The early adopter

Those of you who know me and/or follow me on LinkedIn know that I'm a big fan of Seth Godin. And, what's cool is that every so often, one of my colleagues will email or text and ask "did you see Seth's blog this morning?" That's what happened today with his post about the early adopter and the dilettante. That's when I know that it's content worth posting or blogging about given the impact it's had on others that I respect.

For the uninitiated, Godin is an author, former dot com business executive, speaker and teacher. I have some of Godin's books and had the good fortune to hear him speak. He is one of those people who I marvel at in their ability to cut through the noise to get to the heart of a problem...and always with a solution or cogent point-of-view.

Godin's blog post for today is attached below. What hit me hardest was what I tell clients all of the time--you MUST "choose the audience you seek." The one size fits all or "build it and they will come" mentality of organizations is debilitating. It sets false expectations. And, it's flat-out bad business.

Godin's point is spot on--early adoption is one thing but a mandatory is creating the conditions for stickiness (to use a current business buzzword.) In his words, "If you push for trial but don't create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don't be surprised if only the dilettantes show up."

Great and wise stuff, as always, from Mr. Godin.

The early adopter (and the dilettante) 

The early adopter bought an iPhone in 2008 and never looked back. They played a few games of pickleball and then joined a club and bought the equipment. They picked up a new magazine on the newsstand and then subscribed, and they bought the new bestseller and then read the author’s other works.

The dilettante shows up early and often, but then moves on.

The early adopter and the dilettante both try out the new tech, but only one sticks around through the dip, learning from the hard parts.

The dilettante seeks out new experiences, but the early adopter adopts.

Culture needs both.

Marketers need to be aware of the different personas, and plan accordingly.

If you push for trial but don’t create the conditions for subscription and persistence, don’t be surprised if only the dilettantes show up. That might be enough, but we need to choose the audience we seek.

Don't burn bridges

 How much information should you provide when turning down a job opportunity?

Here's the situation: 

- A client is searching for a Marketing Manager.

- An interview is scheduled with a promising candidate.

- The day after the interview is scheduled, the candidate emails to say "At this time, I'm moving in a different direction. Thank you."

- A reply is sent with "Can we get a bit more context? Did you get an offer from somewhere else? Or did you decide that the role...didn't fit what you were/are seeking?" 

- There is no reply to the queries.

I'm interested in what you all think. My belief is that the candidate could have and should have provided context, even if at a minimal level. This not only handles the rejection with grace but also, in good faith, provides the client with input and feedback about the job--is the description too vague, is the job too broad, is the likely compensation too small?

How much information should be provided?

I'm a big believer in not burning bridges. In this case, it feels like a bridge is being burned when a softer response would have kept a line of communication open, whether for a future job or simply for the connection provided as a result of this process.

My bottom line--always opt for the response that will build, maintain or nurture a connection.