, ,

Guter Lesestoff!


Die New York Times hat analysiert, warum Sie immer weniger Traffic abbekommt.

Ihr Ergebnis ist: Es liegt nicht am Produkt, es liegt am Marketing! Der Autor sieht das ein bisschen anders…

Wenn eine Zeitung alles für alle hat, und jeden nur ein bisschen was davon interessiert, dann ist es ein Supermarkt! Und wer geht in einen Supermarkt, in dem er an tausend Reaglen vorbeigehen muss, die ihn nicht interessieren, wenn er alles was ihn INTERESSIERT, direkt vor der Haustür hat?


Well, companies like Nike, Starbucks, Tesla and GoPro are extremely niche brands targeting people with a very specific customer need, within a very narrow niche. This is the exact opposite of the traditional newspaper model. Each one of Nike’s products, for example, are highly valuable to just their niche, but not that relevant outside it.
Whereas Walmart and Tesco are mass-market brands that offer a lot of everything in the hope that people might decide to buy something. They trade off relevance for size and convenience.
In other words, newspapers are the supermarkets of journalism. You are not the brands. Each article (your product) has almost zero value, but as a whole, there is always a small percentage of your offering that people need.

The New York Times is publishing 300 new articles every single day, and in their Innovation Report they discuss how to surface even more from their archives. This is the Walmart business model.
It’s the same with how print newspapers used to work. We needed this one place to go because it was too hard to get news from multiple sources.

Imagine what would happen to real-world supermarkets, if every brand was just one step away, regardless of what you wanted. Would you still go to a supermarket, knowing that 85% of the products you see would be of no interest to you? Or would you instead turn directly to each brand that you care about?

Amazon hat auch alle Produkte, aber es ist kein Massen-Markt, sondern es kümmert sich um die Bedürfnisse jedes Einzelnen.

Amazon might be a supermarket in terms of the variety (and randomness) of the products offered, but it’s business model is based on fulfilling people’s intent.

Amazon is the exact opposite of that. You never go to Amazon just to browse around. You go to Amazon because you have a specific intent. You are looking for something specific, and you have turned to Amazon to see what price they are offering it.

Interessant finde ich auch den Gedanken zu den „funktionierenden“ Modellen im Internet:

But in the digital world, we have no scarcity and there are no limitations. As such, the editorial model of a generalized package doesn’t really work. Instead, we have three other models:

  1. The Amazon model (the supermarket of intent). Here you start with people’s intent, and then you deliver that with the highest form of targeting possible.

  2. The social model (the supermarket of interest). Here you start with what people are interested in, and then you build your offerings around those interests for that specific individual.

  3. The niche model. This is what goes into either the Amazon or the social model.


Der bisherige „Massen“-Supermarkt funktioniert online nicht, da die Wege zu dem was mich wirklich interessiert so viel kürzer sind. Früher war es ein Problem effektive an viele (und gute) Informationen zu kommen, die mich interessieren, so wie es heute noch ein Problem ist effektiv an viele (und gute) Produkte zu kommen, die mich interessieren. Wenn mein Kühlschrank einmal alle Produkte selber bestellt, die ich benötige, dann wird auch langsam das Ende der Supermärkte kommen…

Vielleicht machen sie dann auch mehr Werbung? Das Geschäftsmodell selber kann ja nicht das Problem sein…