So after 1 year of fund-raising, planning and development, your shiny new beta web app is finally ready... and now you think it's marketing time. You want to reach thousands of users as quickly as possible. Aha, you think, the cheapest and shortest path is viral marketing - via blogs and social news sites. So you turn to your favorite sites like digg, del.icio.us, TechCrunch and (of course) Read/WriteWeb. Somehow your email to Michael Arrington or Richard MacManus gets noticed above the hundreds of others, so your site gets featured and then other blog coverage follows! Yippee, this is the fame you were waiting for! But a few days later....absolute silence. No one is talking about you anymore, the activity on your site diminishes to nearly zero, and the new 'poster child' web 2.0 app is something else.
Like a nightmare, isn't it? But unfortunately, this horrible peak-then-slump scenario is very common in the web 2.0 era. The Alexa graph below illustrates this with a well known example, in this case following a TechCrunch write-up:
The reasons for this very common pattern are simple to guess. The web 2.0 savvy audience is overloaded with all these fancy new sites that come up everyday; and this audience will try a lot of apps, but not necessarily become a permanent user. That's why you are very vulnerable to get quickly forgotten, if you don't offer them something very useful and enduring.
The upshot is that timing your app/site promotion is very important. Even though popular blogs and news sites are a great way to attract community and VC attention, you should know when to show yourself. Below is a categorization that we suggest all upcomers consider before any marketing push...
The Wait list consists of sites that should be more patient to market themselves. This is certainly the largest category, with these 2 broad types of web 2.0 sites:
Social sites need existing user activity before getting promoted. For instance, a social networking site with no members won't be interesting at all. So if you get dugg, sure you'll get thousands of people arriving to check out your social network - and maybe even sign up. But more likely they will be disappointed that not much activity is happening, so they will leave your site with bad memories and may not come back.
In the case of verticals, the problem is more about competition. Rather than immediately publicizing your site, it may be better to focus on differentiating yourself from others and gradually building up a user base.
Also, most of the sites that fall under one (or both) of the above 2 categories require you to sign up first. But generally users will be reluctant to join ghost sites.
The best way of marketing for sites in the WAIT list is to focus on their niches, spend very little and attract targeted masses over time. One example comes from the March 2007 issue of Business 2.0 Magazine. A company called Betty, which sells dye for "the hair down there", spent just $2000 for space in a Las Vegas beauty tradeshow brochure and created enough buzz from that to get featured on the Jay Leno Show. The company expects $1 million in sales this year! Other successful examples are Dogster and Maya's Mom - they are both vertical and user-generated sites and they attracted most of their initial user base from pet and mothers magazines.
The bottom line is that WAIT list sites should find their niche, enlarge their user base there, then come to the web 2.0 savvy audience to show off their force and attract VC attention.
Spotplex, the site shown in the diagram above, is a very good example of a site that should have WAITED.
The walk list includes sites that should start promoting their site on web 2.0 blogs from the beginning. Most of the WALK candidates come from Web Utilities. For example:
The reason why WALK list members are so different than the previous WAIT list members, is that these sites don't need prior popularity. The site's attractiveness depends solely on the quality of their service. So there's no critical mass of user base required before promoting themselves.
This is the smallest category, with perhaps just tens of sites. The success of these sites depends on web 2.0 media, so they should solely focus on getting themselves featured there. Actually most of them are no different than the WAIT list, except that their niche is web 2.0 itself! Two great examples are BuzzShout and Go2Web2. Obviously, the web 2.0 audience is open to such services, so there's no better place for these sites to get exposure. Blog widgets is another category can be added to the RUN list.
There are three main strategies then, to market your new web app or site:
1) WAIT list sites should find their niche, enlarge their user base there, then come to the web 2.0 savvy audience to show off their force and attract VC attention;
2) WALK list sites, such as search engines and browser add-ons, can go after that elusive digg frontpage or Read/WriteWeb feature now [Ed: preferably both!];
3) RUN list sites should do everything in their power to get attention from web 2.0 sites!
What are your thoughts on this - agree, or do you suggest other strategies?
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How To Market Your Web App.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2071
Scrybe, which I use as my calendar and which I follow with interest as an example of a Web 2.0 startup, got much better at blogging just over a month ago. After a very viral video (which can still be seen at its home page) got it off to a spectacular s... Read More
This is an article about viral marketing of new web apps. It explain how to plan, start and reach results of marketing in blogs and social sites. Read More
Last year I wrote a couple of posts on how getting on TechCrunch isn’t a viable marketing plan. While a TechCrunch write up can certainly be a great kick-start to your marketing campaign, by no means is that traffic spike alone going to make your co... Read More
So after 1 year of fund-raising, planning and development, your shiny new beta web app is finally ready... and now you think it's marketing time. You want to reach thousands of users as quickly as possible. Aha, you think, the cheapest and shortest pat... Read More
Here is a summary of the week's Web Tech action on Read/WriteWeb, with the results of our poll at the end. Top Web News Much of the discussion in the blogosphere this week revolved around two pieces of big news.... Read More
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
thanks - great analysis. Where does Entreprise 2.0 projects stand? are they "waiters" ? (being niche and social), or perhaps they could be "walkers", as the market need is already affirmed, big players (google) are there as well, and gaining traction from first day matters.
Posted by: Uri L. | March 22, 2007 4:31 AMInteresting read!
Posted by: Fin | March 22, 2007 5:10 AM@Uri, I think they're WAITers, because enterprise software targets very narrow audience, so it would be less costy to target them first.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | March 22, 2007 5:28 AMrather than solely rely on blog writeups I think new web apps/startups should also look at getting organic growth from search engines, coupled with advertising.
Posted by: Ali | March 22, 2007 6:00 AMExcellent*
I guess my UWayCoolr is on the WAIT List but naturally i wanna Start RUNNING out the Door!!
I went to the Web20Expo from yer Link & i was kind of underwhelmed by what i saw as far as c0ol new Web20 Apps coming out*
Maybe they're WAITing for Mike Arrington's TOP 20 in the Fall!!
Cheers! Billy ;))
Posted by: BillyWarhol | March 22, 2007 6:10 AMbuild a userbase and then market u r website..is that what u suggest?
Posted by: geek | March 22, 2007 6:17 AMHow do u build a userbase in the first place?My answer is apm like hell..
This is some great information for web 2.0 start ups. You definitely don't want to have an immediate leveling off after all of your promotion.
We took a slightly different approach where we contacted 1/2 of the blogs/web 2.0 sites that weren't the biggest but could still give us some buzz to build a decent user base. There has to be some promotion of your site to build the initial users and you can find your audience through Technorati or Serph searches.
Once we develop a strong user base that has had success using our site and enjoys the features we will be contacting the larger blogs/web 2.0 sites for coverage.
Don't hesitate to use your friends and family as much as possible as well!
Posted by: Jason Sadler | March 22, 2007 6:32 AMThis is a very interesting post. I've often wondered how and when new sites make their "move" to market and publicize their site/product. Your list helps clarify the different perspectives. I'll definitely consider your ideas when I try marketing my site(s).
Posted by: Ben | March 22, 2007 8:09 AMSometimes you don't have a choice and the social network you quietly building gets publicity prematurely.
For my small projects I mostly use natural search rankings to get new visitors. This is the best way to market narrow niche websites.
Posted by: Yan | March 22, 2007 8:59 AMOver at TheFilter.com we really thought that our product would appeal to commuters who want to fill their iPod with new music everyday, so we took out advertising on the London Underground and in the Metro newspaper which is a free newspaper that they give out to users of the busses, trains and tubes in England. This didn't really work out for us, although we knew it would be a massive gamble anyway.
However, we were also blessed with 'The Digg Effect' and although our product wasn't quite ready for primetime we got a huge ammount of sign ups and because of that initial burst of interest we still get a good ammount of hits from things like StumbleUpon, and because other bloggers picked up on the story through Digg this helped our Google rankings - these things would have never had happened without the big fat digg burst.
But the problem is, how do you communicate to those early adopters again when you've got a new version of your software out?
Posted by: David | March 22, 2007 9:42 AMA significant advantage of building Web applications to support standard browser features is that they should perform as specified regardless of the operating system or OS version installed on a given client
Posted by: arnarsson | March 22, 2007 9:55 AMVery interesting read, thanks :)
Hopefully I will have a web app to market soon.
Posted by: Adam Dempsey | March 22, 2007 9:55 AMA significant advantage of building Web applications to support standard browser features is that they should perform as specified regardless of the operating system or OS version installed on a given client
Posted by: arnarsson | March 22, 2007 9:56 AMNice Emre,
The most common question I get from community-building entrepreneurs is "how can I get this kickstarted" and my advice is always the same, "spend as little money as possible because the longer you are in business, the greater your odds are of making it work."
Not one person has been happy to hear that if they just are able to last it out a couple years things could work out. Personally that seem pretty enoucouraging. It's a decent road map to success. However, I think to many people have already spent more then they should have or it hurts their ego too much to not think they won't be an overnight internet rockstar.
If you're a WAIT company, WAIT WAIT WAIT ;>
Posted by: Ted Rheingold | March 22, 2007 10:10 AMVery interesting and useful article: right now I'm in web 2.0 startup - gonna show the post to founders.
Posted by: Pavel | March 22, 2007 10:14 AM=)
so what we're saying is, narrow niche, focused marketing, broad niche, broad marketing??
Posted by: chris | March 22, 2007 10:23 AMas someone who is working on a social media site, my plan is to have a private beta for a couple of hundred users (friends) for both testing and data population. once there is sufficient data and thorough testing, i plan to enter the run phase through both marketing and allowing users to invite friends (and perhaps creating some type of incentive for them to do so)
Posted by: nirad | March 22, 2007 10:32 AMThanks for the great info and insights, Emre...guess that makes the old saw "world wide WAIT" all the more apropos to those companies who should wait before hitting the PR trail...
Posted by: Steve Morsa | March 22, 2007 10:42 AMcant agree more with you!
Posted by: Felix | March 22, 2007 10:44 AMgreat article, really suits my case a lot. was ready to make the mistake again. glad i read this.
the wait process is very important, dont get to fast to post it to news page like digg.
Great article, very timely post! I just posted on how
‚ÄúViral Marketing‚Ä? is your Buzz Word of the year
Posted by: Martin Ringlein | March 22, 2007 10:51 AM:)I'm putting this article on Yeeyan.com,translated.
Posted by: huahua | March 22, 2007 10:52 AMPlz let me know if there is something I should taking care of.
Thx!
Thanks, this is great, but the one example mentioned that had any kind of revenue illustrated isn't a web app, it's a hair dye company. I'd much rather see revenues for the other examples.
Posted by: Mark | March 22, 2007 11:03 AMExcellent insight. The categorization of marketing approaches was right on the money!
One of the things you didn't mention was the negative effect that having a slow or unresponsive site from a burst of users can have on everyone's perception of your site. It's like getting a crush of diners at your restaurant for the first time on Valentine's Day, giving lousy service and partially cooked food, yet somehow hoping people will come back after the holiday. Dream on.
Many sites simply aren't designed and tuned to take peaks of activity, especially when they're first launched. While it used to be okay before the dotcom crash to say "we got slashdotted and then crashed", it's not a badge of honor anymore.
At CrowdRules.com, we're primarily taking the "wait list" approach, as we're looking for long-term, regular users. But having lived through the dotcom era (I was CIO of edmunds.com) we've tuned the app to handle the bursts, just in case...;>)
Posted by: David | March 22, 2007 11:03 AMWell, thats a lot of good points. How to time/market. But, let's say you're ready to market. Then what do you do? Digg is almost pointless, TechCrunch is inundated with requests, slashdot hits "deny" on any post that doesn't have "linux" in the title...
Basically I think its irrelevant WHEN you start to market, because it's probably not up to you unless you have a lot of $$ to throw at it. Sure if you're dropping a million dollars into advertising you should wait for everything to be ship-shape, but 99% of startups have $0.00 and all they can do is hope to be covered.
My site http://www.grapheety.com is growing nicely right now, but it peaks uncontrollably and without explanation randomly. One day we had 75 new accounts in 4 hours, then 0 for the next 5 days.
We'll have an incredible new release next week, but we haven't moved the servers to a big enough architecture to handle a techcrunch anyway. So how do you make enough money to advertise and be big enough? :)
Posted by: Gavin Quinn | March 22, 2007 11:12 AMIt all boils down to how soon can your site be valuable to the users. If it's valuable from the get go then start advertising right away if it needs to acquire some resources (sizeable social network in this case) then wait until you get those and then go to the market. Nice classification though.
Bottomline Don't advertise to your audience unless you are valuable to then immediately.
Posted by: Tosh | March 22, 2007 11:19 AMEmre - well done and very timely!
I would add that whenever you do decide to jump on the PR wagon you need to prepare strategy that will get you a steady stream of PR. Even 1 or 2 mentions per week in blogosphere would float you up above the people with occasional spikes. To me that is the most difficult, yet key part to execute.
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | March 22, 2007 11:29 AMThanks, this is great, but the one example mentioned that had any kind of revenue illustrated isn't a web app, it's a hair dye company. I'd much rather see revenues for the other examples.
http://zoomfm.net
Posted by: themaestro | March 22, 2007 12:04 PMI am in the RUN List. Hopefully you guys will post about TechJunkr.com!!!
Posted by: dan | March 22, 2007 12:24 PMGreat article Emre. This is an interesting dynamic that bears further study. I'd love to see the correlation between startups that have failed, startups that have succeeded and their site traffic data.
Do all startups that fail spike and then drop off? Do all startups that succeed *not* spike but show a positive trend? And what are the variations for the segments you identify?
Hopefully there'll be further posts on the topic!
Posted by: John Milan | March 22, 2007 12:33 PMVery interesting article. Our site www.EuropeanHospitalRegister.com falls into an unclassified section - high(ish) price so volume is less important. I would be really interested in any ideas for marketing.
Posted by: Bob Tulloch | March 22, 2007 12:33 PMVery interesting article. Our site www.EuropeanHospitalRegister.com falls into an unclassified section - high(ish) price so volume is less important. I would be really interested in any ideas for marketing.
Posted by: Bob Tulloch | March 22, 2007 12:34 PMThe most common mistake web marketers make is that they rely on porn images and promises of gay seex to sell their lame products.
Posted by: fred | March 22, 2007 12:47 PMI agree with fred. lol
Posted by: Miki | March 22, 2007 1:33 PM@fred: would you classify 'nice or naughty' graphic on myspace pages as porn?
Alex
Posted by: Alex Iskold | March 22, 2007 1:47 PMNobody's talked about conversion. I guess it all really depends on your revenue model. If you can convince a good chunk of a traffic spike to convert (download, buy, subscribe, contribute or whatever), then it should pay dividends for a long time.
Posted by: Darren | March 22, 2007 3:49 PMsame happends with:
Posted by: Ken | March 22, 2007 4:21 PMhttp://www.qualityunit.com/supportcenter
usefull~ thank you
Posted by: kim kyung sun | March 22, 2007 6:06 PMPeople are too much in a hurry to build up success. I started a site/company in 2000. By the end of the year it had no more than 15,000 active users. "What a failure!!" some would say.
Well, 3 years later it thrived with over 7 million active users (over 10M registered). Today, the total number of users goes beyond 22 million (over 14M active).
Of course it's not all about sitting and waiting, but just because you launched a site, made the Digg front page, and could not hold on the momentum, doesn't mean you have no future or that you did things wrong, or even that you didn't calculate well your timing. Personally, I can't find a better way to launch a site than by getting a lot of attention - call it Digg, R/W Web, TC, A-listers, whatever. Once that's done and the graph line goes down, then the real work begins.
Posted by: RBA | March 22, 2007 11:04 PMTam 12 den vuran bir yazi, eline saglik.
Posted by: ali | March 23, 2007 1:05 AMWeb 2.0 is the new USENET - without centralisation and easy search ...
Posted by: drk | March 23, 2007 6:51 AMIt seems to me the WAIT strategy is a bit risky. While you're waiting someone else is out there jumping in with both feet and the opportunity is lost. Your best bet is probably to "astroturf" the site by hiring some college kids to populate it with profiles and content and then hope that your target audience will bite.
Posted by: Bob Edmonston | March 23, 2007 6:55 PM@Bob, evil plan :)
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | March 24, 2007 11:13 AM@Alex: you're right; that's what's happening these days with Twitter.
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | March 25, 2007 9:52 AMYour advice to the 'Wait' companies seems to run contra to conventional wisdom which has always been about 'speed to market'. It kinda speaks to a 'speed to market share' where patience and not haste is the currency...
Posted by: Gordon Ebanks | March 26, 2007 9:39 AMShouldn't entrepreneurs be more concerned with marketing their app to the target users and not to the Web 2.0 crowd? (Unless that is the target market, but as the article points out, their attention is spread pretty thin).
Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2007 12:50 PM@Bill - that's what I'm trying to say here, yes...
Posted by: Emre Sokullu | March 27, 2007 10:00 AMHi Emre, great post. We've noticed similar trends with TravBuddy. One of the main problems with the WAIT strategy, however, is that it often takes a lot of money and/or work to attract that targeted niche audience. We've been Dugg and mentioned in blogs before, and while most of that traffic boost is temporary, it usually levels off at a higher level than before.
We're now reaching the point where our site is starting to reach critical mass in terms of user base. Maybe it's time for some blog write-ups? ;)
Posted by: Eric Bjorndahl | March 27, 2007 5:46 PM"Bottomline Don't advertise to your audience unless you are valuable to then immediately."
This is quite hard to do if you have something socially based like forums or a social networking site. A site like that is nothing without people unless you fill it full of fake content and then promote it. What you really need is a lot of organic growth before you start spending money on advertising, which I guess is what you're alluding to.
Posted by: 302 | March 28, 2007 9:26 PMI would say that any app that depends on Organic traffic should be a run as they're going to need more links that are aged.
Posted by: Motorcycle Guy | April 21, 2007 8:11 PM