Posts Tagged ‘Kathy Sierra’
December 13, 2012
It happened again: More mass layoffs as the illustrious old magazine, Newsweek discontinues its print edition.
And the blogosphere rings out with with the usual “What will become of print” questions, yada, yada, yada.
I know exactly what’s going to happen to print; the same thing that happened to horses once the automobile came along.
Automobiles may have ended the horse n’ buggy era, but hey, according to my friend, Kathy Sierra, horses are still a FORTY* billion dollar industry in the United States.
I buy most of my books on Kindle. But I buy hardback editions when the book when it has real totemic power for me. Like “Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire”. Or “Tribes”. Or “Moby Dick”.
Or I buy them when they’re simply not made for Kindle, like the artist, Chris Wool’s beast of a coffee table book. Magnificent!
Or I buy the print version of The Economist when I’m getting on an airplane. Keeps me busy when the captain makes me turn my Kindle off during take off and landing.
As far as mainstream journalism and journalists, well, my blogging buddy Mathew Ingram moved over from writing for the Toronto Globe & Mail to writing for the much leaner Giga Om. His move is just one example of what already happening to thousands. Or if it isn’t, they’re in trouble.
Print just going to increasingly be a little “artisnal” niche; the ones who disagree are old and dying off.
I don’t know why this is even a debate anymore. It’s been happening for years.
So I drew a cartoon about it…
[*Not three billion $, as previously stated]
[UPDATE:] Kathy Sierra left a great comment below:
Only when a thing is made obsolete can we discover if there was some underlying value — beyond utility — that some people found compelling enough to keep alive or evolve into something new. The horses bred today for “recreation” are dramatically different from the workhorses of the past, but they are still… horses.
What ELSE is being made obsolete now that might emerge from the ashes in a new, powerful form?
November 7, 2012
[More thoughts on “Business Needs More Art”:]
I doodled the above cartoon/line just now…
Maybe it’s just as simple as that: gapingvoid art is a great way for your office vibe to up its game, without having to pay higher rent or hire that expensive architect or decorator.
This is work in progress. All feedback gratefully received. Feel free to ping me on Twitter or wherever if you want to chat about it etc. Rock on.
[Update: Heh. No sooner than I posted this, did the great Kathy Sierra leave a comment:
This is not your value proposition. It’s just a fact, a feature, an attribute. Same with “transforming office art”. That’s the WHAT, but does not answer WHY. There’s the why YOU do it, and of course the WHY your customer/user wants it. Their benefit. Their result. Their awesomeness-as-a-result. Turning up the soul… Yes there is certainly something there that’s a hell of a lot more valuable than simply saving them on the cost of a pricey decorator or architect.
WHY do they want those architects and designers in the first place? What are they hoping to gain? Your work is not just a cheaper replacement. It’s getting to the heart (soul?) of something deeper and richer… You know this better than anyone
And of course, Kathy is right. But one has to try these things. Like I said many times before, we’re on a mission to transform office art or die trying. “Business Needs More Art”. Rock on.
[P.S. Thanks, Kathy! Love…]
August 14, 2011
Your customer won’t take a bullet for you
[Today’s guest post is from the world’s most admired ex-blogger, the great Kathy Sierra.]
“Customer Loyalty” is a figment. Business “Loyalty Programs” are nothing more than rewards-based marketing. And by rewards (aka “incentives”), I mean bribes. That we so easily refer to a customer with a bagel punch card or virtual badge as more “loyal” is an example of just how far we’ve allowed corporations to abuse the language around human relationships.
I would storm a burning building to get my kids. THAT is loyalty.
I would even storm a burning barn to get my horse.
But I won’t storm a burning Best Buy no matter how awesome their Reward Zone program.
I’m not going to become more loyal to a business no matter how well-executed their Super Awesome VIP Exclusive Content Access Status Rewards Achievements Gamification program is. Not even if Banksy made their badges.
That I often DO buy (and sometimes buy more) from the businesses that offer formal Rewards Programs does not imply I am loyal to those businesses. I’ve nothing against my wallet-full of coffee cards (which I use, and appreciate). But that is not loyalty. I’m happy to “LIKE” your Facebook page for an entry in your iPad giveaway, but that is not loyalty.
I’m willing to comment, favorite, star, plus, and potentially even share your content, but if I do it purely for the points/status/rewards, that is not loyalty. In fact, when you “incent” me to “engage” with your site, deep in my heart I understand now that I have sold out. By giving me bribes/incentives, no matter how much you call them “rewards”, you have communicated to some part of me that if I had to be incented to buy/act/engage/whatever, it must have lacked value on its own.
This de-valuing effect can be true even if the thing really DID have intrinsic value for me. In other words, even if I’d actively wanted to do the thing-you’re-bribing-me-to-do, you’ve tainted it. Possibly even wrecked it for me, even if I am not consciously aware. (See Self-Determination Theory and the Over-Justification Effect for some of the potential issues with gamification’s use of extrinsic rewards)
The darling of traditional “Loyalty Programs” is, of course, Frequent Flyer miles. But odds are most of you have taken a flight you didn’t want, on an airline you hate, thanks to a Frequent Flyer plan. When we make tough choices based on our “rewards” program, that’s not loyalty we’re feeling… it’s resentment.
A way to tell you’re heading down a dark path is to ask:
“If we took away the incentive/rewards programs, would our customers behave in exactly the same way?”
If we have to pay to get it, it’s not loyalty.
That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong to use customer incentives, but don’t mistake the results for actual loyalty.
So, how do we explain the companies, brands, products, services, etc. that we do feel fiercely loyal to? The ones that did NOT incentivize, bribe, coerce, coupon/Groupon us into choosing them over competitors? The ones we talk about to friends NOT because we get a referral bonus? Isn’t that true loyalty?
Almost. Sort of. If you tilt and angle it just so. Because I DO have a few products I appear loyal to:
I would give up my iPad for Adobe InDesign.
I would give up sleep for the latest Neil Gaiman book.
I would give up carbs for my Astund Icelandic saddle.
And I’d give up all of the above to keep using my Mac.
That sure looks, sounds, smells, quacks like loyalty.
And it is.
But it is NOT loyalty to Adobe, Gaiman, Apple, or my Icelandic saddlemaker.
I’d walk through hot coals for those because I’m loyal to… myself.
The key to understanding (and ultimately benefitting from) true “customer loyalty” is to recognize and respect that customers – as people– are deeply loyal to themselves and those they love, but not to products and brands. They are loyal to their own values and the (relatively few) people and causes they truly believe in. What looks and feels like loyalty to a product, brand, company, etc. is driven by what that product, service, brand says about who we are and what we value.
That doesn’t mean we can’t benefit from customer loyalty. The moment we stop trying to manipulate, coerce, incentivize, gamify customers into being loyal to us is the moment we free ourselves to consider how to help them where their true loyalty lies. And it starts with the deep recognition that:
If I buy from you it’s not because I like you but because I like myself.
As I said in my previous post, the key is to help users become better at something they care about. My what-looks-like-rabid-loyalty to Apple, Adobe, Gaiman, and Astund is because they have all contributed to Me Kicking Ass in a measurable, meaningful, sustainable, powerful way. Yes, even author Neil Gaiman. (His work has not just entertained and inspired me, but provided the foundation of my wedding ceremony. Long story, ‘nother time.)
If you want to benefit from a customer’s loyalty to himself, you can’t bribe it, you must earn it. Deserve it. Focus not on upgrading your product but upgrading your user’s capabilities. If you can’t enhance your product, enhance the context in which your product is used. Provide better and more inspiring documentation. Make YouTube tutorials. Join forums and offer expert help where it’s most needed. Use every nanosecond of your social media time to help people become better at something for themselves. Understand and design for Social Objects. Relentlessly ask, “How are we helping our users kick ass? What can we inspire, amplify, teach, enable, empower?”
There is always a way to help users be better at something, even if that thing seems disconnected from your product. Help them be better, smarter, stronger, funnier, more aware. Better coders, better shoppers, better parents. Better designers, better DJs, better citizens. Better puzzle-solvers, better photographers, better writers. Better joke-tellers, better conversationalists, better gardeners. Better makers, better cooks, better cartoonists. Better brainstormers, better bloggers, better runners. As Hugh once put it, “if you can’t figure this out, you’re just not being creative.”
Instead of “rewarding the customer” focus on “how can I make the user’s experience and result more rewarding”? And by “rewarding”, I mean FOR REAL. Not because of a little dopamine hit they get from earning your next virtual badge. I mean rewarding as in, “OMG look at this amazing thing I just made.” Rewarding as in, “That was one of the most stimulating conversations I’ve had.” Rewarding as in, “It’s official then. I’m bad ass. Look at the what I am now able to do that I couldn’t before…”
Of the four products I appear loyal to, none have ever given me an extrinsic reward. No punch cards, frequent-purchasing discounts, or Exclusive Access VIP Status (Now! With Better Badges!). No leaderboards, no contests, no discounts. But all have given me something far more valuable: enduringly rewarding experiences.
They have upgraded my personal skills, knowledge, and capabilities. They have made my life better. They have made ME better. THAT is the ultimate customer reward. When you give your users that, you still won’t have loyalty, but you’ll have something sustainable, robust, and honorable.
Those that understand and support the loyalty we have to ourselves are the ones to whom we write glowing unsolicited/unrewarded reviews. They’re the ones we will not STFU about in our on– and off-line conversations. They’re the ones whose logos we wear on our shirts, shorts, and car bumpers. The companies who we appear loyal to are those that best help us define, refine, and express who WE are.
[Footnote: if you do want to give an extrinsic reward to a valued customer, the most powerful, effective, and appreciated way is ALWAYS an unexpected, surprise thank-you acknowledgement (which may or may not include a valuable or symbolic gift). Rewards that are expected are perceived not as rewards but simply part of the product.]
June 18, 2011
[“This Moment”. You can buy the print here etc.]
Earlier today I was thinking of certain “thought leader” friends of mine, people that I know personally. Rockstars in their field.
Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, Kathy Sierra, Gary Vee, Prof. Brian Cox, Joi Ito, Ben Hammersley, Doc Searls etc.
Looking for a common thread, it suddenly hit me– besides being hugely talented in their field and the aforementioned rockstardom, what else do they have in common?
Short answer: Presentations. They’re all REALLY REALLY good at standing in front of a crowd and wowing them. Every one of them. I’ve seen them. They knock your socks off. No wonder they get invited to speak at TED, SXSW and other places. No wonder they’re able to command the big bucks for doing so.
And then, when you look at the great world-changing figures in history, you see the same. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Cicero, Winston Churchill, or Shakespeare’s fictional Henry V (“We band of brothers, we happy few” etc.)- it’s right there, front and center. The presentation.
And then if you read your ancient history, what were the most privileged people in Rome and Athens taught how to do as part of their classical education? That’s right. The art of Oration. Again, presentation. This explains why getting on the debating team at Oxford or Harvard is still considered a big deal for anyone in the know.
For anybody who ever aspires to lead.
So the question I’m asking is, if presentation is SUCH an obvious part of the magic leadership formula throughout the ages, and leadership is so integral to success, why isn’t presentation better taught in schools nowadays? Why aren’t third graders taught how to use Powerpoint, as standard? Why isn’t presentation emphasized as highly as say, grammar or history or math or athletics?
The reality is, the average person doesn’t spend one-hundredth the time working on their presentation skills, as they do on their hobbies or watching TV or going to the gym or whatever.
I think that might be a mistake…
[AFTERTHOUGHT: Yes, I know. Presentation isn’t everything. Steve Jobs’s legendary keynotes wouldn’t be nearly so impressive if Apple products sucked etc. But that’s not an excuse, either.]
June 7, 2011
[NB: Today’s guest post is by the world’s most famous ex-blogger, the great Kathy Sierra.]
We’re always searching for that secret formula, that magic pixie dust to sprinkle over our products, services, books, causes, brands, blogs to bring them to life and make them Super Successful. Most marketing-related buzzwords gain traction by promising pixie dust results if applied to whatever it is we make, do, sell. “Add more Social!”. “Just need a Viral Video!” “It’s about the Storytelling!”. “Be Authentic!”
The rise of social networking and media opened up a world of new possibilities, yet most Marketing 2.0 is basically:
“If you cannot out-spend the competition, you can out-friend them!” He who has the most Facebook fans, Twitter followers, and blog commenters Wins! It’s all about Social Capital now!
Sure, you can try that. You can work your ass off to be, as one marketer put it, “the person your customers want to party with.”
I never understood how any of this made sense, given that very little of what I see “brands” (or their human spokestweeters) do on social media is changing the fundamental nature of how users interact with their products. “But that is not the point! It is about being human!”. Nope, I still don’t get it. Why would anyone want to compete on *that*? It felt fragile to be in essentially a marketing arms-race of who-is-the-most-engaging-social-media rock star. What does that really have to do with what users do with the product?
And I saw examples over and over of social media rock stars with tons of followers, yet they were not able to convert those followers into Actual Paying Customers unless the product was what people really wanted. Being super-friendly, “liked”, etc. has limits when it comes to *paying*. I will follow your blog, but no matter how awesome I think YOU are, I won’t be paying for your book unless I think it’ll make ME a little more awesome.
So, why are people still so convinced that social media and all related buzzwords are The Answer? It has always appeared that if the product is truly crap, “your social media strategy won’t save you.” Even the social media gurus agree on that one. But it seems the opposite end is true as well… If the product makes the users awesome (at whatever the product is helping them do), no special secret magic pixie dust sauce is needed either.
Oh, social media does play a massive role in the success of a product that people love, but it is not the product-to-users “engagement” that matters, it is users-to-users (and users-to-potential-users). If people love what a product, book, service let’s them *do*, they will not shut up about it. The answer has always been there: to make the product, book, service that enables, empowers, MAKES USERS AWESOME. The rest nearly always takes care of itself.
Which brings me back to, why are so many so convinced that [insert favorite buzzword] is the answer vs. just making a product that helps people kick ass in a way they find meaningful?
And then someone I trust said this: these [insert favorite new buzzword] approaches are not about saving a crap product or marketing an awesome one… where these tools really DO make a difference for a brand is when the brand has little or no other compelling benefit over the competition. If the product is mediocre, or even really good but with too many equally good competitors, these things can make a difference. If you have little else to compete on, then out-friending/out-viraling/out-gamifying can work.
At least until your competition out-hires a good social media strategist or compelling extroverted social media star and out-friends you.
You do not want to be That Brand. You do not want to be That Product. That Book. That Consultant. You do not want to be in that arms race because it is an exhausting and fragile place to be. You want to use social media not because you *must* but because you can add even more value for your users by doing so. You do not want to be the guy that must ask constantly, “how can I get more comments on my blog? how can I get more followers and fans?”
The real pixie dust is when you ask yourself, “how can I help my users get more comments on THEIR blog?”. You want to be the guy who asks, “How can I help my users get more followers and fans?” And that is why I have always been such a fan of Hugh and Gary V and Tim Ferris, for example. Not for the comments their followers make about Hugh, Gary, and Tim… But for the comments their followers make about themselves. In a nutshell: Hugh, Gary, and Tim might well be the people you want at a dinner party, but what matters is that they help people become more interesting at their OWN next dinner party.
What prompted me to write this is the latest magic pixie dust buzzword, one that I am passionately against: gamification. Applying principles of game design to non-game activities can be done carefully, artfully, and with wonderful results. We use principles of game design in our programming books, for example, and you may have heard me at SXSW talk about using aspects of game mechanics to help create passionate users. But the current crop of “gamification” experts are doing nothing more than “pointsification/badgification”, taking the most superficial, surface mechanics of games and applying them out of context to areas where they are, as I have referred to it, “the high fructose corn syrup of engagement.” Once the sugar-rush novelty has worn off, there will be a substantial crash from the high. And it may be one from a which a brand cannot recover.
Don’t be that brand.
Don’t be that product.
Don’t be that book.
Be the one people talk about NOT because of your latest gamification and WOM campaign, but because it is obvious to your users and those they influence that your brand, product, book has made them better at something. Something they care about. Don’t be the slot machine of your industry. Give people an experience that leaves them feeling a little better about their own capabilities, not better about the faux-status awards they know, in their heart, are not examples of anything more awesome than a marketer’s attempt to use them.
Just make people better at something they want to be better at. When your goals and your user’s goals are truly aligned, you don’t need pixie dust. Don’t out-spend, don’t out-friend, and please don’t out-badge. There is a world of difference between helping someone *appear* more awesome and helping them actually BE more awesome.
February 14, 2011
[The “Intoxicated” print.]
I remember the day, back in the early 1990s, when I first came across the great business writer, Tom Peters. Most TV shows are forgotten within hours of watching, but this one still stays with me, two decades later.
Tom was doing a PBS program on the Mittelstand, those amazingly plucky, medium-sized German companies that somehow manage to compete successfully on a global level, in spite of their relatively small size.
Tom was interviewing Horst Brandstätter, the owner and CEO of Playmobil, the famous German toy company.
And this is the part I REALLY remember– to paraphrase:
TOM: Hmmm… These Playmobil toys of yours… they do amazingly well, all over the world. So what’s their secret? What do they do that’s so interesting?
HORST: It’s not what the toy does that’s interesting. It’s what the child does with the toy that’s interesting.
BOOM! A moment of clarity. One that sticks with me, like I said, twenty years later.
When I was doing that cartoon work for Intel last month- “A processor is an expression of human potential”, I was still thinking about what Horst had said, all those years ago. Very much so.
What Horst said is true, whether you’re running a small mom n’ pop cheese emporium in Greenwich Village, or a multibillion titan like Intel: To borrow heavily from Kathy Sierra, the product doesn’t get to be kick-ass until the user kicks ass first.
Don’t talk about yourself. Talk about something else. Aim for something higher. Talk about the user. Remember Playmobil. Never forget the child playing with it.
I know I like to yack on endlessly about “It’s all about human potential.” I know its cliche, but then again, I’m not wrong, either. This is why we exist. To find out.
January 29, 2010
Seth Godin does it.
Brian Clark does it.
Gary Vee does it.
Esther Dyson does it.
James Governor does it.
Kathy Sierra does it.
Dennis Howlettt does it.
John T. Unger does it.
Robert Scoble does it.
Fred Wilson does it.
These eight smart, kind, great people, some more well-known than others, are masters at what I call “Selling by Giving”.
They put stuff out there, as gifts. Great content, great ideas, great insights, great personal connection. By giving so much of themselves, for free, every day, they build up huge surpluses of goodwill, so when you’re finally in the market for something they’re selling (and they’re ALL selling something, trust me), they’re first on your list.
I do it, too, just not as well as these guys. I’ve published thousands of cartoons on this blog over the years, and that’s gotten me a lot of business. And not just fine art prints, either. It’s gotten me consulting gigs, full-time salary jobs, book deals, paid speaking gigs, marketing jobs, I could go on…
Selling by giving. Anybody who’s been watching any of these guys for a long time will know exactly what I’m talking about.
But here’s what’s interesting to me: I can remember not that long ago, say 5 years, when this type of marketing seemed pretty freaky to most people. Now it’s considered normal, at least to smart marketers. FIVE years. That’s all.
I could see that in another five years, ANYONE who wants to market ANYTHING successfully– be they small mom n’ pop shops to large companies, will have to be fluent in Gift Economics, to a level that seemed COMPLETELY alien only a few years ago.
This includes you. Are you ready for it?
[About Hugh. Cartoon Archive. Commission Hugh. Sign up for Hugh’s “Daily Cartoon” Newsletter.]
September 1, 2009
[This could make a nice print, one day…]
Recently on Twitter, I wrote:
Art that brightens up the office vs Art that brightens up the home. Two different vibes altogether. I prefer making the former.
To which my friend, Kathy Sierra replied:
Good! Homes are less likely to *need* brightening the way offices do. I can brighten my home just by making toast.
Whether we’re talking wee cube grenade laser copies or something much larger, like The Purple Cow Print, when I launched the gapingvoid gallery earlier this year, that was my intention– to make art for the workspace.
This desire goes back to my early years working as an advertising creative. There was always cool stuff– fine art, posters, graphic design, cartoons– hanging up everywhere. Stuff to amuse and inspire us, stuff to tweak our brains in the right direction. And though its effect on the agency’s bottom line would’ve been hard to measure, somehow it worked– or at least, helped.
Why can’t all offices be more like this? Is there some law that requires certain types of businesses to maintain a dull, gray, machine-like, life-sucking visual environment? You could ague that maybe for some companies, sure, but that’s not a world I’ve ever aspired to belong to.
“Office Art” tends to come in two main categories: 1. REALLY expensive. 2. REALLY cheesy.
I wanted to make office art that was neither…
[Afterthought:] Of course, a lot of my collectors work from home, therefore their offices are in the house, not in an office building. But the prints were made with the workspace in mind, not the “living” space, regardless.
[Backstory: About Hugh. E-mail Hugh. Twitter. Newsletter. Book. Interview One. Interview Two. EVIL PLANS. Limited Edition Prints. Private Commissions. Cube Grenades.]
April 22, 2009
[Photo of The Experience Studio. Those sixteen small panels on the right are actually my cartoons.]
In my latest “Crazy Deranged Fools” newsletter that I sent out earlier today, I wrote about “The Kinetic Quality”:
We’ve always seen the Kinetic Quality working in marketing, working with brands. “By buying Brand X, I feel hipper, cooler, sexier, more secure, more in control” etc etc. But what I’m finding out is, this also works with art. To me, the interesting thing about art is not the usual “Heroic, absinthe-soaked, vision quest lone individual archetypal artist crap”, but how the art is USED by the person who has it hanging on the wall. What’s it actually there for? Decoration? Showing off? A conversation starter? An ice breaker? A way of telling a story? Something to brighten up the room? A symbol of social status? An expression of individual worldview? An expression of emotion? A totem to remind oneself of something inspirational and/or important? Perhaps a bit of all these?
So I’m seeing two worlds collide here: The internal, solitary part of making the art, and the external social part of how the piece of art is actually used.
Art? Used? Is art actually allowed to be “used”? Would the Art Police allow that? Instead of calling them “Patrons”, can we call art buyers “Users” instead? Would you be offended if I called you that? There’s no wrong answer…
Potential Energy turning into Kinetic Energy. I guess one of the reasons I’ve always had such liberal licensing terms [“Want to use my stuff on your PowerPoint Slides for free? Sure, go right ahead!!!.…”] is that I like seeing my work being USED. If people like my work, that’s great. But if they can actually find it tangibly useful, even better.
Soon after, Tony Kirton of The Experience Stuido sent me the photograph above, with the following note:
We positioned the your cartoons at the entrance of the studio, to kick-start a relevant conversation. Never failed!
It’s little mental trick that Kathy Sierra taught me– Don’t think of them as “Customers” or “Patrons”, think of them as “Users”. Whatever thing you’re selling, it’s not what it does that’s interesting; it’s how people use it that’s interesting. “People Matter. Objects Don’t.” Exactly.
January 7, 2008
It’s now a well-told story. Krispy Kreme doughnuts came out of nowhere, attracted a cult following, spread like wildfire, got over-exposed, then collapsed under its own weight. When I could only get them by making a half-hour pilgrimage across town, I went there all the time. Once they became readily available in my local corner deli, I stopped eating them.
When I was a little kid in central Massachusetts, there was this local, old-style dairy named Pinecroft, that served the best ice cream ever, but only during the summer months. Then the dairy got sold to a bigger company, and the next thing you know they were serving ice cream all year round. It never tasted quite the same after that.
Rosé tastes a lot better in the South of France than it does in London, no matter how much you’re paying.
Lobster is considered a real delicacy, expensive stuff. Back in the 19th Century in New England whaling towns, local boarding houses often had the following sign outside them, in order to attract the sailors’ business: “Lobster only served 4 days a week!”
I only listen to my CD of King’s College Choir during the Christmas holidays. It preserves the magic.
Scrimping and saving over many months for a $4000 English tailored suit is a much more uplifting experience than buying an entire wardrobe of them with a single swish of a diamond-encrusted credit card.
I rarely eat Barbecue, but it’s usually the first thing I head for when I travel to Texas. When I travel to different places, I always like to sample the local fare. I once tried eating Mexican food in Geneva. Never again.
Though they produced all three Lord of The Rings movies at the same time, they made you wait a year between installments. People flocked to see them all.
One of the things I am most looking forward to in 2008 is the final season of Battlestar Galactica. It will be well after summer till I see here in the UK, on DVD [I don’t own a TV]. I’ll probably buy it the same day it becomes available, and I’ll probably watch the entire series in a single, marathon session. I can’t wait!
Back when Kathy Sierra was blogging, she wouldn’t post very often. Every two weeks, perhaps. But BAM! when she wrote, it was stellar stuff. A real treat to read.
I guess you can already see where this is going: People like treats. People are indifferent to commodities, even when the quality of the latter is high. Your downfall begins the minute people no longer have to wait in line in order to get your product, the minute they no longer perceive it as a treat.
[Update:] David St. Lawrence makes a great comment below: “When they are no longer social objects, they are no longer interesting.” Exactly.