thumb
@thumb
i think i’m finally understanding distribution. it’s always been a nebulous term in my head. i question how many ppl actually understand it. i see it often tossed around as a blanket term for marketing, growth
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Zach
@zd
distribution is really just shorthand for "how you get your product into users' hands" it's the mix of customer acquisition channels you use: farcaster is an example of an "owned channel" since you have a direct line to your users paying influencers is an example of a "paid channel" since you paid for it virality / word of mouth is an example of an "earned channel" since you earned the attention on your own
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions
Zach
@zd
this is why investors look for "distribution advantages" (ie. does the founder have some unfair advantage in accessing their target customer?) and why "first time founders think about product; second time founders think about distribution" without a cheap, repeatable way to get your product into users' hands, you're dead on arrival
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
thumb
@thumb
appreciate this breakdown. seems like my experience plays into the trope of how launching enables one to understand this better kek i'm assuming most opt for owned channels, but can't find growth. and others use paid channels but can't retain users + burn cash. not really sure about how startups manage earned channels -- it seems the most evergreen, yet utilized less cause of already proven methods?
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Zach
@zd
most of distribution really just comes down to sending lots of dms / emails / etc asking for things + not being afraid to push thru initial no’s earned channels come down to consistency + the goodwill you build with ppl
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
thumb
@thumb
i can see that. for more indie teams/products, i’d say there’s more room to experiment and build up that reputation or intrigue via unconventional means
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction