- Admin
- #1
MJ DeMarco
I followed the science; all I found was money.
Staff member
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Rat-Race Escape!
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
The power of building an audience as opposed to building a product seems to have a lot of spotlight lately.
For example, if you have 2M subscribers on YouTube, it would be easy to push them a product right? And not just a great product, but ANY product, right?
Everyone wants a IG following or a YT channel with millions of followers/subscribers so they can sell their influence.
This is not a bad strategy, but I don't believe it is optimal. For starters, Control and Entry, which are non-existent on such platforms. To circumvent Control, you need to get so huge (think: Mr. Beast) that you possess leverage and unprecedented influence.
Second, just because you have a large audience, doesn't mean success is guaranteed. Mr. Beast and Joe Rogan are implicitly implying with their success that if we have millions of fans, monetization, or selling them something is super-simple.
It isn't, because ultimately, selling *something* comes down to a product.
Unique value. Something different.
If you attempt to sell your audience something that does not have perceived value and is seen more of a "money grab," you will be exposed as a fraud, and many in your audience will leave. This also goes for paid influencer promos -- ultimately, the product has to do the heavy lifting.
On the flip side, if you had an awesome product but started with ZERO audience, the speed at which you can get traction is greatly diminished, or worse, impossible, especially if you don't know how to market. The cure for cancer goes unsold if you can't sell it.
Both paths are not for the thin-skinned, or for person who quits easily.
However if I had to make a choice, I'd say that YOUR PRODUCT is by far, the most important.
Good products are viral. And good products sell.
A large audience? That doesn't guarantee success, sales, or traction.
Look below:
Another great example right now is Threads, by Meta, which hasn't (yet) seemed to have gained market adoption. Zuckerburg has the largest audience on the planet, and Threads sucks.
Other examples?
Remember Google+?
How about New Coke?
Here's a list of gigantic companies with huge audiences and huge influence who could not succeed because their product simply wasn't good enough.
So...
#1) Build a product that everyone wants? And let your product help build the audience?
#2) Or build an audience and plug-in something later?
I'd pick #1 every time.
PS: There is NO right or wrong to this question as like many things, it can be solved in the gray with "It depends."
For example, if you have 2M subscribers on YouTube, it would be easy to push them a product right? And not just a great product, but ANY product, right?
Everyone wants a IG following or a YT channel with millions of followers/subscribers so they can sell their influence.
This is not a bad strategy, but I don't believe it is optimal. For starters, Control and Entry, which are non-existent on such platforms. To circumvent Control, you need to get so huge (think: Mr. Beast) that you possess leverage and unprecedented influence.
Second, just because you have a large audience, doesn't mean success is guaranteed. Mr. Beast and Joe Rogan are implicitly implying with their success that if we have millions of fans, monetization, or selling them something is super-simple.
It isn't, because ultimately, selling *something* comes down to a product.
Unique value. Something different.
If you attempt to sell your audience something that does not have perceived value and is seen more of a "money grab," you will be exposed as a fraud, and many in your audience will leave. This also goes for paid influencer promos -- ultimately, the product has to do the heavy lifting.
On the flip side, if you had an awesome product but started with ZERO audience, the speed at which you can get traction is greatly diminished, or worse, impossible, especially if you don't know how to market. The cure for cancer goes unsold if you can't sell it.
Both paths are not for the thin-skinned, or for person who quits easily.
However if I had to make a choice, I'd say that YOUR PRODUCT is by far, the most important.
Good products are viral. And good products sell.
A large audience? That doesn't guarantee success, sales, or traction.
Look below:
Another great example right now is Threads, by Meta, which hasn't (yet) seemed to have gained market adoption. Zuckerburg has the largest audience on the planet, and Threads sucks.
Other examples?
Remember Google+?
How about New Coke?
Here's a list of gigantic companies with huge audiences and huge influence who could not succeed because their product simply wasn't good enough.
35 of the biggest failed products from the world's biggest companies
From Nintendo's Virtual Boy to Amazon's Fire phone, even the biggest companies can have major flops. Here are some of the notable disappointments.
www.businessinsider.com
So...
#1) Build a product that everyone wants? And let your product help build the audience?
#2) Or build an audience and plug-in something later?
I'd pick #1 every time.
PS: There is NO right or wrong to this question as like many things, it can be solved in the gray with "It depends."
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.