Aggressive puppy recognise and treat an aggressive puppy

0
12

Introduction

There are no known cases of people being sued by dogs that have been aggressive towards them.

This is a very silly thing to say. It’s true if you have a dog, but not if you do not. It’s true if you have an aggressive dog, but not if you do not. It depends on the context in which the statement is made, and the person doing the commenting knows this as well as anyone.

If you’re a dog owner who has taken your dog for a walk through some public place, it might be socially acceptable to comment that dogs are aggressive towards other dogs and humans, but it would probably be wrong to say “dogs are aggressive towards people.” If you haven’t taken your dog for a walk around some public place in the last few days and haven’t seen any other dogs, it’s probably OK to say “dogs are aggressive towards each other.”

Likewise: “people can be aggressive toward each other too! There is no known case of someone being sued by their own dog.” This just isn’t true. You can sue your neighbor for attacking your cat or your spouse for beating you up with a baseball bat or someone else for attacking your child or yourself with an axe or knife etc., but this isn’t something that happens all too often – at least in Australia where I live (but I’m sure it happens elsewhere too). So saying there’s no known case of someone being sued by their own dog would be wrong in all those circumstances too (and even more so if you’re talking about those times when people actually get into fights over these things).

The Puppy

Let’s say you’re a marketer who is trying to launch a startup. You have a great idea, and you want to get it out there as fast as possible.

To do that, you make an unapologetically aggressive pitch.

You tell people that your company is going to release a great product in just a few weeks, and all they need to do is sign up and register their email address on the first day of the launch.

Your target audience will be this small group of early adopters with whom you have no direct competition: only 1-99 people (and maybe some who are just looking for something different) are interested enough in your product that they will probably be willing to pay for it — which means, at least initially, your service or product is going to be absolutely free or nearly so.

Assuming you are 100% correct (which I doubt), then the first day of the service’s life might look something like this:

{mospagebreak}

{mospagebreak}The first day of service launch {esponsor} {esponsor}[email protected] {esponsor} [email protected] {esponsor} [email protected] {esponsor}[email protected] {esponsor} [email protected]{esponsor}[email protected] {esponsor}.

This looks promising! You can see that some people did sign up on day one but not many — so you need to iterate fast if you want them to stick around after the initial rush fades. That meant doing more than just sending out a mailer; now you also need an app promotion (iTunes/OpenApp promotion) and content marketing (on social media). Again, these extra actions aren’t cheap and take time away from building the MVP — but they can help your startup grow quickly in its early days, and quickly attract more customers. The fact that most people are only willing to pay for services after they have seen their friends try them out demonstrates how important it is for consumers to see their peers use your product before they feel comfortable making a purchase decision. The problem is that while there are plenty of free products out there, very few startups can afford to make them before they have hundreds or thousands of paying customers with whom they share all experiences — which means this strategy isn’t scalable enough: if you want more customers than just 1-99

Puppy Love

The agile software development method has its ups and downs. People misunderstand it all the time, mistake it for an excuse to not do things, and use it to justify a lot of bad things.

The main point that I want to strip away from this is that there are things that are good and bad in software development, usually depending on the context. An example:

If you are writing code because you need to develop something fast, then you should be able to write code fast. If you’re writing code because you want to demonstrate the quality of your work and impress people with your technical prowess, then you should be able to write code fast. If you’re writing code because it’s fun and makes people laugh, then you shouldn’t have to worry about speed or quality — but maybe there are other ways of showing off (i.e., cute puppies!).

In this case, “aggressive puppy” is actually a pretty good rule-of-thumb for when to write code quickly (in many contexts).

Free Puppies

To be a successful startup, you need to be aggressive in your tactics.

You need to be able to push an idea and make it happen, to get more than enough traction for that idea and product. You want your product to win! And if it does, then the market is going to love it, you’re going to make a ton of money, and your brand is going to be on top of the heap. But if not? Then you’re not where you want to be.

It’s no coincidence that the first thing many new founders do when they realize they have a problem is find some way of saying “We’re not like other people! We’re different! We are the only ones who can do this!” To prove their point, they end up doing something very different than what everyone else does: they start selling puppy pups or similar products.

So let me say this again: people will tell you that there aren’t enough puppies in the world — but why not? There are tons of dogs out there. The most popular breed of dog (the Golden Retriever) makes $300/month on average in sales alone — and there are lots of other good ones too (Labrador Retrievers, Boxers). In fact, if we took all those dogs out of circulation (which would require millions and millions of dollars), we would still have hundreds of millions more unused puppies. Millions! And what if those puppies were sold for $100 each? What do you think the market value would be for them? That’s how much puppies are worth today; if we had just two million puppies instead of six million dogs… . . . . . well, it wouldn’t matter anyway because nobody would buy them. So why spend millions chasing after them?

In his book “How To Start A Startup: 50 Lessons For A New Venture Mastermind Edition , founder Richard Edelman says that startups need “aggressive puppy aggressive puppy products or nothing at all will ever happen. If people don’t have an urge to buy your product, then they don’t have anything else they can use. It has got to go viral or nobody will ever use it… If people don’t love your product or pay attention to its message then nothing will ever happen with it…If someone doesn’t buy your product just because they didn

More Puppies!

When it comes to people, there’s a lot of conflicting advice. Some people tell you to be as aggressive as possible with your marketing (since if you’re not aggressive enough, your competitors will be). Others say that being too aggressive is a sign of weakness and an inability to take risks (since if you’re not taking risks, you don’t deserve to grow).

The truth is that two or three different things are driving the two extremes in this debate.

The first is the idea of “market share”: do we need to get as much market share as possible? Or — even better — do we need to get more market share than our competitors? And some studies have found that in many markets, the answer is yes. However, most people also know that this kind of thinking doesn’t make sense for startups; instead it’s best when applied to established companies which have either grown organically or been acquired yet still maintain healthy growth.

The second extreme is the idea of “adoption curve”: do we want our product in more markets than we can support? Or — even better — do we want our product in markets where it has a fair chance of success but which pay off financially only if the adoption rate ever reaches critical mass (ie: when everyone starts using it)? Well… nobody knows how many people will use something like Slack or Slack for Teams; so nobody can give us a good answer here. But one thing that people who follow these debates tend to agree on is that adoption curves are almost never straight lines (at least not for very long): instead they look like a bell-shaped curve with random spikes and troughs where adoption has “crashed” and then rebounded and started growing again…

I think most people who watch these debates find it amazing that there’s such a wide range of opinions on what makes sense; but I also think there’s some truth at play here. The difference between us and other startups is that we have nowhere near the resources available to other startups and so need to figure out everything ourselves: putting out fires, hiring all sorts of new employees (including engineers, designers and PR staff), planning marketing plans, negotiating all sorts of agreements with suppliers etc… It’s easy for us because we don’t have any other options right now; but what about other startups? It may shock you to hear me say this: I think small businesses do everything wrong! That may sound crazy

Conclusion

I think we’ve all had a moment when we thought to ourselves “I’m not sure what I want to do, but I know I want to do it right.” This is the moment when you might need to ask yourself whether you really want to do it at all. There is a lot you can learn from other people’s mistakes.

For example, if your product fails and you are stuck with it, there are a few things you can learn from the customer experience around that failure:

Your customer should be able to adapt and change their behavior without feeling like they are being punished for doing so. You shouldn’t be seen as the problem; they should see themselves as the solution. Your customer shouldn’t feel bad about failing, but rather that they have succeeded in solving a problem for you (which could mean something totally different for them). They should feel like a part of your team which helps solve problems for everyone else too (which also means something different for them). The goal should be not to punish your customers but rather find ways of enabling them so that they can succeed even more broadly and help others succeed too (which is likely quite different). When your customers fail, it should feel natural and easy for them . . .

Beyond those examples though, there are some general principles you can draw from:

• The worst thing that anyone can do is criticize your product (and by extension yourself) without providing any useful feedback. The best thing someone can do is leave feedback without expecting anything in return (or maybe even including value in exchange). If someone leaves constructive feedback, it means they have succeeded at helping others achieve their goals too. If they leave destructive feedback then this tells us that they failed at setting reasonable goals or making reasonable adjustments — two very important things that either don’t matter or only matter when company goals aren’t aligned with their own needs. By far the most important thing someone can do is be supportive of others’ goals and help them achieve theirs as well . . .

• Our goal with products is to make life easier for everyone who wants them — especially ourselves! The better we understand what people need, the more likely we will deliver on time and on budget and keep our promise to our users. We shouldn’t assume that what we build will improve life specifically for us or our closest friends (even if “friends” includes “people outside our company”). We must

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

2  +  5  =