The truth is that we live in a very big and highly connected world. Just because you and all of your friends on don't do something, it doesn't mean that there's not a large segment of people who do. I don't enter contests... does that mean that my agency should never run a contest for a client? No chance. I realize that a personal statement like that is a "market of one," and that there are millions of people who love and actively enter contests on a regular and frequent basis. They work! The data doesn't lie. Just because you don't do something or because you're ahead of a curve (this is often the case with ""), it doesn't mean that it's not a viable marketing option.
Whenever you're in a brainstorm or discussing marketing with a client and/or peers, remember to never let a market of one potentially ruin a great idea... and don't be afraid to call them out either.
I was in a meeting with a retailer discussing the merits of Social Media and Digital Marketing, when one of their executives interrupted me. This individual informed me that they had a panel of their customers with whom they often discussed trends with, and that one of those individuals didn't even have an email address. They had helped this person get set-up on email just so that they could stay connected. If their consumers weren't even on email, how would Social Media or Digital Marketing be able to save them? Statistically speaking, that unique individual should not be on their panel because they are not representative of the norm. Not engaging in Social Media and Digital Marketing because one person - an anomaly - made it on to their panel was (to me) a prime example of "a market of one." After all, if this person isn't even on email, maybe all of their consumers are not on email? Ludicrous... even more ludicrous because we have the data to prove them wrong. In fact, it wasn't even a small percentage... it was miniscule... almost to the point on non-existence. They were all on email and highly engaged online.
Market socialism is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. The fashionable discussion of market socialism often overlooks one crucial aspect of the market: When two goods are exchanged, what is really exchanged is the property titles in those goods. When I buy a newspaper for fifty cents, the seller and I are exchanging property titles: I yield the ownership of the fifty cents and grant it to the newsdealer, and he yields the ownership of the newspaper to me. The exact same process occurs as in buying a house, except that in the case of the newspaper, matters are much more informal and we can avoid the intricate process of deeds, notarized contracts, agents, attorneys, mortgage brokers, and so on. But the economic nature of the two transactions remains the same.