This blog poses the question, which came first, the chicken of the egg? If you build a GREAT website with no visitors, you lose. If you bring tons of visitors with a piece-meal Web site, you may do more harm than good (low conversion ratio, damaged reputation etc…).

Here is another story… a local wedding gown store that was known for selling high-end wedding gowns and bridesmaid dresses advertised in the Yellow Pages. They recevied about 10 calls per day as a result of their Yellow Page advertising, most people would visit the store. However, they threw up a crappy Website and added their Web address in the Yellow Page ad. Instead of calling, most people went to their crappy Website and based on the site’s rediculous design and navigation, decided they were not worth visiting.

OUCH!

Ill say this, marketing can be played two ways, one you can push your products or two you can find out what consumers really will buy, not necessarily what they want, but what they will buy. Then you give that to them.

The shoe company Reebok fulfilled its purpose. It generated revenue for a sustained period of time. Now on the flip side they could have sustained longer if it were not for the failures they encountered in marketing.

But as far as technology vs. marketing. I agree that they are equally responsible to the success of any company depending on what your company is selling. If your company is IT based, and then your focus is going to be on services and technology for example IBM, they offer support and services and rarely need to launch a full out marketing campaign to gain customers. Now on the other hand, American express, one of IBM’s clientele, launches a massive marketing campaign ever three month or better. Because what does Amex do? They simply sell you accommodations for travel. They need to get your attention. IBM could care less about marketing as they don’t really sell a variety of products to the pubic; all of their products are geared for corporate use. But Amex is geared too individuals.

Am I making any sense?

–Austin D Carey.

However, you do make one crucial point—PLAN first, SPEND second!

Well said. I have been involved with several startup IT solutions all of which where fantastic IT products that made the competition look like slugs drowning in a dish of old beer.

The reality is if you build it… the customers will not necessarily come. While there obversely needs to be a balance between Technology and Marketing your number 1 priority is to work out how you are going to sell the thing.

You don’t want to be guessing about marketing and sales, seriously… you need to know marketing and how to sell or the only thing you will be cashing in is food stamps.

The cost of learning can be expensive. If you don’t know marketing find someone who does.

re: my plans — dont worry I was going to post a nice thank you on sitepoint becuase I have gotten so much help in the forums. What I am doing has the potential to enrich a lot of lives, in a real tangible way. For now, just another broke guy, with a lot riding on a great idea.

Fairly circular logic – doesn’t show how investing more in technology would have yielded a different result for Reebok.

Quite obviously if your business is IT you will be investing more in technology than in marketing – Comparing your strategy to Rebooks’ is completely tangential (you are not a marketing play). And comparing Reebok to Nike (who left Reebok in the dust because of better marketing) does not exactly strengthen your point as Nike can attribute nearly all of its success to marketing and branding.

However, you do make one crucial point – PLAN first, SPEND second!

I think Andrew has made an excellent point here – only the ratio of marketing:tech really depends on the business. Which is very apparent with our potential multi-billionaire colleague here (good luck with that! and if you need any help….)

You talk a lot of trash, but when’s the last time that you started a multi-million dollar shoe company? ;)

I am 1 1/2 years invested into a project that might go worldwide – eta early jan 06. I have confidence (its also my responsibility) for meeting this deadline. Its this commitment to the project that earned me the title of ceo. If this works, I might know a thing or two about starting multi-billion dollar companies.

In the end, Reebok looked pretty stupid. That shut them up for nearly a year before they came back, Nike left reebok in the dust during the time period of their failed marketting attempt.

You talk a lot of trash, but when’s the last time that you started a multi-million dollar shoe company? ;)