#ockhamrazor

Less than a week away from a Kickstarter launch, social media marketing is on my mind.

It's all anyone really talks about when you're trying to raise awareness for a new product. Gone are the days when you would post a printed press release to the local newspaper .1

Online media is obviously a natural place to publicise an online product launch. Not least because there's an immediate and actionable message to convey: 'Click here to back my product. Right now.’ Conversely, how often have you seen something interesting in a magazine, made a mental note to follow it up, and then never have?

The beauty of the internet is that you can probably find a blogger, who despite having a tiny fraction of the readership of more traditional media, writes about exactly the kind of thing you're selling, and you therefore have a massively greater chance of reaching people who give a shit about what you’re doing.

Build a following!

Get Twitter followers they said. It's all about likes on Facebook. Easy, right?

It's damn hard work if you ask me. Maybe I don't have a natural affinity to social media in the way some people do. The dynamics of it all truly baffle me sometimes. Maybe it's because I'm old enough to have normally-developed thumbs.

I got my first email address in 1998 just before I went to university when Mark Zuckerberg was 14 years old. When I got to university my department had a 'computer room' and the only people who had computers at home were computer science students. I was in my mid twenties before Facebook, and then Twitter, came along.

I'm not trying to make excuses. Just saying...

Kickstarter

So when it comes to publicizing a Kickstarter campaign, it seems obvious that social media is a big deal.

Before diving in and aimlessly trying to build up a following for my Ockham Razor I thought I'd look at what others had done. I wanted to look into the correlation between measurable social media variables and Kickstarter success.

I decided to look at the top 20 grossing Kickstarter campaigns and their Twitter, Facebook and Instagram followings. These 20 projects raised an average of $2.3 from an average of 15,000 backers. 2 

Observations

Interestingly, I couldn't even find social media accounts for some of these multimillion-raising projects. For one of them I couldn't find a Twitter account; for three, no Facebook page and for almost half I couldn't find an Instagram account. Maybe I didn't look hard enough: let me know if you can find something for Bibliotheca for example, who raised $1.4 million last year. 

I also noticed that some campaigns had relatively established companies behind them, and therefore existing fans. Lomography for example has two projects in the top 20 so I thought the data might be a bit skewed for them and not so relevant to me.

I'm not going to go crazy with graphs, but here's one showing the number of Kickstarter backers vs Twitter followers. (I removed the two Lomograph projects, and another couple of outliers to make the scale clearer.)

I haven't done any proper statistical analysis on my data but that certainly doesn't look like a positive correlation to me. Facebook likes had a similar scatter and Instagram looked even more like a negative correlation.

So what's going on here then? Is this saying that social media is irrelevant if you want to do well on Kickstarter?

Firstly, 20 is not a great sample size so I should be careful not to read to much into this data. Ignoring correlations with Kickstarter, there were some other interesting insights such as the fact that the average number of Facebook likes was ten times the average number of Twitter followers.

This favouring of Facebook is in line with something else I've noticed anecdotally. When looking at design and style blogs as I've been doing my research, I often see that articles are shared on Facebook a lot more than on Twitter. This may just be the kind of websites I've been visiting but they are my target audience so I should probably pay attention to that.

Generally, it does feel that Facebook is a more 'deliberate' place to be and that interest and engagement is likely to be better. There seems to be a lot more noise on Twitter and therefore less chance of being heard. It seems full of 'online marketing experts' with 18.2k followers, who almost certainly won't help your cause.

Another point is that people can share your content without necessarily following or liking you.

So, what now?

If I can take anything away from my armchair statistical analysis it is perhaps that I should make more effort with Facebook over Twitter. Although reaching out to key influential bloggers directly is probably more rewarding than both of those.

Getting President Obama, Justin Bieber and Stephen Fry to tweet about your product will probably help, but if the product is rubbish you'll eventually sink. If you build something great you have a much better chance of success. Take Kraftwerk for example who raised over $1.5 million dollars and they still only have 220 Twitter followers. Maybe people are just getting mixed up with the other Kraftwerk.

The internet has profoundly opened up opportunities for innovation. However, the recipe for success must still come down to making something that people want and telling people about it. Social media can help with the second half of that, but it's not magic.

I will end it here and, for a moment, overcome my English sensibilities about self-publicity.

Visit the Ockham Razor website!

Like us on Facebook!

Follow us on Twitter!

(in that order)

Or, even better, if you're an award-winning men's style journalist, please do get in touch.

______________

This post is also published on the Ockham Razor website.

Notes

1 Do look out for a piece on the Ockham Razor in the Islington Gazette next week though!

[Originally posted on the Ockham Razor Company blog here.]

Everyone's heard of 3D printing these days. There probably hasn't been a Wired issue for about five years that doesn't mention it. A lot of publicity goes to the quirky products and art projects that use 3D printing and if I'm being cynical I would suggest that some people use 3D printing just as a way to make their projects seem more interesting.

I'm glad people have crazy ideas and do silly things with it, but for me the incredible power of 3D printing goes way deeper than that. As I've now experienced first hand, 3D printing has become an indispensable tool in the armoury of makers. Without it, the Ockham Razor Company may never have got off the back of the proverbial napkin.

The basics

3D printing has become a catch-all term for all sorts of processes that produce three-dimensional objects from various standardized raw materials such as plastic, metal or even chocolate. However, the term 3D printing was originally specific to the technique of depositing layer upon layer of solid material, in the way an inkjet printer puts down ink, to create a 3D object.

MakerBot Replicator

Perhaps the most familiar image we have of 3D printing is of hot plastic being squirted from a nozzle by a machine like a MakerBot which is using the technology of fused deposition modelling. For now though, I'll stick with using the term 3D printing in its broadest sense.

Compared with more traditional manufacturing techniques, 3D printing typically has lower set-up costs and faster turnarounds. Take moulded plastic for example - something we're all familiar with in the form of LEGO bricks or toy soldiers. These are made in enormous quantities and although it costs thousands of dollars to set up the machines to make each part, that works out quite well when you're making millions of the same LEGO brick. And since plastic is cheap it ends up costing almost nothing to make each LEGO brick. To make a one-off LEGO brick in the same way would cost thousands of dollars.

By contrast, if for whatever reason you wanted to make a unique piece of LEGO then to 3D print it would cost, say, a dollar. If you wanted to make a million of your newly-designed LEGO bricks like that, it would cost you a million dollars. You get the point.

Almost ten years ago, when I first came across 3D printing in a professional sense, we created parts to test the design of small components and in some cases we would make custom parts for users which special requirements. The material used was ABS plastic (which is what LEGO bricks are made from) so it's pretty tough stuff.

So although these techniques were initially associated with industrial rapid prototyping they are increasingly being used to make finished products. In high-end manufacturing 3D printing is becoming a viable way of making complex, critical components. The world of medicine too has seen plenty of inspirational applications of 3D printing because every patient is different and it's a great way of making parts to fit exactly for a particular individual, be it a hearing aid or a prosthetic limb.

3D printed razor

For our project we have used fused deposition modelling to make plastic prototype razors. The material we've been using is PLA, a bioplastic made from renewable resources which is a great way to try and reduce the environmental impact of prototyping.

Prototype razor

We would have really struggled without the ability to make prototypes in this way. It's very hard to appreciate what something is going to be like by looking at a computer screen and, although our razor is a relatively simple product, getting the shape exactly right is critical to the success of the design. To iterate our design in this way costs us a day and a few dollars for a new version; to iterate once we get to full production in metal will cost us weeks and hundreds of dollars.

As the technology evolves, so do the innovative services around it. For our project we're taking advantage of 3D Hubs, a great service which connects you with local 3D printers. It means we can find a place down the road to get exactly the right kind of 3D printing done for exactly what we need at the time. Via 3D Hubs we have access to the latest and greatest 3D printing technology and sound advice from passionate people operating their 3D printing hub, at a relatively low unit cost. All without having to buy our own expensive equipment, which would sit idle most of the time anyway.

The future?

In my view the consumer revolution in 3D printing has been somewhat over-hyped. I find it hard to imagine everyone having a 3D printer in their home anytime soon, a vision often presented to us, mostly by 3D printer manufacturers I suppose.

People aren't going to be sitting at home dreaming up new kitchen utensils or toys for their children and printing them out. The main reason for that is that designing three dimensional objects is difficult. How many people do you know whom you'd want to design your wallpaper? Designing in two dimensions is not trivial. Designing in three is way harder. The lack of a quick way to produce solid objects at home isn't the limiting factor here.

Teleportation

I think there are two things that will increase the usefulness of 3D printing for consumer applications in the fairly near future.

The first is to improve access to 3D-printable designs via services such as Thingiverse. These online markets are starting to become places where you can find genuinely useful things but there's still a large quantity of gimmickry and tat. Looking forward, perhaps manufacturers will start to supply 3D-printable files for spare parts along with a warranty subscription or something.

The second really interesting area is 3D scanning. Imagine being able to photocopy three dimensional objects. Combine a 3D printer and a 3D scanner and that's pretty much what you've got. Separate the scanner and the printer and you're not far off teleportation!

While I'm sure we'll keep hearing about 3D printed hot dogs and other frivolous 3D printed projects, I believe that 3D printing is a great enabler and a powerful force for good, which is already quietly making a difference.