Good marketing and "growth hacks" aren't the same. Growth hacks can complement good marketing, though, by helping the marketing reach an audience. The problem is that "growth hacker" has become an annoyingly ambiguous term used by anyone who wants to try and bolt hacker onto their title without actually hacking anything. Growth hacks, however, are still pretty useful.
Agreed. I don't think the author ever said hacking was an inferior or unreasonable tactic -- she never said clever kitchen extensions were bad. She just wanted people to be able to separate and properly judge what is a clever kitchen extension and what is proper house foundation, and know when to use each.
However, I don't agree that hacks are inherently short-term only. It's possible, although very difficult, to come across a quick, easy decision that will improve your long-term as well as your short-term.
Like what Twitter did at SXSW 2007. They set up 2 huge 60 inch plasma TVs in conference hallways -- that one small, quick, dirty easy decision caused them to explode in popularity.
It seems like she said that growth hacking wasn't a thing that exists. I suspect that if asked, she would with you that it does exist as an action but that as a title it is nonsensical. A startup's marketing can't be made of hacks for the same reason that if a programmer spends all of her time hacking, she'll end up with an incoherent mess of spaghetti instead of a solid foundation to build more of a business on.
Yea, I agree with all of that. The main point, I think, is that you should think of marketing in broader terms than "find the best growth hack." That doesn't mean that "find the best growth hack" shouldn't happen.
"Hacking" just sounds cool, even though it has little to no place at a tech startup. It's just a way to apply cachet to something less appealing on it's own. One of the earliest and biggest culprits is a book I once read because it used the word "Hacker" to purport it was a very different kind of book than it turned out to be.
Sounds like you got hacked by a bookhacker using a classic titlehack which hacked your decisionhacking process. Even though you didn't like the book, you still got acquihacked as a customer thanks to the author's brilliant title optimization strategy.
That article took way to long to say, "Don't call me a hacker because words can only mean one thing".
Edit:
Also, this totally happened
>“No, I’m not. I don’t think scale, hiring and leadership coaching is something one can hack into. Neither do I think that market entry, customer engagement and creative storytelling is solved by an algorithm. Growth is too vague. We all work in it. Adding the word ‘hacking’ does a disservice not to just itself, but to marketing and software development, too.”
>We both grinned and laughed. He responded in agreement, “Fair points. I’m a programmer. I agree, it’s a shitty title. Definitely not indicative of the work.”
Yes, definitions change, but that's sort of a reductionist statement. I could make an equally reductionist point about the acceptance of non-standard usage based on the fact two definitions of "nonplussed" are opposites. Nonplussed means not nonplussed.
I don't even think it would be hyperbolic to say the utility of using "hack" or "hacker" in a sentence has plummeted over the last decade because of it's everexpanding meaning.
What a confusing way to ostensibly relieve confusion! Every usage of the term "growth hacker" that I've encountered doesn't seem to imply that it means anything other than someone who uses quick and dirty tactics to spur rapid growth.
This seems more defensive than anything. I've noticed quite a few articles lately from non-technical workers in the tech industry along the same vein. I've worked as a non-technical worker at a startup before, so I understand the need to justify one's role.
12 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadHowever, I don't agree that hacks are inherently short-term only. It's possible, although very difficult, to come across a quick, easy decision that will improve your long-term as well as your short-term.
Like what Twitter did at SXSW 2007. They set up 2 huge 60 inch plasma TVs in conference hallways -- that one small, quick, dirty easy decision caused them to explode in popularity.
Edit: Also, this totally happened
>“No, I’m not. I don’t think scale, hiring and leadership coaching is something one can hack into. Neither do I think that market entry, customer engagement and creative storytelling is solved by an algorithm. Growth is too vague. We all work in it. Adding the word ‘hacking’ does a disservice not to just itself, but to marketing and software development, too.”
>We both grinned and laughed. He responded in agreement, “Fair points. I’m a programmer. I agree, it’s a shitty title. Definitely not indicative of the work.”
Yes, definitions change, but that's sort of a reductionist statement. I could make an equally reductionist point about the acceptance of non-standard usage based on the fact two definitions of "nonplussed" are opposites. Nonplussed means not nonplussed.
I don't even think it would be hyperbolic to say the utility of using "hack" or "hacker" in a sentence has plummeted over the last decade because of it's everexpanding meaning.
This seems more defensive than anything. I've noticed quite a few articles lately from non-technical workers in the tech industry along the same vein. I've worked as a non-technical worker at a startup before, so I understand the need to justify one's role.