No results found for your search
This article looks at foundational changes that affect how we all should think about growing tech companies. Key changes include:
Another great post Brian.
One of your last sentences sums it up perfectly: "Call it growth, growth hacking, quantitative marketing, full stack marketing, technical marketing, or whatever you want. Growth, in my opinion, far less about the terminology or tactics. It is more about a change in our mentality, process, and team structure of how we grow a technology company. Those changes are a reflection of how the macro environment has changed over the past 5 years."
Completely agree. Time and time again I see companies struggling with the same underlying issues of product/market fit and growth. Many of these companies have great marketing, product and engineering teams but they're usually pulling in slightly different directions with none of them focused on quantifiable growth.
Bingo. Completely agree. In those types of orgs growth initiatives seem to get de-prioritized because they aren't as sexy as new feature development. Thanks for the read Andrew!
Your comment about chasing after new feature development reminds me of a good post by Andrew Chen titled 'Does your product suck? Stop adding new features and “zoom in” instead': http://andrewchen.co/2013/05/16/does-your-product-suck-stop-adding-new-features-and-zoom-in-instead
Andrew, I am glad you did decide to post this. I think your right that the animosity is just a growing pain of a developing concept. The word "hacking" is clearly the polarizing factor. It has connotations that are negative, and it can make the whole movement seem a little immature, but without it, I don't think the conversation gets pushed as far as it has so quickly. All you have to do is look at the posts on this site for a few days to realize that the concepts and the players in the growth hacking movement are serious, smart, and focused. But, if it's called "quantitative marketing" are these ideas even being discussed? I doubt it, at least not on this scale. Good read, thanks.
Apologies, I meant Brian.
Thanks Ethan. I think a fourth, and very simple, reason the animosity exists is that people just dislike change. Especially when it comes to their careers. They'll spend time fighting it when they should really just embrace it.
That is also a good point. I actually think that one of the things that validates "growth hacking" is the fact that it is now a legitimate job title. That probably doesn't make the people who are criticizing it too happy as it may threaten their jobs, but it does add to the legitimacy.
Thanks Brian, caught this on inbound.org too but my comment is more relevant here... A pertinent point from the article is around the wide range of knowledge that gives a GH the edge:
"My path to learning growth was a happy accident. Before I really focused on growth I spent two years learning to code (albeit poorly), 3 years learning product management, 3 years on user acquisition. With out those diverse experiences there is no way I would understand how the pieces of growth come together and my learning is very far from over."
You don't have to be an expert in all or any, but need to understand the core principles. If growth takes places across the whole funnel from awareness to referral how can you best optimise each part without some basic knowledge of what each part of the funnel is?
This is where Growth Hackers really make their mark across the whole business.
Join over 70,000 growth pros from companies like Uber, Pinterest & Twitter
Use the feedback box below if you have a question, comment or general feedback.
Your feedback has been sent.
Sweet! The link has been copied to your clip boardy board!
Flash isn't supported. Please copy the link manually.