
Pokémon Go vs Growth Hacking - samsolomon
https://medium.com/@pandemona/pok%C3%A9mon-go-vs-growth-hacking-c2b1315cb4a4
======
cocktailpeanuts
Twitter didn't used to send random push notifications like "@justinbieber is
trending on Twitter. Follow them." either. Tumblr didn't used to send random
push notifications with 80% emojis. But now they do, and super annoying.

Whenever I see a company start sending these random "retention" push
notifications I know they're fucked and they're just trying to stop a leaking
bucket.

Pokemon is not at that stage yet, so this article is missing the point. I will
bet that Pokemon will start doing this in the near future when the novelty
wears off and they need to live up to the stratospheric expectation the media
has built up for them.

~~~
pandemona6
I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing that at some point. But it is
quite amazing and notable that Pokemon Go achieved this level of success
without any of it. Other highly visible brands still employ traditional growth
tactics. Star Trek Timelines pushes me like 10 times a day smh.

------
oisino
Doesnt need any of these things for it has: 1\. Huge loyal fan base built up
since 90s 2\. People post their Pokemon Go experiences naturally on FB/
Snapchat/ Twitch due to the visual nature of the content (i.e. Pokemon are
cool looking when imposed on real world things) 3\. When you see people
walking weird with their phones out you automatically know its Pokemon Go.
Great constant real world promotion

~~~
CM30
Yeah. Pokemon is a brand that a lot of people already recognise and care
about. Your project you're 'growth hacking' for likely isn't.

Then again, Pokemon GO does show the value of one other thing:

1\. Having a really cool idea and actually implementing it.

Miitomo (Nintendo's previous mobile app idea) didn't have this, and hence its
popularity has fell off a cliff. Pokemon in the real world is something people
wanted. Random customise esque social app based around questions and answers
wasn't.

------
gedrap
Honestly, I found this post really weak.

'Pokemon Go does (or not) X, Y, Z, it's growing real quick, think about what
you are doing!'. There are thousands, if not millions, of apps that do the
same things but they end up nowhere and have total of 3 downloads (one of them
is the developers mother).

It's like a list of '10 personality traits of successful CEOs', ignoring
millions of people sharing the same traits and stuck at a cubicle and a dead-
end job (or collecting unemployment benefits).

Also, it is missing one of the key points: 'Pokemon Go is using an extremely
recognizable world wide brand'. We can't pretend that the 'Pokemon' bit of
'Pokmenon go' doesn't matter.

~~~
pandemona6
I did say "strength of brand [...] is everything". I think we are saying the
same things :)

~~~
gedrap
My bad, sorry!

------
samfisher83
Pokemon has grossed something like 46 billion dollars.

[http://www.pokemon.co.jp/corporate/en/data/](http://www.pokemon.co.jp/corporate/en/data/)

Its already pretty big. How much growth hacking do you need when everyone
already knows about you. All the kids who grew up in the 90s now this game.
They are now adults with kids of their own. I see parents and kids playing
together. When someone comes up with a startup no one knows about you have to
be creative in getting users. Even Facebook did a lot of spammy things to get
users.

------
free2rhyme214
This isn't an apples to apples comparison. The Pokemon Company is over 18
years old and has brand recognition.

Kinda ironic considering the girl who wrote this works for Periscope.

~~~
pandemona6
A lot of highly visible brands use a lot of growth hacking in games, and in my
experience this is true with brands that are sub-licensed to small studios.
Final Fantasy RecordKeeper, Star Trek Timelines, The Walking Dead Road to
survival...they all send push notifs many times a day, have frustrating
stamina/fatigue mechanics, etc. They are also all very similar to each other
in terms of game mechanics.

Pokemon Go manages to surpass them all without the same kind of growth hacks
because of brand, yes, but also because it's a unique and compelling
experience for the mainstream.

Anyway we are literally saying the same thing :)

------
SerLava
Uh, Apple could put a picture of a penis on the upper right of every iPhone,
and they'd still sell like hotcakes.

Established brands do what they do, and get away with what they get away with.
"Bob's Great Hello World App" isn't going to get rocketed to the top because
they mimick a couple of things Pokemon Go is doing.

~~~
cocktailpeanuts
As much as I think the original article is bullshit, I still think it's not
just about the brand.

According to that logic, any project that involves well recognized brand
should succeed.

That is far from true. Especially in mobile games, if you look closely the
ones who spend the most on promoting their games are the biggest brands. You
still need to spend tons of money on marketing if you're building is just
another candy crush clone or just another temple run clone.

As an example, I do not think if Niantic came out with a sequel--say a super
mario version of Pokemon Go--it would succeed as much as they did with Pokemon
Go. It's not just about the brand. It's also about luck, timing, and how it
makes people feel.

~~~
SerLava
Oh, absolutely. People are ready to ditch anything that doesn't deliver
enjoyment. Good brands selling a shit product or two. The original article is
definitely more about the layers of marketing bullshit on top, than the actual
content.

I do agree that the tactics they tick off are all annoying garbage.
Nonetheless I'm frustrated with the article's bad logic, which I think
everyone here is also saying.

