style="text-align: center;">
Facebook and it's creator Mark Zuckerberg have recently come under fire for comments he has supposedly made in internal memos and meetings about the wisdom of the customer. However, typically innovators haven't been entirely successful when the listen to the crowd's prevailing wisdom. Often the better idea is to go against the crowd and innovate a new solution. Apple, Galileo, and a variety of other "radicals" are the epitome of the American ideal specifically for that reason.
This kind of thinking however is best left to those people who aren't multi-billion dollar corporations. Risks are often left to those with less to lose. If you are making cash by the barrel, then it might not necessarily be a great idea to mess around to much with your formula. This has typically been the prevailing wisdom and dominant thought model within economics but American businesses love risks. We go big or go home (to the poor house).
The main reason risks are successful is because they go after an elite component of the market. They create an ideal which we all want to aspire to for better or worse. Thus they create an inherent need for us to buy/use their product in an effort to look cool.
The haute couture fashion industry is one that seems to go against the needs of the crowd. Rail thin models that lack any sort of curvature is not the typical male ideal nor is it typical of a woman's body. In fact, men prefer women WITH curves. However the industry's success speaks volumes: the fashion industry is a trillion dollar operation. How can you possibly make money by marketing clothes that are designed to fit .01% of women?
The reason (and crime) is that it creates a sense of elitism for women to aspire to. By creating this culture women feel the need to purchase these designs and brands an in effort to appear opulent and successful. It doesn't matter that these designs were not meant to be worn by the typical women who purchases them. The women are buying the culture not the clothes.
Facebook built its entire success on elitism. By restricting it's users to Ivy League schools and the NESCAC initially, Facebook was used by an elite group of people/influencers. They slowly expanded their base by opening it up very slowly to .edu emails, then to high school students and finally to everybody. They created an elitist culture that everyone wanted to be a part of. The key was restricting access early, building buzz, and then opening it up to the crowd when it had become a cultural phenomenon.
This is another example of the elitist model coming to fruition, Zuckerberg is merely trying to maintain the buzz that made his product innovative and successful. He should be copying Twitter wholesale!
My recommendation for this corporate dilemma: Form a small "start-up" environments within corporations in order to foster growth and new thinking. They could find the next new elitist or contradictory (but extremely successful) business model. I would treat those employees like a start up and only give them corporate money if they established a workable plan. This way you can get the best of both worlds: corporate stability and innovation.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment, showing us some social love or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
tagged as elite marketing, elitism, elitist, elitist culture, mad men, marketing culture, niche marketing
I see what you are saying about the elitism but I disagree that Facebook used this. Sure, there was buzz if your school didn't have the facebook yet, but, it was only a short time before every school in America had it. Zuckerberg did however generate good buzz about it and then released it in waves...soon high school kids were clamoring for it--i just wouldn't call it elitism.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like