The Bottom Line caught up with Eric Metelka '13, co-founder of Digital Media Certification, a training company with a mission to make every enterprise marketer understand the value of digital channels.
@eric3000 How Your Startup Can Use Social Media for REAL RESULTS! @eric3000!
When there’s something new on the horizon in the tech/startup world, our favorite thing to do is talk it into an oblivion. Last week’s SpinnakrTalks Panel was our foray into the realm of full-stack marketing as we spoke to 6 full-stack marketing experts about the future of our industry. I strongly believe that the rise [...]
I have all the time in the world right now. I am sitting at my desk at home right now because I do not have class until 2:15. And that class is a five minute walk from my apartment. I have all the time in the world. Then why am I up until 1 or 2 AM every night, even on weekends, doing work? Rand Fishkin wrote a great post on work/life balance that I felt compelled to respond to. I credit him for being so open and honest about both his personal and work life. I don’t know many other professionals that will admit they has a terrible vacation with their wife where they fought often. It’s quite obvious the sense of their discomfort was that he couldn’t let go of work. He’s the CEO of a startup and he is vital to key decisions. This is what I’m deftly afraid of but am currently walking right into as I start my own company. The work will only continue to build. I think we have a decent balance now where I take some time off in the evenings after she gets home from work and she gets most of the weekend too. She’ll go to bed and I’ll return to working. It works…for now. Quickly approaching is marriage and, quicker than I’ll ever imagine it, kids. The funny thing is I just met with one of my professors at Columbia Business School and he told me not to focus on anything more than 3 months down the road for my startup. Yet I’m focusing 3 years down the road for my personal life. My tao is that I’ll worry about things when I can effect them. The best thing I can learn now is to be disciplined in my time and create this structure before my life gets more and more chaotic. Does this mean limiting work to 60 minutes in one day each weekend? I really hope not. That doesn’t work for me at all. (Don’t let my fiancée see this rule). But hopefully I can continue to evolve the structure I’ve built while working with my fiancée to bend it to make everybody happier. That said, any work/life balance hacks are appreciated. What’s that thing in Harry Potter called where he could rewind time and be in two places at once? I want that.
Single metric strategy framework: To define the one metric above all to focus on for your startup, you must first define your business model and then your business stage. In other words: how do you make money and where in your product lifecycle are you? Once you know this, you can identify the square in the framework that’s right for you, which will pinpoint what metric you should be focusing on. What metric are you focusing on for your business?
I’ve already seen a friend of mine who has built a great audience on Vine switch to Instagram for Video. As big as he’s grown his Vine following, his Instagram following is even bigger. It’s a no brainer for him to switch over. Playing with video on Instagram, I really miss Vine’s loop feature. I’m surprised how accustomed I’d become to expecting that and how much I enjoy it. I also find Vine loads faster, but I’m sure Instagram is getting hammered today. Ultimately, I think it depends on which social network a person shares on primarily. If they post on facebook, they’ll use Instagram. If they use twitter primarily, they’ll use Vine. The market is probably big enough to support both.
Yes, Nintendo is innovative and swings for the fences. But all too often I feel that anything that isn’t a revolutionary feature they either half ass or just choose not to incorporate because their competitors do it. Here’s an example: online gaming. I own a Wii and XBOX360. Online multiplayer on the XBOX through XBOX Live couldn’t be easier. It’s tightly integrated with their games. When I was fresh out of college, it was incredibly easy to pick up a game of Halo 3 with anybody online. On the other hand, you have the Wii experience with Friend Codes, which is a random string that is assigned to your Wii. So if you want to play with a friend, you have to call/email/text them and get their random string from them. I also remember when Mario Kart for Wii came out and it just was such a hard experience playing multiplayer with random people online. Online multiplayer had already been growing for years before the Wii debuted. Why did they neglect this so badly? You can continue this line of thinking with other Nintendo consoles. N64 introduced the joystick on controller. But Nintendo also chose to support cartridges when everyone else moved to discs. The Gamecube chose a poor disc format (miniDVD) and eschewed any online multiplayer. The WiiU brought a touchscreen interface to the home console (smart), but it’s a poor resistive touchcreen instead of capacitive. And Nintendo may have a first mover advantage with innovation, but it quickly gets surpassed. The technology in the PS Move and XBOX Kinect is arguably much more impressive then a controller with a gyroscope and IR sensor. I grew up on a grey brick Game Boy (I owned them all the way through the Game Boy Advanced). I love Zelda, Mario, and Metroid. I’ve bought consoles just for these IPs. But I really don’t think Nintendo is a state of the art hardware company. If they were, they wouldn’t have neglected so many of these antes that gamers want in a modern console. yes, even if aimed at a more casual market. Nintendo’s strengths are its culture of innovation and strong IP. My generation also has nostalgia for playing these IPs on an NES. Kids today won’t. I have to conclude that Nintendo should push the boundaries of what other modern pieces of hardware can do by bringing its IP to other platforms.
Eric Metelka, technology fanatic, talks about his club at Columbia Business School
A Digital Marketing Guide for Traditional Marketers Digital Marketing Strategy and Tactics
How can your early stage startup develop a successful social media strategy? Are you trying to find your audience online but don't know how? Should your brand …
We actually already have data on how well a Nintendo game would sell on iOS. Currently the number one paid app in the app store is Remote File Manager. Why is it number one? Because it has a secret Super Nintendo emulator. There are also a number of Super Mario clones that always do well on the charts as well. The only risk Nintendo faces by releasing a game on iOS is potential cannibalization. Given 3DS and WiiU sales, I find it hard to believe that the customer bases overlap much. Even if they do, die-hard Nintendo fans are likely to buy the game on both platforms (Ask yourself how many times you’ve bought the same version of a Nintendo game on different platforms? I know I’ve bought original Nintendo games and then again on GBA and the WII Virtual Console). If anything, exposing Nintendo IP is likely an appetizer that could ignite hardware sales. It’s hard to say anything is a no-brainer, but we have actual sales data. Nintendo can only stick its head in the ground for so long…
Here is what I keep in my Google Reader to stay fresh with the though leadership in tech, digital marketing, and VC: * Danielle Morril, CEO & Cofounder of refrer.ly, good distribution strategy: http://distributionhacks.com * SEOMoz Blog, good SEO strategy: http://www.seomoz.org/blog * Kissmetrics blog, good general marketing strategy: http://blog.kissmetrics.com * Andrew Chen, growth hacker: http://andrewchen.co * Fred Wilson, Principal at Union Square Ventures, NYC VC: http://www.avc.com * John Gruber, tech writer: http://daringfireball.net * Marco Arment, former lead developer at tumblr & creator of instapaper: http://www.marco.org * MG Siegler, tech writer: http://parislemon.com * Michael Arrington, founder of techcrunch and VC: http://uncrunched.com I welcome any other great blog recommendations I should be paying attention to.
After I graduate Columbia Business School in May, I am moving back to Chicago. I think Chicago is the perfect city to start my new consulting business, Full Stack Marketing. In preparation of moving, I’ve been compiling a spreadsheet on Chicago startup resources. This includes VC firms, incubators, and popular meetups. I wanted to share what I compiled with the internet in case somebody else wanted to know the resources available in Chi-town. I’ll be keeping this updated regularly.
The internet has replaced the importance of libraries as a repository for knowledge. And digital distribution has replaced the role of a library as a central hub for obtaining the containers of such knowledge: books. And digital bits have replaced the need to cut down trees to make paper and waste ink to create those books. This is evolution, not devolution. I feel like parislemon - who’s views on technology trends I usually find spot on - missed a whole segment of the market. The internet is better than the library for people who have access to the internet. However 35% of americans do not have high-speed internet access at home. Libraries are necessary for those who are not as well off. Now, maybe in the future we’ll get better broadband in this country that competes on price and speed versus other industrialized nations. Access would be available to all. At that point, theoretically, libraries could cease to exist with little problem. The question becomes: which trend is moving faster? Increased access to high-speed internet or decreased funding for libraries? If it’s the former, then libraries are a line-item we can cross off the public ledger guilt free. But if it’s the latter and libraries go away while a large swatch of americans live without broadband, then we are going to create a large uninformed underclass in this country. That prospect is dangerous to an informed and well functioning democracy
The iPhone 5c was announced almost two weeks ago to sticker shock. Analysts and pundits - a class of Hedgehogs - bemoaned that the phone was not the low price phone they were looking for. At $550 of contract, the iPhone 5c is out of the price range of the developing middle class of emerging economies such as China and Brazil. The typical reasoning why Apple is losing market share - at least in phones sold, not usage - is that manufacturers flood the market with low cost Android phones. Even the pundits, one hopes, don’t expect Apple to compete against crap-ware. So when they want a low-cost iPhone 5c, who are they expecting it to compete against to gain back marketshare? Samsung, HTC, and Motorola all follow the same model Apple does. They have flagship phones aimed at the high-end of the market supplemented by “mini” models1 that are lower cost. Presumably analysts also wanted Apple to manufacture a “mini” model and follow their competitors. But how well does this portfolio strategy work? Famously, Samsung is the only Android manufacturing capturing profit. While we can’t breakout Galaxy mini profits due to lack of data, clearly the strategy is not working for other manufacturers. I would argue Samsung makes most of its money of its flagship phones, just as Apple does. The iPhone 5c reminded me not of a “mini” phone but of another Android device with a high profile launch: the Moto X. The value propositions of both phones are too similar to be overlooked: The emphasis on color, not competing on the latest specs, and both running the purest experience of the OS. Motorola (read: Google) made a phone full of compromises after countless focus groups with mainstream consumers. For a 16 GB model, the Moto X retails for $200 on contract, and $650 unlocked. This is the same pricing scheme the “mini” flagship Android models follow as well. Compare this to the iPhone 5c. A 16 GB 5c retails for $99 on contract and $550 unlocked. Presumably these phones are all chasing the same market, yet Apple is the one offering the cheaper option. It is Apple, not Google or Samsung or anyone else, who is making the low cost smartphone for a mass market and is making a profit off it. And it’s a quality device too. The Moto X is clearly aimed at the American public with its “Made in America” manufacturing, while the biggest opportunity for Apple continues to be emerging markets. Maybe Apple’s strategy is still not tuned into to that consumer and the 5c is still to expensive. OK, but who else is really posed to capture that market with an aspirational value proposition? In a year, the 5c will be free on contract and $550 unlocked. That’s a very attractive option for any market. The Hedgehogs continued to be underwhelmed by Apple’s smartphone strategy. They also continue to overlook the real playing field of competition. The Galaxy S and Moto X do squeeze Apple a little on the high-end, but unless it’s crap-ware, Apple is really the only one with a great value proposition for a mainstream consumer. I expect the iPhone 5c to be another success for Apple’s portfolio of products. 1. Samsung Galaxy 3 Mini, HTC One Mini, and the Droid Mini ↩
• Conduct usability testing to optimize customer activation • Match metrics to business types • Create a customer oriented culture and build a vibrant communit…
What is the right way to engage your audience on different platforms? How often should you be posting new content? How does the Google+ algorithm work? With in…
I get this question often: "We post the same content on all our social media. How should we properly optimize content on each platform?" The key to answering this question is understanding how each platform’s stream algorithm and how they display different types of media. Facebook Facebook’s edgerank algorithm favors pictures over other types of content. I encourage brands to post pictures with short messages that link through to landing pages. PostRocket is a great tool that helps with this. Facebook is also good for conversation. It’s a great platform to ask questions on. Questions tend to get more engagement than statements do. This example from Starbucks illustrates how a question can generate greater engagement: Twitter Twitter is a great platform for gaining audience and driving click-throughs. The way I encourage brands to think about twitter is based on their goals. With any tweet, is your goal for it to be shared or for it to drive a click-through? The goals are diametrically opposed and not optimizing for either results in neither sharing nor click-throughs. If a brand wants to drive traffic, then their tweet should be a short teaser statement with a link. An example: “What are the top 10 secrets to great startups?” The other option is to drive sharing. This means your statement should be a complete thought. Think about a great newspaper headline that gives you all the info you need. For example: “Secrets to great startups: focused mission, aligned team, smart founders.” I also encourage brands to research and use hashtags. Google+ Google+ is like a mashup of Facebook and Twitter. Posts display rich content like Facebook, but most content is displayed in a chronological order. Google+ is the platform for conversations and they try to make this as easy as possible with post comments, separate circle audiences, and text and video hangouts. Remember how I said “most content is displayed in chronological order”? That is because Google will promote posts with high engagement so that users are staying fresh with recent conversations. If you want to make a post standout, Google allows you to upload pictures up to 2048 px for free. High resolution photography stands out. Bolding text in the title of a post also helps attract eyes. Just like twitter, I encourage using hashtags in Google+ posts. Google will also auto-generate relevant hashtags for you. Conclusion Know your goals. Post pictures on Facebook and Google+. Use teasers and links to drive click-throughs on Twitter. Conversations get highlighted in Google+. These tips will help you get noticed and engage more deeply with your audience.
The Entrepreneurial Greenhouse program is the Master Class for entrepreneurship at Columbia Business School. It is a second-year second-semester class that is the culmination of the entrepreneurship track and the class where your venture is meant to finally take off. Admission is exclusive: you have to pitch before a panel of judges and be chosen to be selected. All in all, if you’re serious about entrepreneurship, Greenhouse is your goal. When I applied to CBS, I wrote that my goal was to get into the Entrepreneurial Greenhouse Program with a non-profit education start-up. Amazingly, I didn’t waver from my goal and I also attained it by getting into the Greenhouse program (albeit with a different venture). The moment is much more bittersweet than I expected it to be. I chose Columbia Business School mainly for the impressive people. What disappoints me is that some of my peers who have fought the entrepreneurship battle with me were not chosen for Greenhouse. I think we are all worse off for not having their opinions and expertise in the room with us. You could accuse me of bias, and you wouldn’t be wrong because these people are my friends. But when someone receives their non-admittance to Greenhouse as they’re talking to Angels about funding their beta product, something is wrong. When the students who, arguably, created Steve Blank’s favorite venture during the Lean Launchpad aren’t selected, I feel something is off. When the leaders of Lions Lab are denied…well, you get the picture. I could spend another 500 words complaining about why this happened. However, that’s not constructive and it won’t get these people into the class (although I wish it would). Instead, I’ve decided to provide the Lang Center with feedback on the Greenhouse application process. Every year it seems as if people who legitimately deserve - almost obviously to their peers - to be admitted to the Greenhouse are denied. It’s my goal to stop, or at least reduce, this occurrence. Consider this my unsolicited and honest feedback. The product vs. the founder We’re constantly being told by venture capitalists that most of the time they invest in people, not products. Being that the Greenhouse pitch emulates a VC pitch, why are students not being judged similarly? Much like an incubator, the Lang Center is incentivized to develop and fund the students who are most likely to be successful. In time, these successful entrepreneurs will return money to CBS through invested equity and donations to the school. This is why the lens of judging students based on who they are and what they’ve done has it’s advantages. The best indicator of what a person is likely to do in the future is what they’ve accomplished in the past. To the Lang Center’s credit, they do look for a signal of commitment. However, I would argue they do not do give it the correct weight in the application process. From what I’ve been able to discern, after a student pitches, they are given a “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” decision. “Maybes” are then reviewed further by the faculty and administration on how committed they are to their venture and entrepreneurship at school. The problem is that this happens only in the “maybe” case. A signal of commitment is only considered 1/3 of the time! I argue that in the future, all students, even those receiving “yeses”, should be considered on this attribute. This would reduce a potentially bad “no” decision from a room of judges who do not know the entrepreneurial background of the student. It could also mitigate a “yes” from advancing if the student was not serious about his commitment to his venture and, say, had a full-time job offer in hand. Judging the judges I believe the Lang Center is mostly getting it right with its diversity of judges. Based on observation, it appears that they attempted to place at least one faculty member and one young alumnus in each room. This is along with the older alumni who have greater liberty to show up mid-day on a Friday and very generously donate their time. These three groups are definitely where we should be pulling judges from and together create a strong judging panel when the mix is correct. If we think of the pitching process again like pitching to VCs, then the part of the equation that is missing is that students are not given the opportunity to know who the judges they are pitching to beforehand. The judges in the room are given bios, business plans, and even our pitches before they ever step in the room. However, we are not given the same luxury. I pitched my digital marketing certification company. With only seven minutes to pitch, I could have saved significant time if I knew the judges have some level of expertise with digital marketing. Likewise, if they had no experience, I could be more persuasive by explaining the ecosystem and acute need for my product. Further affecting our persuasiveness is that judges are not grouped by vertical. This, again, would save precious time and allow us to be judged by people versed in our domain. It would make judging fairer. Having pitched for the Greenhouse both last year and this year, I see this problem manifest the most with B2C ventures. The CBS alumni for the most part have a (surprise!) finance background, and they use this lens to judge our ventures. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it lends them to be more knowledgable about and biased towards B2B products. It’s hard for them to understand the need for a new television based social network app because they are not the target. Grouping judges by vertical and having more young alumni in rooms would reduce the bias against B2C ventures. The last thing I must stress is just as we respect the judges, they must respect us. The judges are giving of their time, leaving work, traveling up to Morningside Heights, to sit through not-the-most-exciting process in the world. I think it is incredibly generous of them and they have my utmost respect. For their part, I think most of them are respectful to the students pitching as well. But this year I experienced something I did not last year: judges walking in during the middle of my pitch. Having talked to others, I was not the only person this happened to. This is incredibly disrespectful and distracting. I also believe it is unfair to be judged by anyone who does not hear the totality of a pitch. I’m not convinced it was intentional, but they were not told to do otherwise. In the future, alumni should be instructed to wait outside the room if the door is closed. Process, process, process The last two weeks of my Fall Semester were incredibly stressful and sleepless. In addition to other school work, I slept about four hours a night to complete my business plan by Friday at midnight on November 30th. Even pulling late nights, I still didn’t finish it until 10 PM that Friday. I put in this time because I wanted to get into Greenhouse. This time requirement is a great filter for potential applicants to the Greenhouse. Requiring a business plan, financial documentation, and a pitch is presumably enough work to keep students how are not serious from applying. After completing my 16-page business plan, my judges would have a week to read and become familiar with my venture. They could ask me tough and challenging questions due to their familiarity with my business. Not once did I get the sense that any of the judges knew of my venture before I started pitching it. Had it been read, it would help mitigate the product versus founder problem. The judges would understand the both the product and founder better having reviewed the documents. The problem with the submitted documents not being read is that there is now the opportunity for the system to be cheated. Again, these documents are an important filter. Once students have reassurance that they can write 10-pages without rigor because they won’t be reviewed, you loose a screening element. I would also like address the confusion surrounding our pitches being submitted a week before our actual presentations. Like many of my peers, I took that intervening week to practice my pitch and make it as good as possible. In fact, I emailed every student who was potentially applying to pitch with me so we could all make our pitches better. The problem is that the rules said we could not update our pitches over the week. This seems counter-productive to the aim of the whole process. While in the end this point was moot because we were apply to bring in our presentations on a flash drive, this process needs to be corrected for future years. I suggest giving students a cut-off of noon on the Wednesday before the pitches. This prevents the need for every student to spend precious minutes setting up their presentation on the computer, while still giving them a couple of days to perfect their documents. Iterate the Greenhouse Application The lean startup method teaches us to use customer feedback to iterate products so that they achieve customer satisfaction and growth. Clearly there is a huge demand for the Greenhouse class judging by the number of applications submitted. Yet the resources of the teaching team are limited, so a process has to determine who ultimately takes the class. No process is 100% fair, but I believe this one has room for improvement. It is my hope with this feedback, and forthcoming solicited feedback from other students, next year’s Greenhouse class will be even better and no truly deserving student will be left outside the Greenhouse’s doors.
After checking it out, I don’t think I’ll ever use it. Why? 1. I have no interest in following artists’ twitter feeds. I follow one musician, Kanye West, and mainly because I find him to be an amusing crazy person. I really dont care about the opinions of any other artist. This greatly reduces the power of the “Suggested” section. 2. You can only hear one song per artist and you have no control over what song plays. I think this may be because of DMCA rules or whatever agreement they cut with the music studios. 3. I don’t have a Spotify Premium or RDIO account so I can’t hear full songs 4. The “Popular” section only proves to me that when you aggregate the music preferences of a large crowd, crap rises to the top. At least Spotify’s popular chart has some indie and hiphop skews to it. 5. Most importantly, it doesn’t replace any other music app I use today. I use Music.app for my personal collection. I use Pandora or Songza when I don’t feel like listening to something specific and don’t want to think about what to listen to too hard. Spotify is great when I want to listen to something specific I don’t own. Theoretically, #music gives me access to new artists, but as mentioned before, my “Suggested” section is sparse and not well targeted. I contrast this to Turntable.fm’s Piki app which they released last week. It has a similar idea about discovering what friend’s and tastemakers listen to so you can discover new content. But the app gives you much finer control over specific song recommendations in a very light-weight way (doesn’t encourage me to also follow the artist). It also helps connect me to people with similar taste which the #music app doesn’t do. The biggest problem with Piki is that there’s not enough users yet. But at least it’s actually solving a problem. I think the #music has their work cut out for them.
One of NYC’s great strengths is the diversity of its economy - finance, real estate, media & entertainment, retail, fashion, health care, education, and now tech. And the reason tech is growing so fast in NYC is that it is embedding itself in all of these other industries. Chicago also follows this pattern of tech startups that embed themselves in the city’s larger industries. It explains why there are lots of sales tech and retail tech companies, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised to see more manufacturing, insurance, travel, and food tech startups emerging here soon based on this pattern. All those industries (excepting travel) have a lot of innovation potential.
Learn how to identify and build your audience on a startup budget. - How to find long tail keyword opportunities - Budget a PC campaign - Select a social media…
How can your early stage startup measure the return on a successful social media strategy? Are you using number of followers as a success metric? Do you know h…
I read this ebook this week by the guy who created reddit and hipmunk. It’s a pretty simple message but it’s amazing how easily it can get lost in the world of startup. We create startups to solve a problem and make everybody happier. So if happiness isn’t built into the core of the company, I guess you’re just doing it for money. And every user will be able to figure that out. I love SWAG. (According to Michael Scott that stands for Stuff We All Get) I wear startup t-shirts almost everyday. I’m free advertising. Why don’t we have t-shirts to give to users? Why aren’t we giving away stickers to them? And if users are happy, I’m happy. (I’m also happy with a free t-shirt) I recommend clicking the link above and buying the ebook.
Here’s a great way to network that I just learned courtesy of Professor Duggan who teaches Napolean’s Glance at Columbia Business School: The first thing to note is DO NOT DO THIS TO GET A JOB. A job may come from your networking, but you are genuinely doing this to meet people and gain knowledge. Come up with one question you want to know more about in the industry you’re interested in. Then email somebody you want to network with in that industry your question. When they reply, thank them, and then ask if there is anybody else you can ask that question to. In a short time, you’ll become very knowledgable about a topic and one of these people will notice (it might be 30 people later, it might be 50) and offer you a chance to interview. From their perspective, if they have a team that needs a spot and you appear knowledgable, they may connect the two. Again, do not do this looking for a job. Do this because you want to learn more. People don’t like being used for job opportunities, but most are willing to answer questions.
The culmination of the Entrepreneurial Greenhouse Program at Columbia Business School is the opportunity to pitch for the Lang Fund. The Lang Fund is convertible debt to help the few who are selected start their business. The first step to win some of this money is the Columbia Entrepreneurship Showcase which occurred on Monday. As a strategic decision, since I am starting a consulting firm, I decided to treat this not as an investment pitch, but as a sales pitch. I was in front of alumni, angel investors, and all around well connected people. I also have some very impressive peers. Knowing I was probably not going to win some capital, I was hoping to at least win a client referral. Here is the feedback I received: - Pros: genuine, trustworthy, passionate - Cons: No business model, not scalable, waste of our time I agree with this feedback completely. As a sales pitch, more than anything, I am glad I came off as genuine and trustworthy. That bodes well for my 1-on-1 sales pitches in the future. I also did not focus at all on the business model or scalability, so I am not surprised to find that I was dinged for those. I do want to address the investor mindset, though. As part of this business, I am honest about my flexibility in where this business grows to. I could: - Productize part of the service and become a SaaS company - Grow it as a large digital marketing agency - Focus more on the educational aspects and build an educational hub - Be acquired and work as a marketing manager at a startup I’m just starting out and I don’t know which of these options are most likely to present themselves. I like one or two of them better than the others, but, frankly, I would be happy pursuing any of these directions. This flexibility is anathema to the investors. The Lean Startup model teaches us to be flexible as we start out. That is what I am doing. But, I can see the other side (because I’m nothing but reasonable) that even if flexible, I should still have one passionate vision I’m driving towards even if I’m OK with the other realities. So lesson learned, I will pick one of these directions to prioritize first. But I am sorry if I wasted anybody’s time. I have worked on my venture as hard as any of my peers and I believe I deserve the chance to showcase it. You are there to judge who is most worthy to receive funding. Or, as I see it, you are there to help the startups that CBS produces. I appreciate the feedback. Time to start selling and get to work.
There’s been a good amount of talk on the web about the “T-Shaped” marketer becoming a model for the future. Several articles will go into more depth than I can, but I did want to share my thoughts on the topic and an illustration I made for a recent presentation. T-Shaped basically refers to having [&] I 100% completely agree with Rand’s post. But “T-shaped Marketer” just doesn’t have the same ring to it that “Full Stack Marketer” does. Maybe we could call it being a “Peak Marketer”? Instead of the t-shape, flip it on the x-axis, so as your expertise increases, you climb upwards towards the peak. You also gain some more intermediate knowledge on adjacent marketing areas. It also relates to Chip Conley’s peak experience. So you can be a Peak Marketer in SEO. Or maybe you’re a Twin Peak Marketer in SEO and Social Media. In terms of branding, just thinks that sounds better.
More posts are loading...