What Domino's Could Learn From Sean Ellis

Dear Dominos,

Thanks for reiterating the critical feedback you received from customers in a $75mm ad campaign and subsequently not making the necessary changes to satisfy your customers taste buds. It's a great example of how not to go about finding product market fit.

When I first saw Domino's video ad (no, not the one from a few months ago where employees blew snot rockets on some very unlucky customers' food) I gave immediate props for taking on their “harshest critics” and was interested (and hungry) enough to place an order for delivery. Result 1: Domino’s counts a $16 incremental sale, directly attributable to the campaign. The delivery smell quickly brought me back to my late-night, freshman fifteen and I was as excited as ever to try the new recipe. A few bites later, and the verdict: slightly spicier sauce, maybe less-greasy cheese and the same tasteless, cardboard crust. Domino's ad campaign had tricked me into believing they had actually made a good pizza, but upon taste instead lived up to being a “sad excuse for real pizza.” Just about everyone I’ve asked has voiced similar sentiments. Result 2: Let down customer.

Where does this seem to leave Domino’s? In the short run their execs may clap for any incremental sales (Result 1). But in the long run some of those incremental sales may turn out to be forever lost customers, like me (Result 2). And as for measuring how viral the campaign was… well, let’s just say customers liking the product seems to have been an overlooked but critical element.

The campaign shines a nice spotlight on one of my favorite learnings from Sean Ellis and core to what we’re focusing on here at Pinyadda: the importance of the customer in achieving product/market fit. If customers were more involved and engaged in creating and taste testing with the chefs to create the new Domino’s recipe, I bet we’d see different results – like brand enthusiasts (“hey I helped create the new recipe!") and a product that lives up to the new branding (“wow this is yummy enough that I want my friends to try!”).

And so ensues Pinyadda’s 2010 focus – the customer.

After months of ramping up features and then stripping them down to minimum viable product, Pinyadda is focusing on achieving product/market fit. We want to test our hypotheses of what the product is, what problem it solves, and who is using it. So our focus is iterating on who exactly our customer is and how we can build the product to best meet this customer’s needs.

As part of this effort we were recently brainstorming homepage language across a spectrum of market segments (we’ll then move to A/B testing these). We ended up with 5 sets of taglines, each set emphasizing different Pinyadda value propositions. Check them out below:

Set 1: RSS readers aren’t meeting the needs of their most prolific users.

• Better than your RSS reader.
  
• The smarter, social RSS reader.
  

Set 2: Popular information sharing platforms contain non-threaded conversations, suffer from information overload, are too hard to organize/filter, and have character limits.

• The easiest way to find and share articles and blog posts.
  
• The news you want from people you trust.

Set 3: It’s getting more and more difficult to find the news and information that’s most interesting to me personally on the web.

• Your personalized information assistant: articles and blog posts delivered just for you.
  
• Spend less time finding news, and more time reading news.

Set 4: News is meant to be discussed, but emailing links to people clutters inboxes and takes too much effort.

• A better way to send and receive links.
  
• A separate inbox for discussing links.
  

Set 5: I wish there were one place to see and discuss what’s happening in my industry instead of subscribing to loads of newsletters, trade publications and large portals.

• Free, real-time news on your industry.
• Recommended industry news from peers and colleagues you trust.

Did we miss anything? How do you use Pinyadda?

(As we strive for product/market fit over the next several months you can be assured we are listening intimately. We will be building the product – from taglines to new features – in tandem.)

TechCrunch, Mashable, ReadWriteWeb, VentureBeat: Who Publishes the Most about Twitter?

Rolling Stone recently published the Top 100 Albums of the Decade. To my surprise, not one but two Bruce Springsteen albums made the top 25 (The Rising at 15 and Magic at 24). Now, as blasphemous as this sounds coming from a Jersey man, there is no way that Magic belongs in top 100 of the decade or even the top 100 of 2007.

Why is Bruce so blatantly overrepresented in this countdown? The only answer is that Bruce Springsteen is important to the Rolling Stone business. When Bruce does well, Rolling Stone sells more magazines/ad space. This got me thinking about social media...

What about Twitter? Which of the four major tech blogs (TechCrunch, Mashable, ReadWriteWeb and VentureBeat) publishes the most content about Twitter? For this, I took a quick look at our Pinyadda index from November and formulated the following chart (click image to enlarge):

Twitter-centric Posts as % of all Posts:
TechCrunch, Mashable, ReadWriteWeb and VentureBeat

As you can see, TechCrunch is far and wide the most prolific of the publications, producing approximately 2 times the amount of content as Mashable, 4.5 times the amount as ReadWriteWeb and 3.3 times the amount as VentureBeat.

Scanning titles and various meta-data for 'twitter', it appears that only 7.8% of TechCrunch's articles are about Twitter. Compare that the the 8.6% for VentureBeat, 15.1% for ReadWriteWeb and a whopping 20.7% for Mashable.

Yes, one-fifth of Mashable's content for the month of November was Twitter-centric. Imagine, if you will, that Twitter's popularity wanes (gasp!). What is Mashable to do? Produce less content? Unlikely. Fill the gaping content hole with other content? Likely.

Product Trends of 2010

From a product standpoint, it's hard to deny that 2009 has been the year of the Twitter explosion. For better or worse, the simple microblogging service has changed the way we think about social media, ingrained the phrase "real-time" in all of our brains, and left our centuries-old grammatical traditions rotting in the attic, sacrificed in the name of 140-character uber-brevity.

Twitter, with its revolutionary open platform, has also forever changed the way web applications think about their data and the possibilities that come from sharing it, instead of hoarding it. The implications of this are vast and I suspect will be long-standing. Many have and will continue to wonder if this decision will have positive or negative effects on Twitter's revenue model, and perhaps only time will tell. But it has made it nearly impossible to create a product strategy that doesn't involve an API.

Though this may be the most important product influence to come from Twitter, there are a few more that I suspect will make their way into many of the new entries into the consumer internet market next year. To be sure, Twitter isn't the only thing to cause these trends, but it's almost certainly the most important. Without further ado, here are the things I expect to see in profusion over the coming year:

- The dominance of the stream. While we may have already seen the stream format of content consumption take the wheel, 2010 will be the year it achieves total domination. In recent months we've seen stream-based models mosey their way into almost every corner of the internet, even penetrating the veritable Fort Knox of Google search results pages. With new services springing up on this model left and right and more and more people getting comfortable with their format and aesthetics, I wouldn't be surprised if more than one major media outlet (read newspaper) moved entirely toward a stream-based interface. And I think they'd all be smart to adopt some version of it - the box and column layout of print never translated well to the web.

- Asymmetric social connections. It used to be simple: I'm your friend, so you're my friend, right? Wrong. Twitter and every other social media service have brought us into the era of one-to-many communication - the "follow" model. I can follow you, you don't have to follow me. While at first glance it seems to make relationships less meaningful, it can often make them more useful. From location services to music streaming, asymmetric connections are making all kinds of social services easier to engage with and more valuable.

- Stackable networking. This is the phenomenon I like to think about as 'everyone plays nice with everyone else,' and it's almost - dare I say it? - web socialism. But the web has always been a symbiotic culture, of sorts, and the emergence of open data platforms and the adoption of a few open (err, mostly open, thanks FB) protocols is ultimately something that creates more value for everyone. Sure, some of these companies are probably bleeding value by outsourcing their networks, in a sense, but if that's the case they probably aren't going to make it anyways. The community of applications gets more powerful and more efficient, and ultimately the users are the ones that win. All in all it's a good trend and one we'll see continue in 2010.

- Privately created, publicly available curations. Twitter Lists is the easiest example to cite here, but there are tons of other examples of this phenomenon: music blogs and services like blip.fm and last.fm, product wish lists like those we find on Amazon and now others, and the thousands of lists of books, movies - almost anything you can imagine. I think we'll see lots of ways to curate and then publish personalized content materialize in 2010, and we hope Pinyadda's a big part of that trend. By giving our users a unique way to discover content from all over web and easily share what they've found, we hope that we might make the process of consuming content on the web just a little more enjoyable and social in 2010.

What do you think about the future of the consumer internet? Are we destined for a fundamental shift in the way we experience the web, or just a continuation of the trends we've already seen? And what will come of Twitter? Leave your predictions in the comments.

Expanded Thoughts on Twitter vs. Facebook; Value and Trust

The other day as I was searching to find the end of the Internet (no luck yet but I am still convinced it is flat), I came across a post on Danah Boyd's (@zephoria for you Twitter-heads) blog titled Some Thoughts on Twitter vs. Facebook Status Updates. Clearly many other people saw this article as it has over 5,000 clicks tracked by bit.ly and from reading the comments it was apparent that the post resonated with many duel Twitter/Facebook users, as there was a litany of interesting comments about people's personal use cases. Most of the conversation was focused around the types of crowds people interact with on the different networks, with my favorite description coming from Ian Kennedy who quoted Marry Hodder, "While Facebook is like having a dinner conversation with friends, Twitter was like getting up on stage at a nightclub on open mike night." This is a great analogy and I think most people who use both networks would agree with the comparison.

What I find to be interesting about this Facebook vs. Twitter issue has less to do with who people are interacting with on the networks and what information they are sharing, but rather which types of relationship people find to be more valuable and more trustworthy. Now I know this is a bit like comparing apples and oranges since the two networks are used for sharing different information types (for the most part) with different networks of users, but let's forget about these two issues and simply analyze this based on the two different graph designs of the networks.

It is commonly known amongst SNA geeks and many people who study social sciences that the most famous SNA paper published to date is The Strength of Weak Ties written by Mark Granovetter in 1973. Granovetter found that weak ties, basically more distant friends in his study, were positioned to be sources of new information more so than close friends. This idea comes down to the fact that you generally know about the same things as the people you spend a lot of time interacting with, and that new information typically disseminates through your weak ties (technically bridges), people who interact mainly with people outside of your network, who would be sharing different information.

Now considering the two social networking site's (SNS) graph designs from a high level without getting into the different ways different people use the sites, let's agree for arguments sake that one typically uses Twitter to connect with weak ties and one uses Facebook to connect more with strong ties (even though we all have "friends" on Facebook that we aren't really friends with, but I will save the argument that a perfect SNS would have an infinite amount of relationship types for another day). So Twitter = weak ties, Facebook = strong ties. Immediately, the discovery of new and valuable information is more likely on Twitter, making it more valuable right? Well not so fast Ghostrider, some not so recent data (2008) for the real-time world that we live in found that far and away the most trusted source of information was "an email from someone you know", with 77% of people validating this referral type. On the other hand, only 43% of people actually trust the social network profiles of people they know, making me wonder how much they would say they trust the information they receive from people they don't technically know on a social networking sites (SNS) - i.e. a weak tie.

When Granovetter explored the topic in 1973, he considered only symmetric relationships as to not complicate his formal math experiments for his thesis (if you want to get into that go read the paper). Considering the expanded opportunity of developing new relationships on the Internet, it doesn't really make sense to define a weak tie on a SNS the way Granovetter defined them in '73 based on 1) amount of time 2) emotional intensity 3) intimacy (which he defined as mutual confiding) and 4) the reciprocal services which characterize the tie. Anyone who uses Twitter follows people with whom they are not intimate (based on Granovetter's mutually confiding restriction) and by nature and purpose the services aren't reciprocal, but the amount of time and emotional intensity for the follower could still be high, so how weak or strong really are the ties on these networks - sigh, the grey area expands.

This can all be boiled down to this: do you typically value a referral of some sort of information more from a symmetric "strong tie" on Facebook or from an asymmetric "weak tie" on Twitter? (Hold the information type constant in each situation). And secondly, do you trust a referral more from one tie more than the other? And without getting into semantics, yes the two are different (I did just kind of get into semantics huh?). Obviously there is no right answer considering it is somewhat of a subjective measure and a more complete argument would have to take into consideration different information types being shared, but I invite you all to share your own sentiments on the matter.

It is without a doubt in my mind that as we move forward and SNS's evolve we will begin to make sense of some pretty amazing structural, "macro-level" patterns that happen in our society because of the data we will be able to extract from the microscopic relationships within social networks. I have said it before and I will say it again, we are only at the tip of the iceberg on this stuff.