea of equilibrium is a convenient trap to fall in – I think it demands more thought before we say that participation should reach what the lorenz curve or the gini coefficient calculate. Perhaps the power law may govern actual results far better… Interesting to marinate on, though.

  5. Been playing and thinking about this for the last 24.

    It’s definitely an interesting theory…and one that I’ve seen proven right in a number of different environments. Best example I can think of for manipulation of scale is Digg’s cartel of power users and their dominance of the front page. 2-300 people working together can drive an exponential amount of traffic/attention towards content.

    I still think that you need to provide opportunity for engagement though for the regular user. That’s where your argument for awesome content comes into play. Appeal to a few…so those few can take to the many. I’m convinced that serendipitous encounters via exposure are still valuable though.

    Going to need to explore this further for sure…thanks for getting me started :) .

Trackbacks

2 pings so far.

Add Your Comments

Disclaimer
Your email is never published nor shared.
Required
Required
Tips

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <ol> <ul> <li> <strong>

Ready?