Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack

Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by nickpsecurity on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @01:56PM (#12445524)

Anyone doubting that controversy is effective should look at where the nice, honest candidates for U.S. presidency currently are. I don't know as they dropped off some time back while two remaining at the lead try to tap the conflict button in people's brains almost every time they speak. There's more to it than simply being controversial or aggressive: what you say or offer has to fit needs of the audience in their minds. As always.

The linked marketing reads as if it's bluntly honest while also delivering a backhand slap to the competition. Those often work. Many companies can't do it because their business model is a bit too scheming. The Ryver deal seems straight-forward based on what's presented here. So, they can do the brutally honest and combative approach. No opinion on Slack vs Ryver specifically. My comment is just about the marketing angle.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by Bartweiss on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @02:21PM (#12445726)

I mean, this essay raises some questions about the "straightforward" claim.

When I hear "creative pricing", I don't think a company is artistic, I think they're scamming me. Similarly, "free" is not "freemium" is not "competitive enterprise pricing". I get what they're saying, and I like pay-for-new-features way better than pay-for-unbroken-functionality.

But when your business model is literally TBD, it's hard to take refuge in having a straightforward offering.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ryver: Why we run negative ads against Slack by nickpsecurity on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @02:54PM (#12446009)

"But when your business model is literally TBD, it's hard to take refuge in having a straightforward offering."

Yeah, I smiled at that one. Weakest part of the article.

[ Parent | on HN ]