Comments on: there is no “purple cow 2.0″

By: Christian Capitalist

Christian Capitalist — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 03:48:32 +0000

Busy Week = No Clear Thoughts

I gotta a lot on my mind today and have erased and re-written today’s post a half a dozen times cause I can’t seem to form any one of my thoughts into a full post. So here’s some random thoughts:…

By: Tom Raftery

Tom Raftery — Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:43:37 +0000

So, is the iPod Nano Apple’s Purple Cow 2.0?

By: John Sanders

John Sanders — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:30:17 +0000

It's true that Godin has diverted his time away from writting books and is pouring it all into a new venture of his. However, contrary to what was suggested above, his new venture (Squidoo) is not secretive at all. Seth Godin outlines his new business at http://www.gobignetwork.com (The Go Big Network)...a site for entrepreneurs and investors.

By: Andreas Duess

Andreas Duess — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:53:14 +0000

Biz Coach:
You’re ignoring the fact that the iPod is a commodity. even in the design department. Other players have the cool design — Sony and Olympus come to mind. What none of Apple’s competitors have managed to achieve is to become part of popular culture. Apple doesn’t have the superior product, but they sure as hell had the superior marketing.

By: Biz Coach

Biz Coach — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 06:38:44 +0000

»So what’s responsible for the success if the iPod if it’s neither price, nor features? In a word: Marketing. Advertising. Creating an emotional attachement.<
I would argue that they way you define features is not the same for everybody. Sure battery life is battery life, but some people would rather have the coolness factor as long as battery life is good enough (to them).
Secondly, I’d argue that Marketing and Advertising are not what creates an emotional attachment. The product design (which includes which features it provides as well as how it looks etc) is what creates the attachment. Marketing and Advertising is what communicates about it. BUT if the product design is not congruent with the marketing message then there is no attachement.
If the product design — and I’m speaking in the broadest sense of what product is designed to do as well as how it does it — is outstanding ie it is a product you want to have an emotional attachment to, then you have a purple cow.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:38:34 +0000

This link worked fine this morning: http://www.leonard-payne.com/Seth_Godin.mp3

By: Andres B

Andres B — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 01:23:20 +0000

Just try the link called “The Full Monte”, around two lines below the first one.
Hugh: GRRReat post. I concur with you in every bit of it.
For those who say “not all companies can produce purple cows”, I say no, not all of them. From an economical (hail Keynes) point of view: we cannot have a market purely based on purple cows, because it will always tend to regain balance. Purple cows are niche products (methinks) with high profit margins (again) and sometimes you just need dish detergent.
But wht’s important is that not everyone needs to work for those non-purple-cow-producing companies. If you’re in for the high payroll and benefits, you’ll be ok working for Procter, Unilever or something similar. If you want to live the excitement of giving birth to a purple cow, ma’man, you don’t want to reshape the dinosaur, you’ll need to quit your job and start looking into places like Tara’s (http://www.horsepigcow.com/) new job (http://www.ojos-inc.com/). Yup, give back that company car too.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:00:32 +0000

The audio link is broken unfortunately. Is there an alternative download available?

By: Andreas

Andreas — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 20:13:25 +0000

How can I say this without making you hate me?
Deep breath, here goes: I always thought that Seth Godin’s entire output could be summarised in one or two sentences, just like you’ve done above.
We have by now reached a state of such proficiency in industrial manufacturing that a product is pretty much a product, is a product. Washing machines? Any make will clean your laundry with minimum fuss. Cars? Last for years and will get you from a to b in comfort and safety. Microvaves will heat your food, TVs will show you pretty pictures. All, regardless of the logo stuck to them, assembled from the same components, manufactured by the same factory polluting some river in China.
What I am saying is that most products we use in everyday life are commodotised to a level where it is not only very hard to create a purple cow, the second you do so (assuming it turns out to be a good idea) is the second your competitors will add a similar feature to their own products.
And what is driving this commodotisation? Consumer demand. As long as there is a Walmart, as long as people make their buying decision simply on a bang for buck basis this will carry on.
So, what’s left? If it getting harder and harder to differentiate products by their features or even on price, where do we go? The answer is simple: Emotion. Feeling. Tribalism. You drive a Subaru if you want to be seen as an outdoor person. You drive a Saab if you want to be seen an urban intellectual. You drive a BWM if you want to be perceived as an up and coming real estate broker. Are these cars in any perceivable way different from each other? Of course not.
Does being remarkable guarantee success? We all know that it doesn’t. Take the portable mp3 player as an example. Apple’s iPod is the market leader, with a 75% share of the market. But was Apple the first company to make portable mp3 players? Of course not. Is the iPod the most feature rich player with the best battery life? Not by a long shot. The companies that pioneered the technology are being left behind or are abandoning the market altogether, despite having created a purple cow if ever there was one. Their mistake? Not communicating that fact effectively. Not becoming part off popular culture.
So what’s responsible for the success if the iPod if it’s neither price, nor features? In a word: Marketing. Advertising. Creating an emotional attachement. People choose the products they buy — apart from price — for three reasons, how they see themselves, how they want to see themselves or how they want to be seen.
Successful advertising, in all it’s incarnations, including blogs, including WOM, is all about creating an emotional attachment. It’s about becoming a part of who the customer is, or wants to be, or wants to be seen as. It’s really that simple.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:32:41 +0000

“And how does this scale to the corporate world as a whole?“
Who said it needs to scale (i.e. be copied by corporations) in order for it to be considered successful?

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:01:36 +0000

If your company doesn’t make a ‘purple cow’ product, then it means you’re not going to win big in a short period of time with word of mouth marketing (or something like it.)
That doesn’t mean your company or product won’t succeed — it just means that you won’t be able to easily break into a new market with low-cost marketing. So you’ll just have to succeed based on something else.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:05:30 +0000

Sadly, the audio link (on the wiki page) is broken. Good read though.

By: Danila

Danila — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:00:18 +0000

I wonder what’s the point of all that? People are just wasting their time and creative energy. I wouldn’t want to live a life where the remarkable things were the products I am buying. What’s the (big grand social) point of making an iPod, when frankly it’s only 10% better than any other MP3 player? Yes, it allows Apple to squash the competition, but does that really benefit the society?
I think a good answer to that person making unremarkable products would be to go back to his workplace, work honestly, maintain good working environment, respect the customer and listen to his needs and don’t be an asshole to suppliers, workers, competitors, customers or the environment. Hopefully that would help to make an honest profit and ensure that the customers get a solid, decent product.

By: James Paden

James Paden — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:49:27 +0000

Excellent post! I don’t know why Seth didn’t write it himself — he should have

By: Jonathan Cohen

Jonathan Cohen — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:04:47 +0000

Hi Hugh:
Good post.
Unfortunately, sometimes it’s not easy to simply pull up stakes and move to another job when you may have dependents, a mortgage, debt, and so on. It probably makes more sense to figure out ahead of time that X Corp. is a company where you’d like to work, and apply there…before you discover the heartbreak of Grey Cow-itis.
Now, a question for you that’s related. I don’t think every company in an industry can be sock-pow-WOW. You’re going to have a few that have the Purple Cows. In your case, I think the buzz and success of English Cut *at this point* (and Stormhoek, down the line) have to do with being first in terms of opening up its innards and broadening the customer/company discussion through blogging.
Does this scale if every bespoke tailor or wine company is doing it? Do we as prospective customers have time to follow and engage in the conversations of dozens of companies? And how does this scale to the corporate world as a whole?
Regards,
Jonathan