No, only pissing people off on Twitter. We have been testing FB ads and to our surprise our "tame" ads work very well there. We have not even tested the dreaded, horribly offensive "so last year" on FB. Not sure the difference but there is definitely a big diff between Twitter and FB audiences. Any ideas why?
Ha! I like that Marco. "nicest guys in town." Nice guys finish last? Fact is if everyone here knew us personally, they'd say we a nice guys. But when faced with the daunting, dubious task of taking on Slack this strategy made the most sense. And it is working. If it wasn't we'd have stopped a long time ago. Marketing is hard but fun stuff. Thanks!
Maybe you are right that the game is over and Slack won. I don't think so. I believe they uncovered a market not even they knew was there. If I am correct there will be quite a few winners in what I believe to be a huge market. Over the next decade EVERYONE will gradually stop using email for their team communication. That is 1 Billion business users of email.
When I took SalesLogix public in 1999 there were other CRM companies that went public around the same time. Multiple winners. And where I am going with differentiation ultimately I don't care what Slack does. I only care now in order to become a known brand. Something we have pretty good start on.
Our Ads saying positive things about Ryver are ignored. Why spend money on those?
And if the product sucked no one would use it which would be the ultimate slam against Ryver. But the opposite is true. Some Slack teams are converting and most because they like it better not just because it is free.
Then why didn't you just say that? You wrote a whole article defending your negative campaign when in reality you are doing it because it is the only campaign that works for you.
This is a smoking gun for in that you are only justifying your actions.
"Why do we keep running that ad, despite the occasional social media potshots ranging from snarky platitudes to frothing fanboy rage? It’s simple: That ad outperforms every other ad we have tested 5 to 1. "
Team Communication does need to be free and does not "require" task management. You will be able to mix and match so only the ones who need tasks pay for it. The "creatively" word means we intend to price it so an Admin does not have to make a decision on adding cost EVERY TIME one more person needs Tasks.
Since Ryver team comm matches up very well against what Slack charges for, it seems a reasonable (at least) claim to be entirely free vs Slack.
Hmm... I strongly disagree with your assumptions. But, hackers have long debated the meaning of the word "free", so who am I to say?
I guess we will have to update the Jargon file to include your curious new definition, "free as in free when compared to specific things that Slack Technologies Inc. sells".
