Engagement Marketing and Business with Threadless

Readers of our book and blog know that we define the younger generation as Generation C - the Community Generation.

The Generation that is networked, participatory, and co-creative.

In the The Customer is the Company an in-depth look at the company Threadless - one can see the 4C's principals - [1] Commerce [2] Culture [3] Community [4] Connectivity

the lesson

of Threadless is more basic. Its success demonstrates what happens when you allow your company to become what your customers want it to be, when you make something as basic and quaint as "trust" a core competency. Threadless succeeds by asking more than any modern retail company has ever asked of its customers -- to design the products, to serve as the sales force, to become the employees. Nickell has pioneered a new kind of innovation. It doesn't require huge research budgets or creative brilliance -- just a willingness to keep looking outward.

And one of the principals that I work to is Trust

Trustworthiness is especially important at Threadless because the company's most important asset -- its vast online community -- is managed collectively. Threadless employs no moderators, and no single person or group is charged with keeping the community happy. Nor, technologically speaking, is the social network itself especially advanced. It lacks many of the features found on MySpace or Facebook. There are no virtual friends, no messaging features, and no status messages. Users' profiles are made up of their blog postings and their submissions.

And dedication to authenticity

But what Threadless lacks in flashy features, it makes up for in steadfast dedication to staying close to its customers. Both Nickell and Kalmikoff spend much of their time cruising Threadless.com -- posting comments on blogs, inspecting designs, and tweaking the website. They publish their instant-message addresses and regularly query the public about changes to design or contest policies. "If someone changes something on Facebook, there's no expectation that some random 14-year-old from the middle of Idaho is going to be able to get in touch with Mark Zuckerberg," Kalmikoff says. "On Threadless, if people see something they don't like and want to talk to Jake, they get Jake."

And what does ENGAGEMENT give you?

This rabid engagement propelled the company through four years of phenomenal growth, beginning around 2004. The user base grew tenfold, from 70,000 members at the end of 2004 to more than 700,000 today. Sales in 2006 hit $18 million -- with profits of roughly $6 million. In 2007, growth continued at more than 200 percent, with similar margins.

'Nuff said, 'cept I love it.

Comments

[Albert]

If threadless is self propelling and self directed by its partcipants I do not like the term engagement"marketing". That supposes still somebody that directs or controls from a company point of view instead of the perspective of the engaged participant.

[Alan Moore]

Dear Albert,

How lovely to hear from you :-)

Your response depends on whether you see the term marketing in its old form or not.

Threadless are a commercial operation- so therefore they are engaged in marketing - my whole point was Engagement Marketing was not premised upon the principals of command and control.

and the company is directing in terms of co-creation, participation, competitions etc.,

and I always asked the question, how does one engage ones audience?

Alan

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Albert

I'm sorry its rather long since you posted your comment, but I am curious, if you do not like the term "engagement marketing" then do you have a term you would prefer? For example we make the semantic differentiations in our workshops between the commonly used term interactive marketing, and engagement marketing; or for example viral marketing, and engagement marketing.

Like Alan said, of these three terms at least, engagement marketing is the most customer-focused. Interactive allows customers to participate, but is not inherently engaging; Interactive marketing is far more broad term. Engagement marketing requires the component to be appealing to the target audience.

Similarly viral marketing is designed to spread, but does not automatically require an engagement by the audience, on the willingness to spread the campaign. The three terms have significant overlap, but to me so far, Alan's term Engagment Marketing has been most precise in differentiating from the other often used terms. And obviously there are many others, such as guerilla marketing etc..

If you happen to return to this comment thread, could you post your view of what term you would prefer.

Thanks

Tomi Ahonen :-)