One of my favorite reports from the PEW Internet and American Life Research archives focused on two explanations for a good chunk of the dot-com demise: greed and cluelessness. It’s not quite what you would expect from a non-profit organization focused on the socioeconomic benefits and implications from the Internet, but it’s bang on target.
I’ve often said that if many, if not most, of the dot-coms had to start all over again, many, if not most of them could and would very well make it. No overpaid Harvard MBAs with zero experience and hero arrogance demanding six-figure salaries and ransom-like equity demands; no Super Bowl advertising to demonstrate how spending an entire marketing budget on a one-off attempt to soar to the top of the Media Metrix charts is the only way to go; no appeasing VCs and other financial know-it-alls who clearly knew nothing about what it takes to build a brand and viable business.
Unfortunately for companies like Mercata, Kozmo or eTrade (check out their current Website if you don’t believe me), greed and cluelessness won out against smart and shrewd marketing.
And so we looked ahead to wave two – the second coming of the grizzled dot-com, weathered, wiser and a whole lot more street smart. Current data suggests we are at the beginnings of the much heralded renaissance. So much so that even I have dusted off the cobwebs of my dot-com brainchild and will begin riding the heavenly elevator frequented by the nearly extinct angel investor.
And yet, a little feeling in my oft-reliable gut tells me to beware the Ides of Déjà vu (all over again).
How easy it is to fall into the trap of the Paper Cut Syndrome. How many times have you cut a finger on a piece of paper and felt utterly helpless; incapacitated; unable to tie even your own shoelaces? You swear that you will appreciate your ten fingers like never before when you recover. You do. And with the full recovery comes the anesthetic of amnesia where you fall into the bliss of selective memory loss…that is, until the next paper cut.
I mention this because I’m starting to see the much maligned arrogance that once sowed the seeds of our fall from grace, creeping back into the picture. Like a parasite that you thought you completely weeded out from existence, only to find that you didn’t quite get to the root of the problem.
Don’t get me wrong, confidence, arrogance and even greed is good to an extent (just ask The Donald), but there is a fine line between being self assured and deluded (just ask the Gekko). We all believe in our trade…most of us passionately…even to a fault, however are we slowly being revisited by the sins of ourselves in the process?
Modem’s GM O’Connell was the first person who put his tenured foot down to broadcast a “no más” message to the masses. In other words: This stuff works, we believe in this, and you would do well to pay attention to the fact that there are more people online than ever before, doing more, buying more and so on.
This approach works for me. I wholeheartedly subscribe to a return to confidence.
On the flipside, however, I vehemently disagree with the need to apologize or dumb down our trade to those who, quite frankly, don’t give a damn anyway. I see no value in sitting on a panel with traditional marketers in a room and intentionally avoiding the need to espouse on our strategic points of differentiation and competitive advantage.
Which brings me to the title of this particular serving of da Juice: Fools and Liars – or specifically, my belief that anyone who professes to know all the answers is either a liar or a fool (or both).
This might sound like a disingenuous comment based on the fact I spend a good portion of my time suggesting answers, as well as my earlier comment about the importance of having a firm point of view regarding the power and value of interactive. I assure you it is not.
In fact, of late I am finding myself playing both sides of the fence more and more often – specifically because of the dangers of professing to know it all in an industry that is still very much in its formative stages. Case in point is naturally click-through or the age old, branding or direct response vortex, or most recently the “TV or not TV (on the Web)” discussion (which I will be covering next week).
I received an email this morning from a regular reader who pre-empted his note by explaining that he agrees with 50% of what I say and disagrees with the other 50%. While I would challenge him to identify which half he agrees with (heehee), I felt immensely satisfied by this feedback. If I was right 100% of the time, there’d be no point in learning anymore, in challenging myself or being challenged to constantly innovate, ask questions and question the status quo.
And therefore, in the hope of avoiding being labeled a fool or a liar, I will continue along this path. And I hope you do too. It is a surefire way to avoid the pitfalls of arrogance and it is most likely a direct means to help build our industry in the process.
