Let’s talk about putting up barriers of entry to your latest Web 2-point-ohhhh project. I don’t know about you, but I’m getting invited to web apps and social networks that I’ve never even heard of before (and a lot of them sound the same to me). Signing up is all the same: click here to join, fill out these fields, upload an image and wa-lah, you’re in.
Recently, though, I heard about Brightkite. And you know what? Somebody that’s already a member has to invite you in. You can’t just go and sign up. So, automatically, I want in. My interest is piqued. I have to work a little to get in. And if I work a little, I value the reward more. We’ve actually used this in some of the movements we’ve built because it easily separates those who really want in from those that are aren’t really interested, but are willing to fill out a field or two.
Why? Say it with me now, “Because people want what they can’t have.”
I’m not saying that you need to make it painfully difficult for someone to join your movement, but at least let them work for it a little. This philosophy doesn’t resonate with a lot of companies, because they think success in life is all about the quantity. But there’s no depth. It’s like that guy we all know who has 56,000 contacts in Linkedin. There’s no quality. No depth to those relationships.
Barriers bring with them a sense of exclusivity. Everyone wants in the party that hardly anyone gets into. I’m not saying this is right for all social networks, but before you throw open the doors to the entire world, why not invite those true kindred spirits …. those biggest fans …. to the party first. Hell, let them be the gatekeepers even. And then watch how the barriers can become assets.
Related posts:
Nice post. I agree that most companies worry about the quantity. However I think it is a giant change that not always comes easy. Do you know how this company did it?
Nice perspective here, Spike. For lots of companies, it’s not how many are reading (or participating, using, whatever), but WHO is reading (or participating, using, etc.) Adding that air of exclusivity (think “membership has its privileges”) can certainly be effective. Similarly, scarcity can have that same effect — I remember when I was anxious to get my hands on a gmail account! It was only 5 or 6 hours, true, but they were delicious hours spent in longing. ; )
So, Spike, will you let all of us know when you get in? (Perhaps this post will help.) And if it was worth the yearning?
Sweet post. I’ve been considering that MO to raise the intrinsic value of becoming part of an SYNNEX partner community. Exclusivity = value. Since I want the community to be engaged and active, it pays to weed out the passive, non-contributing “members” by not letting them in to begin with. Great observation.
Spike,
While I agree that people often do want what they can’t easily attain, doesn’t this model place a lot of weight on the member community? For the organization, are they putting their success in the hands of people with no real vested interest in the success of the site? Given the acknowledged over saturation of web apps and social networks, shouldn’t we expect members to have three, four, or more accounts on similar sites?
If this is the case, isn’t content and performance the determinant, and not exclusivity?
this even applies to that webform where nothing is required and only asks you for your name, phone number and email address. Obviously, that company just wants every possible lead regardless of the quality.