1Matt

The shotgun strategy sounds an awful like the way Pharma companies develop drugs. They will seed thousands of drug ideas with research funds--hopefully a few take off (after trials, federal approval) that ultimately pay for all the duds.

January 20, 2009

2Mark Lewis

You could call this the law of averages (the more you try the more likely you are to succeed), but I think you're right: a lot of stuff is random. I've always felt that if brands presented themselves in this way - if they increased the frequency with which they changed the way they went to market, it would actually help not hurt.

January 20, 2009

3Chris Allison

This is really interesting and makes me reconsider my strategies. I've always been a sniper main rather than shotgun and even posted about it in my comparison of Coke and Pepsi last week. Mark's comment leans towards Pepsi's strategy while I normally lean towards Coke's.

January 20, 2009

4Max Kalehoff

Noah,
Thanks for linking to this story. It's funny because what you describe as the shot-gun approach is the actually the third tenet of our start-up, Clickable. Our CEO calls it an "And" culture -- meaning we execute like hell on our core plan, but we constantly experiment and test on the side in order to identify jet streams of opportunity. It's not just about finding yourself as a start-up, but about finding your product-to-market fit.

Perhaps not surprising, the PayPal guys are our lead backer now (Founders Fund).

Max

January 20, 2009

5Denise Lee Yohn

at first, this approach seems to contradict all that i have learned, and now espouse, about the need for focus -- as a brand person, i believe a laser-like (sniper!) focus is how you develop a strong brand.

but as i reflect on the examples outlined in the article and the way technology has changed the rules of business, i realize that a 'shotgun' approach doesn't inherently conflict with the value of focus in brand development.

perhaps a brand's focus needs to be on the core values and attributes that define it, while the manifestation of those values and attributes might take many forms and undergo many re-starts and revisions.

like the various applications that can be developed from a core technology, perhaps a brand should be the starting point for the development of different benefits and experiences?

i'm still chewing on this -- would love to hear any further thoughts.

January 21, 2009

6JOhn Gerzema

Agree completely. I think there is a certain paralysis that comes from
"Strategy". As I've written in the Brand Bubble I think the equation
that smart brands need to apply is that strategy is tactics and
tactics are strategy. The key feature is that these tactics must be
measured and iterated. If there is a strategy it is in the processing
of the outputs generated by these tactics and using those outputs to
derive deeper consumer insights, better products and ultimately a more
successful enterprise. Look at Google, here's a company who is super
tactical and yet the overarching affect of all these tactics (failed
mostly with a few successes mixed in) is one of the worlds strongest
brands. I would say that is a wake up call.

January 23, 2009