
Why I hate funnels. - kevin
http://tinyletter.com/ben/letters
======
brianr
This is silly. Funnels are a useful abstraction to measure and optimize
conversion rates in a multi-step process. How you optimize the steps in the
funnel (i.e. spam or not) is up to you.

The "upside down funnel" is really an example of a viral loop, optimistically
shaped to imply that loving your customers is guaranteed to bring you more of
them. But that is still _worth measuring_ , and once the referrals get to the
"try you out" phase, it's worth understanding the process by which they become
loyal customers. That's what funnels are for.

------
bcoates
It's not a funnel in the sense of the object that allows you to pour a wide
mouthed bottle into a small mouthed one, it's a name for the graph of "how
much crap is in your flow" vs "how many customers are still trying to use your
awful UI" tends to narrow down sharply and visually resembles a funnel.

You're _supposed_ to hate the funnel! The funnel is what stands between you
and a good UX. The (impossibly) ideal funnel is a short length of straight
pipe, where 100% of user intent is efficiently converted into action.

------
badman_ting
I just see them as realistic. Of the people who use the internet, only some
will find out about you. Of those, only some of them will care. Of those, only
some will be willing & able to pay, etc.

The thing about flipping the funnel upside-down is clever, but I wonder how
much it has to do with scale. Word of mouth can be a great driver of growth
when you're small, but what about after that? Plus, the same effect applies
where only some will pay you. So I'm not sure how different it actually is.

I agree that trying to make money from stuff you built often involves doing
things with various degrees of grody-ness. I think what the author has done
here is to think about that in a way that he finds palatable, and that's
certainly important. But I wonder how much of this is about changing
perception rather than action.

------
SandersAK
I never understood these types of posts: Take something that is worthy of
criticism (the abuse of funnels in user acquisition) and then use hyperbole to
make them seem like the worst thing ever.

It's a tool to understand the progression of total audience into customers on
a website. Just like CSAT and NPS are both valuable indicators of growth
potential.

None of these things are the only thing that matters. And none of them are the
best tool or methodology. Just like a spoon isn't the best accessory in the
kitchen. That award obviously goes to the garlic press.

~~~
thattallguy
garlic presses ftw.

I agree with your point and yet still think posts like this are worth while.
Many, many, people and businesses are so funnel focused these days, they've
lost sight of the bigger picture.

Godin has been talking about this stuff for years, he's a master of hyperbole,
and has had a big impact on many people because of it.

~~~
SandersAK
garlic presses - so efficient right?

I guess if they're good noise makers that get conversations started then maybe
that's a net positive.

I just start to wonder if hyperbole is the most effective long term way to
communicate - tho to use my own argument against me, i suppose deciding "most"
is not the point ;)

~~~
rmk2
The thing is, hyperbole is more likely to _provoke_ reactions than a seemingly
"objective" and rational utterance. Hyperbole might _annoy_ you or you might
agree and find it funny, either way, it is more likely to touch you in some
way.

Hyperbole enables both people who agree and who disagree to more pointedly
argue their particular side. If you think funnels are good, then seeing them
compared to a meat grinder will probably annoy you enough to take to the
comments and voice your concern or dissent. At the same time, if you find
funnels not quite as good, you are equally stimulated to comment based on the
apt description of your feelings.

Either way, hyperbole is a way to facilitate communication, especially in
cases where the subject itself might not be the most enticing.

~~~
SandersAK
Yeah I think that's a fair point. Though then is the goal of a post just to
incite conversation as opposed to articulating a well considered opinion?

~~~
thattallguy
Welcome to the internet ;)

------
codva
Hating funnels seems sort of weird to me. Especially in this case, where it's
just a model of an idea. There is nothing inherently evil about the concept of
a funnel. He even makes that point when he turns it upside down and claims it
as genius. The act of the trying to force people through the funnel on your
timeline instead of theirs is where the problem is. And that act is going to
be a problem no matter how you are modeling the customer acquisition process.

~~~
ergest
I feel the same way. In fact the idea of "flipping" the funnel is not new.
Seth Godin wrote an ebook on it:
[http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/01/flipping_the...](http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2006/01/flipping_the_fu.html)
It's a lot easier for sales and marketing manager to think about conversion in
terms of funnels, so a lot of analytics startups (kissmetrics, mixpanel) have
it as a standard report. It seems that using a strong word like hate gets you
attention; hence clicks.

------
programminggeek
What he describes "the audience" is part of the funnel. The idea that you have
a cloud of people just out there taking in your content or marketing or apps
or whatever just means they are sitting at the top of the funnel.

You don't have to treat them like a meat grinder at all. You don't have to
push every person "into the funnel". In fact, I would argue that's doing it
wrong.

If anything, the funnel should be a set of gates people pass through, more
like a filter that at each stage people are more likely the target audience
for what you are selling.

For example, when you go into an Apple store, they let you hang out, play with
things, and are generally pretty nice to you. They also ask you questions
about your needs and wants in product and they steer you towards what they
think might be the best fit. Thus, filtering you down to the right product.
BUT, if you can't afford the actual purchase, they aren't going to force you
into buying or badger you into something.

If more websites treated their funnels like a filter instead of like chute you
are trying to force people down, the better off marketing would be as a whole.
It actually makes the whole process better because you don't even try to pitch
until they are ready to buy.

For example, on a current side project I don't even show pricing until people
use the product. I don't even give them the opportunity to buy until they have
shown that they will use it. I don't want angry customers saying they bought
something that they didn't use and want a refund. So, we don't try to sell
until people are happy enough using the product.

We will probably get fewer customers and revenue this way, but our customers
will be happier and we will only have customers that use our product instead
of people who are paying us because we are good at marketing to them.

~~~
GrinningFool
IOW - "the funnel is really a filter". Which means it's not a funnel?

I agree, by the way, with the approach you describe. It's a lot more sane and
will result with happier customers. I just think that you and OP are saying
much the same thing.

~~~
programminggeek
I think we are too, but I think that saying that funnels are evil, bad,
stupid, whatever is foolish. The funnel is still the funnel, but how you treat
it makes a difference. Of course, that kind of nuance doesn't get you on the
front page of HN either.

------
chipsy
Re: People who are saying the funnel is still there.

This is entirely a perspective thing; the customers see messages and options,
not a funnel. You only see a funnel when you think of it as one.

The author describes a deliberate avoidance of business philosophy based
around conversion metrics. Hence if your thoughts are to push them back into
the conversation, you immediately taint his purpose. Assimilating any one set
of metrics into the prime position will essentialize the business into "make
those numbers go up," creating a feedback loop that guides future decisions.
That feedback loop subsequently creates its own conclusions about how to
advance the business. If you break the loop and construct a different one,
with different abstractions, you get a different kind of business. That's the
big takeaway here.

------
JonLim
In the games industry, especially with free-to-play, you can hate funnels all
you want, but they're a necessity to understanding where your gameplay loops
are doing well and doing poorly.

I've taken the long view that making a really awesome game leads to people
wanting to give you money. However, my personal take on that is that it's just
another way to spin funnels, in a less aggressive and predatory way.

If I'm mistaken, I'd love to learn why.

~~~
thattallguy
The process the author describe still uses "funnels" so I don't think you're
mistaken.

What we do have to realize, however, is that the intention and language used
to describe and execute "marketing", matters a lot.

The author outlines the difference (in his post, and the one's he links to)

-Content focused on teaching (adding value) vs Content focused on converting \- Politely asking for emails/subscribers vs requiring an email \- referred prospects vs captured leads

One post he links to has a great comment by Gregory Ciotti:

"It humors me how aggressive certain terms can be in this regard: "campaigns,"
"email blasts," it's like the marketing team is waging war with their
prospects."

Language matters, it impacts our actions. From how we create strategies to how
we interact with customers or prospects.

Everyone is in the funnel game right now, smart money positions against
"everyone".

------
RexM
I don't like the term funnel, it's more like a sieve...

However, I do think it's a good way to visualize customers that come to your
site, but don't end up converting. You can look at those percentages and try
to make them better. Whether you decide to "spam the f*ck out of them" or do
something more personable and humane is up to you.

~~~
mdc
A sieve would just be a one-step funnel. If your engagement involves more than
one step (sieves in series) then it's a funnel.

------
thomasfrank09
I think the traditional funnel concept work just fine - as long as you do step
three right.

Do many blogs and services spam their subscribers? Yes indeed - and I have an
itchy unsubscribe button-clicking finger for those services.

If you change Step 3 to "Provide even more value", though, then you do indeed
get customers that love you. And some of them refer their friends, who come in
at the top of the funnel like everyone else - but with some preconceived good
feelings towards you because of the recommendation they got from a friend.

Pat Flynn's newsletter is a wonderful example of how to do it right. Almost
all of the emails I get from him simply give me more useful information -
maybe 10% have ever been strictly promotional.

------
rodolphoarruda
I like the concept. Using it to measure, evaluate and manage leads that fall
into level 1 (widest part on top) is by itself a good thing. I once worked for
a large company whose sales funnel had 7 stages/filters inside. Each one of
them affecting of being affected by more than one organization. Dealing with
it was a pain for most sales guys because it was easy to see where the
opportunity was stuck in the funnel, but very hard to see why. I can imagine
that smaller less complex organization could easily pull out a 3 or 4 level
funnel, go with it and see its benefits.

------
calbear81
We use funnels as a measurement of product quality all the time, especially in
the context of understanding task completion rates and discovering areas for
UX/interaction improvement.

The "funnels" that Ben seems to talk about are more about sales funnels where
you keep getting pestered once you're a lead but in the context of most
e-commerce sites, funnels are a great way to know if there's something about
the site that's not working for people.

------
npsimons
This can be extended to other mediums - I try to only do business with
companies that have minimal advertising (such as Vanguard and USAA). Think
about it for a moment: where does the money for television advertisements come
from? If you're a current customer of a company running TV ads, you're being
bilked, and if you're a potential customer, why would you want to do business
with a company that will bilk you just to get more new customers?

------
krisgee
Upside down funnel looks like an old timey megaphone. Perhaps that's the
analogy here, if you have time to shout your message you might as well shout
it to a lot of people.

------
spolu
Funnel are shortsighted... Yep. But investors are too I presume?

------
kirke
Anybody see the background picture behind the article? I'm on my phone, can
someone with means extract it and post it somewhere so we can see what it is?

~~~
mixmastamyk
It's a scene of one of the Planet of the Apes movies, where Charlie is kissing
one. Why? no idea...

