If two people buy the same product for the same reason but have no way they could reference each other, they are not part of the same market. That is, if I sell an oscilloscope for monitoring heartbeats to a doctor in Boston and the identical product for the same purpose to a doctor in Zaire, and these two doctors have no reasonable basis for communicating with each other, then I am dealing in two different markets….
The reason for this is simply leverage [emphasis added]. No company can afford to pay for every marketing contact made. Every program must rely on some ongoing chain-reaction effects – what is usually called word of mouth. The more self-referencing the market and the more tightly bounded its communications channels, the greater the opportunity for such effects.
| — |
Why Geoffrey Moore believed in monolithic markets - Term Sheet Emphasis mine, for what are probably obvious reasons. (via pieratt) |
-
katelinschwarck liked this
-
capoblog liked this
-
ajpaschka liked this
-
riff-raff liked this
-
happy-stephen reblogged this from adistinctivetaste
-
bernardinarandleman liked this
-
jason-seoul-oh liked this
-
sococentric reblogged this from pieratt
-
alexpenny liked this
-
manshion liked this
-
diarrheaandgreg liked this
-
ubuwaits liked this
-
apartment31 liked this
-
nonsquared liked this
-
wellpressedgamer liked this
-
arishahdadi liked this
-
adistinctivetaste reblogged this from pieratt
-
clubsoda liked this
-
mills liked this
-
gbattle said:
This is somewhat obvious. You want ROI for your marketing dollars, so either you touch all the interested yet disjoint customers via the same channel (television), or you touch interested and connected customers who touch each other. Kinky.
-
mattlehrer liked this
-
svpply reblogged this from pieratt
-
pieratt posted this