Comments on: Don’t Ideate On Our Differences; Let’s Master Our Similarities

By: Mac

Mac — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:21:01 +0000

BTW – that image of a Nautilus spiral and the guff about the Golden Ratio is just a myth.

There is no connection – someone just made it up one day – but it is certainly not true.

The ratio on real Nautilus spirals in one study ranged from 1.24 to 1.43 (with an average of 1.33 to 1) .. which isn't even close to the 1.618 'magic' ratio number !!!

Here's one discussion of it: http://www.shallowsky.com/blog/science/fibonautil…

Mac

By: George Benckenstein

George Benckenstein — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:12:20 +0000

I would get familiar with Clay Shirky (if you're not already). Great blog BTW Belinda

By: George Benckenstein

George Benckenstein — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:09:52 +0000

Thanks for your interest Unfortunately, I have A.D.D. when it comes to topics and really congratulate myself when I can spit out a blog post here and there Maybe one day a book is in my future but I like the interactivity of blogging thus far

By: Belinda Ang

Belinda Ang — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:57:08 +0000

I have Predictably Irrational already… which I thoroughly enjoyed. But I think this title – Coherent Ubiquity is pretty interesting. Perhaps you could think about writing a book on the subject.

By: Belinda Ang

Belinda Ang — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:37:53 +0000

This post is enlightening for me. You actually got me very interested int he entire subject of Coherent Ubiquity. Is there any good reads you will recommend?

By: Doug Kreitzberg

Doug Kreitzberg — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:39:36 +0000

Coherent Ubiquity, as I understand you to mean, involves identifying discrete variables which lead to the union of general behavior and product/service. As such, the challenge is to distill the discrete from the general — in other words, answer the question, "what rules create the emergent behavior that I'm seeing?" It is often very difficult to do this; akin to putting an egg together once you've cracked it.

What I do think is correct, is thinking of it as an heuristic exercise — trial and error of "initial conditions" to see the emergent behavior seems to be the primary way to get to where you want to be.

By: Benckenstein

Benckenstein — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:37:33 +0000

I agree that this could be a bit more "polished." I hope the concept is communicated at some level.

By: George Benckenstein

George Benckenstein — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:04:35 +0000

Very good points Paul. I think I may have rambled this a bit. In retrospect, I think that Segmentation VS Coherent Ubiquity may have disoriented the framing of the post. I think I may have left the segmentation portion out of the equation – not that I am moving off my positions, just that focus on commonality (to me) is much more important – especially in the space I operate.

By: PaulEllisUK

PaulEllisUK — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:40:57 +0000

(cont.)

In regards to when and product review cycles – I would agree most segmentation is carried out post product creation (albeit this tends to be driven by a desire to be first to market then any other cause) but a responsive marketing strategist should have the analytical foundation to adjust marketing in response to observed reactions across different audience groups. This can be done as fast as the data collection and product development capabilities allow.

But fundementally I believe People buy emotionally and justify their decisions logically – and as such because people have different tastes – emotional stimulus and consequential reaction will differ and can be clustered through analysis.

I still think the key message in your theory is how granular a segmentation process should be for any given product or service – that I think is a key strategic decision to be assessed upfront when determining the basis for a marketing strategy.

Paul

By: PaulEllisUK

PaulEllisUK — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:40:35 +0000

Hi George

Thanks for your reply – I found your intial conjecture insightful and thought provoking hence my response.

Fundementally I agree that we are all influenced by many of the same things but I believe what differentiates our behaviour is our reaction to those common influences.

Consequently I feel it is the objective of a good marketing strategy to anticipate those differing reactions and identify MEANINGFUL segments and to address specific messaging regarding product or service capabilities to those segments.

The FMCG Brand practioners are good exemplars of creating reactionary responses that draw followers and cause influence that drives purchasing.

In B2B the broadest segmentation is surely the archetypal adoption curve for new products (Early Adopters, Late Majority etc) this is driven by reaction to risk which I would argue is a base ubiquitous motivator – however I would choose different messaging to address different parts of the adoption curve.

(tbc)