marketing strategy pyramids

When I discuss  a new venture (and I have been involved in a few) with marketing-well-versed "business-persons", one of the first things they do is to draw a pyramid on a napkin (funny how these things always happens in restaurants...):

Then I'm asked to place our product in relation to what type of companies. What part of the pyramid am I going for?

If I do not draw an arrow to the top, index fingers are raised and a lecture is given - "the big bucks are on the top, that's where you should be... etc."
(OK, "long-tail" is getting popular, buzzy even, so I might get away with an arrow to the bottom these days...but...)

That's when I flip the napkin and draw this:

This one does not describe the "firms", it's my "standard" upside-down pyramid depicting the people working there. The actual persons, the thinking persons I want to converse, and blast the hierarchies.

I tell him/her that our product is cutting-edge (as they tend to be for most startups) and that we in fact will go for the tip of the pyramid, the bottom one.

That's where the "radical" chaps/gals are. The not-so-stuck-in-the-past people. Those I can connect with. Because with no connection, no conversation, no fun, no partnership, no business.

And if you think about it, suspect that's where Mr. Dell, Mr. Gates and most others of such stature started out.

Then they drift towards the top, like driftwood towards the surface. Just ask Jeff Jarvis if not that metaphor could be applied to Mr. Dell!

Another suspected phenomena: Even the "conservative" leaders of big corporations listens to the "radicals" (did I mention blogs? Internal or otherwise...). Thus the path to the "conservative" could just as well be via the "radicals".

Cutting-edge product - go for the bottom tip.

People's attitude matters, titles does not.

Comments

[Ric]

So Sig - can you stay radical if you grow, or is it inevitable that you become more conservative with size (which is my experience to this point of time)? Is the inverted pyramid a self-fulfilling prophecy, or can we come up with some other model that combines growth with continued innovation?

[sig]

Ric, only thing I'm sure of as thigs stand today - there are filters afoot, like "behave like a proper suit" if you want to rise in the ranks, get a loan, communicate with VCs...

You know, howling-with-the-wolves.

That said I guess we'll see some changes to that - if/when the command-structures ease up :)

[phil jones]

Hmmm. I'm not sure that X-axis should have an arrow on it. Looks like you're saying the majority of firms are middle-sized.

[sig]

Hey, they're napkin-drawings, cannot ever get that perfect... if it's the paper texture or the beer... hmmm ;)

But hang on, are not the majority of firms in fact middle-sized??

:)

[phil jones]

"But hang on, are not the majority of firms in fact middle-sized??"

I'm pretty sure the majority of firms are one-person businesses. The size / frequency relation follows a power-law.

[phil jones]

Just to confirm that, check page 330 of my paperback edition of Philip Ball's "Critical Mass" (one of the best books I've read this year)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374281254/103-6133623-1007851?v=glance

[sig]

Phil, you're absolutely right of course! Kind of obvious I would add, as I correct myself :)

Have to blame the paper, or the sloppyness when bar-drawing... as the pyramid goes - widest on bottom - only problem is it's location on the X-axis... but yes, mostly very small (starting with one person operations).

Ditto for the upside-down-drawing I suspect. To make it clear, very few real radicals, much more will-have-no-changes / stick-to-old-thinking in most organisations.

:)