[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.
-Kathy Sierra
Thanks for writing that, Kathy,
As always, you are awesome!!! 🙂
I miss you, Kathy Sierra. Just last night, I was working on something that caused me to google up an old post of yours. I do that often as I have to remind myself and those I work with and the clients we serve what you’ve just summed up in a wonderful way: “Just make people better at something they want to be better at.”
Thanks, Rex. I was about to say, “your clients are lucky to have you.” but then corrected it to, “your clients’ users are lucky to have you.” You have inspired me much over the years!
Thanks, Kathy. You’re too kind. I remember running into you at SXSW a couple of years ago and you saying something like that, to which I responded something like, “Surely, you’re confusing me with someone else.” Not to make this a mutual-appreciation thread (but hey, I can think of worst threads I’ve experienced in comments), you’ve always help me get better at something I want to be better at — helping explain how relationships between buyers and sellers (or all the other terms that describe the roles we play in marketplaces) are best when they are a journey of growing better together than as merely a series of transactions.
Get a room you two.
Absolutely love it. Anybody who uses the words “pixie dust” is a favorite of mine. Bravo.
Cheers! And to those who might doubt my pixie dust cred, my YouTube video settles the debate about unicorns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KghghOiqKko
Thank you! This was awesome!
Hammer meets nail straight on. Well said. Thanks.
I, too, have resisted the idea of “gamification” of our web app. I haven’t been fully able to articulate why I was uncomfortable with the idea. Thanks for saying what I couldn’t quite put into words. Like, Rex, I miss your blog…..maybe posting here on gapingvoid could be a semi-regular occurance? (hoping)
Thanks again.
Kathy thank you for writing this and thank you Hugh for giving her the platform.
I think simple ego is the reason why most of the ‘social media rockstars’ want to put the focus on themselves, versus focusing on others. Too many people buy into their own hype, and think that having 50K followers on Twitter makes them ‘more awesome’.
Social media is great at making things happen indirectly. I think Hugh was making this point here a half a decade ago. This is what I loved about Creating Passionate Users, you taught others how to ‘be awesome’, and they thought you were awesome as a result. Somewhere along the way, the ‘gurus’ stopped teaching how to be awesome, and just kept banging over our heads that we just need to ‘be awesome’. That the rest will take care of itself. Unfortunately, tweeting ‘Just shut up and be awesome’ will get you a lot of RTs, even though it won’t TEACH anyone how to actually ‘be awesome’.
We need more teachers and fewer egos. And we need more posts from Kathy Sierra 😉
Mack, since I stopped blogging in ’07, nobody has kept the spark alive for me more than you have. Can’t say it more clearly than that. Thanks for all that you do and say.
I’m with Rex. I miss Kathy’s stuff…
Wonderful and true. And yes–there will probably always be the cottage industry of pixie dust for those stuck in the fat middle. C’est la vie.
If I had three hands, I would give this post 3 thumbs up. Consider this two thumbs and both big toes up.
HOLY CRAP this is good…with one caveat:
Most of the people this is directed toward live in the freaking bubble. Hugh, Gary and Tim aren’t in the bubble – but there’s this whole cliquey culture of reciprocal “you’re awesome” no “YOU’RE AWESOME” attached to the averageness – that it’s gonna be tough to overcome.
And this whole echo chamber of pseudo-awesomeness will read this and say…”Screw em, I have more fans! Awesome! Buy my book!”
Actually, the people who really need to read this are too busy checking their Klout scores.
Great point – people who most need this are looking at something else that is totally meaningless and arbitrary instead of paying attention to something that really matters.
Although I believe that the way to pierce the bubble is to make what’s happening outside the bubble so incredible that people want to venture outside it.
Love the sound of the signal breaking through the monotony of noise out there once in a while – thank you Kathy / Hugh… this will become a go-to article for a long time to come!
Same here. And now I love Gapingvoid even more for sharing Kathy’s insight. Because she said what I have felt but until now couldn’t quite pinpoint the source.
Thanks Hugh!
Hi Kathy,
Nice rebellious piece! Like Damian above I too love “pixie dust.” My philosophy has always been to encourage others to live juicy. What goes around comes around, always.
Give others a leg up and they’ll give you one.
Thanks, G.
This message is more relavent now than ever. It is so easy to get lost in the “Pixie Dust”.
Kathy – Been missing this for a long time. Glad you are back writing. Hopefully more ahead!
Your post made me think of the folk tale stone soup. The clever stranger creates a social object to get the villagers cooperating.
You inspired me to write about it, thank you.
Awesome post! what stood out was the undertone of how important being genuine and generous is to the whole equation. thanks for sharing!
I miss when Kathy writes. So thankful for this.
Kathy:
Your words, “Just make people better at something they want to be better at” so perfectly describe the task at hand that it’s hard to believe that so much focus is on the banality of things such as “follow” and “like.”
I appreciate your clarity of thought and delivery. Good of you to write, and good of Hugh to post. Thanks to both of you.
Susan
This is a really good post. We’re totally saying different things, but our graphs jumped out:
http://www.jemery.com/2011/06/01/how-to-keep-your-software-awesome/
I guess great minds graph alike? 🙂
Pescian logic rides again Kathy.
Fantastic.. Haven’t read anything better in years… a joy to read a piece that REALLY makes one reflect, that you know is 100% spot on, and brings a call to action and change. Thank you for writing such an open and inspiring post. Loved it all! x
[…] blog titled, Creating Passionate Users. Today’s guest post at Hugh’s was titled, “Pixie Dust And The Mountain of Mediocrity”. Look’s like Kathy has many of the same insights, but perhaps explained in a […]
Thanks Hugh for giving us a piece of Kathy when we really need her!
Thanks Kathy for taking the time to write this. “pointsification/badgification” will be cracking me up every time I hear ‘gamification’ now.
I get unpopular every time I ask “but why do your customers want gamification?” ‘Why?’ doesn’t work well with ‘shiny’ and ‘pixie dust’ does it?
Your voice is so needed Kathy, thanks for stepping back into the morass even just this once. I was all sad that Twitter had gotten so noisy that I didn’t realize you had stepped off of there and it’s been more than a year since I saw anything about your beloved Icelandic horses. I feel like an idiot for having missed your exit there. 🙁
This post made my day.
Your comment made my day :). Not the first time you’ve done that… 🙂
Kathy – great to hear your voice again – missed it!
Hugh – thanks for getting Kathy to guest here … more coming?
[…] on Gaping Void, Kathy Sierra had a stirring post, “Pixie Dust & the Mountain of Mediocrity” to this effect: “If people love what a product, book, service let’s them *do*, they […]
I’m a big Kathy Sierra fan, because of just this type of insight… and just love what Dave Van de Walle had to say, so I will simply ditto that.
“magic pixie dust” is such great analogy because all your examples (Social!, Viral Video!, Storytelling!, Gamification!) just sit on the surface making things sparkly. We can tell when the core product isn’t anything special underneath.
Kathy: Your observations ring equally true about the current craze to apply gaming principles to learning activities. There is in fact much potential value in making the learning interaction self-motivating, just rewarding enough to attract and just challenging enough to keep the learning engaged and motivated.
We’re building pharmacology simulation right now and there are legitimate interests to make aspects of the interactions presented more ‘game-like’ – to keep interest up and more importantly add ‘levels’ of interaction that the more enthusiastic learner might be challenged and rewarded with more opportunities to explore and gather icons of their success.
This may be gratuitous badgification of the learning story. We’ll find out more shortly when it goes into a test. Thanks for pointing out the cautions that we need to be attentive to in the learning technology development space.
Regards,
Phil
Phillip, applying gamification to education is the part that scares me the most. Studies suggest we do not get a second chance at recovering the motivation that (counter-intuitively) external rewards suck from a potentially intrinsically rewarding area. The kids that begin drawing *less* once they are given ribbons for their drawings, or even the monkeys that solve fewer puzzles and make errors once rewarded for solving what they — pre-gamification — happily did for the intrinsic pleasure.
But I am encouraged because you are already aware and taking care. The fact that you are doing a simulation already puts it in my default “potentially awesome” category as a form of game (or today’s term, “serious games”, of which I am a fan). And the fact that you are talking about maintaining the challenge level is key. Have faith that flow alone (by balancing the challenge and their ability in a continuous progression up and to the right) is usually ALL the motivation you need for engagement.
Sure, you might need a little encouragement to get them started, but that is usually more about making it incredibly easy to get started, but then go deep, immediately.
The problem with most gamification is it treats people like they just aren’t that smart (rats in a skinner box, or people who wouldn’t otherwise find something deep and compelling), when that is almost the polar opposite of good games. Actual games — the most popular games of every form from chess to Settlers to nearly every digital game — make the assumption that the user is quite smart and capable. Most games ask you to figure out what is going on without being told, and expect you to work hard. When considering why we are borrowing from “game mechanics” perhaps we should consider the most important game attribute of all… that successful games leave people feeling smarter, in part because games ARE challenging *for real*.
Trust your users. Simulations are wonderful.
[…] don’t intend for this blog to suddenly become all social media but this post by Kathy Sierra on gapingvoid.com seems too pertinent to […]
[…] a pleasure reading Kathy Sierra’s post yesterday at gapingvoid.com. One thing lead to another and the next thing you know, I’m […]
[…] PluginI’ve tried to stay off the soapbox for the most part here the past two years, but the first blog post from Kathy Sierra in 4 years has got my mind […]
[…] passed along the blog post “Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity” to me today and I thought it was worth sharing for a few […]
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity | gapingvoid […]
Excuse my cynicism. Of course, much of what Kathy said is true, but much is also meaningless. Be awesome, yes, but can every product be awesome? How many non-awesome products have made millions? In Kathy’s world, how does that work?
As a marketer, I know that traditional media aren’t working enough to justify the cost. I also know that consumers don’t like to be told, they like to be informed, two-way conversation versus ‘broadcasting’ a message. Now I’m told that social media doesn’t work, I’m making friends but not sales according to Kathy.
So what’s left? I need to be seen and heard in a crowded marketplace but neither traditional nor social media works. OK, now what? According to Kathy I should just increase my awesomeness or my product’s awesomeness. Using what means?
Please remember, successful products are rarely the best. All the awesomeness of Beta (still used by TV stations everywhere) couldn’t beat crappy VHS.
Explain that to me, would you Kathy? The concept of awesomeness is meaningless, is undefinable and is in its own way pixie dust.
It is never about Prodict Quality or which product is best, etc. I could not agree more. If you look at my chart again, you’ll see just how this works in (as you referred to it) “Kathy’s World”– it is all and only about what makes the USER awesome. On a venn diagram, the overlap between Prodict Quality and User Result Quality is not always as large as we might imagine.
In the extreme, it could be that in a crowded field the product that “wins” is potentially below-average in traditional definitions of “quality” but exceeds because it does the best job of helping users actually DO something wonderful. In a crowded field, I would use social media and every other possible means (community discussion forums, manuals, FAQs, etc.) to help teach, enable, inspire users to do more.
[…] post by Kathy Sierra on gapingvoid.com, “Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity.” If you’re in marketing, then you […]
Social media serves 2 fundamental purposes in business: amplifying your message (by incentivizing users to disseminate your message through their own channels) and, in the case of a startup, helping you to keep in touch with a community that supports you. No company gets their product right out of the gate but keeping in touch with users that back you (and not just the product) and iterating on the feedback you receive is invaluable. Or so I think ;-P With that said, I really appreciate your insight, and you definitely identified the BS that everyone else is stepping in =P
As a positively ancient guy we used to call “pixie dust” snake oil. “Social Media” used to be the PTA, Rotary, Lions, Etc. Amplifying your message was called advertising, and incentivizing users was simply giving someone a good deal and asking them to recommend you to their friends. Kathy’s message was great and something I sorely needed hear however and I thank her. The sound and the fury will abate and this years “Rock Star” will yield to next years, businesses will adjust and things will even back out. “Social Networking”, “branding” “gamification” and all the rest are just the same old breakfast cereal in a brand new and improved box. The main reason for the pervasiveness of the current hucksters is the boom/bust cycle of the economy. As things slowly improve and reach a period of equilibrium there will be a return to a more mainstream business proposition called “Value”.
Kathy’s back (if only temporarily) = tears of joy + happy dance
Thanks Kathy for being back!
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of your next product by building something that does so much for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of your next product by building something that does so much for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]
[…] online this week about how evil and bad gamification is. Really? Here we go again. While the recent anti-gamification blog post raises some interesting points most of it sounds like same old same […]
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity – This may be my new favorite analogy for social media. In general there is no amount of magic or spin that can make you rock or be successful in the space it is all about hard work and making meaningful connections that translate into action. This post calls that out in some lovely terms. […]
http://www.exclusivesterling.com
Perfect, I was looking for similar information. I have bookmarked your blog. Please post more about.
Thanks
Mehraj
Nice to read something that validates my own scattered thoughts. I’m not a Rock Star and I don’t want to be.
I want to be recommended to others because I did a great job helping someone buy or sell a home. Social Media just helps the message pass along more quickly and on to the extension of everyone’s hand, their smartphone.
[…] picked this up via a tweet from David Jakes yesterday — a post on Hugh MacLeod’s blog that, from the perspective of someone who works for a company that develops technology for […]
Great to read you again Cathy. Agree totally about gamification, and also that hopeless idea of socialisation or viralisation.
As I’m sure has been said before, viral was never a tactic, it was a measure of popularity; it’s not something you could do or add to a product but something that happened if your product was good.
Similarly, the characteristics of successful games that need to be copied are that they are brilliant, not just that they award points.
Kathy Sierra is awesome. That is all. Helping users to *be* more awesome makes total sense to me.
[…] mystery, anticipation, and fever around the release of your next product by building something that does so much for customers that they can’t wait to get their hands on […]
[…] Pixie Dust & The Mountain of Mediocrity: This one hits home with me because it contends that making users more awesome is something you should be paying attention to. And… you know… I agree. […]