Why Is Controversy the Only Thing That Sells?
Why Is Controversy the Only Thing That Sells?
Entrepreneur Office Hours - Issue #237
I was feeling a little mischievous on Wednesday and decided to poke the proverbial Instagram bear by making fun of college students who drink too much coffee:
Do college students actually drink too much coffee? I honestly don’t know, nor do I really care.
What I do know is that controversy drives social media algorithms wild. Some people take that reality to an extreme (insert whichever “outrage” politician fits your political agenda). In contrast, I feel like questioning people’s coffee drinking habits is relatively mild. Still, it’s enough to get people commenting on a post. And, when lots of people comment on a post, crazy things start happening.
Within the first hour, the video had 15,000 views and 100+ comments. I suspect, by the time you read this, it’ll have lots more.
I’m mentioning this because, quite frankly, it’s enormously frustrating. We live in a world where the best way to reach people requires making them upset.
Why?
And why do we, as consumers, accept this?
To be fair, I’m not sure how we fix it. But here’s a suggestion: rather than commenting on content that makes us feel emotional in one way or another, what if we all did a better job of commenting on content that makes us feel… umm… neutral? To be clear, I don’t mean bad content. I mean content like this newsletter.
I’m sure there’s nothing I’m going to share in this newsletter that’s going to strongly evoke your passions in any one direction. That seems like a good thing. After all, newsletters about entrepreneurship shouldn’t be getting anyone too riled up.
Unfortunately, the lack of controversy in what you’re redaing means you’re not likely to engage with it.
That’s fine. I’m not trying to tell you to forward this email to 50 people (though I wouldn’t mind if you did). Instead, I’m wondering how much great content is on social media that’s more valuable than most of what we see but it doesn’t trigger any outward responses an algorithm can recognize.
I suppose the only way to fight this problem is for us, as users of social media, to start showing more emotion around content that’s measured, well-researched, and educational while showing less emotion around content designed to bait us into reacting.
And, yes, I know I’m an idiot for even suggesting what I’ve written here. I realize the world and human nature aren’t going to change just because I want them to. But… well… a boy can dream, can’t he?
-Aaron
This week’s new articles…
The 9 Mistakes Entrepreneurs Keep Making During Their Fundraising Pitches
If you’re fundraising for the first time, there’s a good chance your pitch has at least one of these common problems.
The Simplest Way to Optimize Your Customer Acquisition Process
Every business spends lots of time trying to get customers, but are you accidentally making it harder on yourself?
Office Hours Q&A
———————
QUESTION:
Hey Aaron,
I really enjoy reading your newsletter each week. Here's a question I have, spurred by your recent article: for a small to mid-sized startup, what is the balance between building an in-house solution vs. buying a third-party vendor? If you're trying to ship products quickly, it seems like you should save your time by outsourcing the work of building a feature to another company, but are there exceptions to this?
Cheers,
Nick
----------
First, for those who haven’t read the article this question references, it’s about how entrepreneurs have a bad habit of trying to do things themselves that they could more easily outsource to another firm. For example, as a software engineer, I built my own marketing automation system. It required ~500 hours of work and was super-buggy. I could have just bought Hubspot or Mailchimp and saved tons of time.
The question being asked right now is a question that’s interesting because it takes the process one step further and it wonders whether entrepreneurs should hire a third-party to build their core product, particularly because it’ll likely help ship quicker and allow the company to focus on the more important stuff, which is customer acquisition.
A lot of people are going to have a gut reaction to this and say, “You should own your product… that’s core to your value proposition.”
I disagree. As with most things, the answer here isn’t 100% cut-and-dry, and it’s because it’s not quite the right question.
The right question isn’t to wonder whether an in-house or third-party vendor is going to be better/worse. The truth is both options can be great, and both options can be terrible. What this means is that the outcome largely relies on the entrepreneur at the core of the work.
For example, if you hire a third-party vendor, it’s your job, as the person doing the hiring, to make sure it’s a great fit who’s going to develop a quality product.
Conversely, if you’re trying to build in-house, then it’s your job to make sure staffing priorities and time allocations are well-managed so your resources are being used as efficiently as possible.
In other words, as much as people want to be told one thing is objectively better than the other, this is a case that’s entirely situational. I’ve seen companies succeed by outsourcing. And I’ve seen companies be successful by building everything in-house.
Ultimately, the decision should focus on what’s best for your company’s unique situation and strategic goals.
With that in mind, here’s a quick framework to guide your decision:
Core vs. Complementary: Ask yourself whether the feature or system you’re considering is core to your business or just complementary. If it’s core—something that differentiates your product in the market—leaning towards building it in-house might make more sense to maintain control and flexibility. If it’s complementary, consider outsourcing to save time and focus on your core competencies.
Cost vs. Control: Evaluate the trade-offs between cost and control. Outsourcing can often be more cost-effective upfront and faster to market, but it might come at the cost of losing some control over the development process and final product quality. On the other hand, building in-house can be more expensive and time-consuming but gives you complete control.
Scalability and Flexibility: Consider which option will scale better with your business and remain flexible to changes in your market or business model. If you foresee needing to make frequent adjustments or updates, in-house development is more likely to provide the agility you need (though, obviously, that agility comes at a premium).
Talent and Resources: Assess your current resources. Do you have the necessary talent in-house to build the solution you need? If not, can you afford to hire the right people? If building in-house is going to cause significant delays or subpar work because of talent gaps, outsourcing might be the better option until you can build or train the needed team.
Long-term Strategic Value: Think about the long-term implications of your choice. Outsourcing might get you to market faster, but consider how that decision aligns with your long-term strategic goals. Are there potential risks in reliance on a third-party that could affect your business later?
Again, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer, and the most successful companies are those that critically assess their specific needs and make informed decisions based on their strategic priorities. Both paths can lead to success; the key is choosing the path that aligns best with your vision and capabilities.
Got startup questions of your own? Reply to this email with whatever you want to know, and I’ll do my best to answer!
