[arturnt]

I disagree with this article. A "Growth Hacker" is an engineer that applies himself in the field of marketing. This means coming up with interesting and innovative ways of lowering the cost of user acquisition. The distinction is important since Marketing itself is a very loaded term.

Companies like Zynga thrived because they found cheap ways of getting users: early un-managed FB platform, and app referrals. Same with AirBnB and their craigslist post automation.

Growth hacking isn't going to make your product better, but more people will be aware of it.

[THX420]

<blockquote>A "Growth Hacker" is an engineer that applies himself in the field of marketing.</blockquote>

or a marketer who learns how to code?

[richardw]

It's possible you might end up with an equivalently effective person, but I think it'd be easier to transition from coder->marketer. I suspect that the knowledge required to be useful is about 70-30, or maybe 85-15, heavily on the coder side.

To pick up some marketing ideas that will start moving the needle on your startup, read a small book. You'd probably already know enough to start iterating on 3 or more techniques.

To get a marketer to pick up the most basic coding skills, start with flow control and variables. It could be a month before you're useful, in one language only. Then understand HTML, SQL, the server-side language, maybe jQuery, plus maybe security so you don't start adding lots of useful but dangerous code. Understand performance, so you don't kill the server with a loop in customer-facing code. Not just be able to click a "add new test" button, but integrate ABingo without hassling the rest of the team (if that's the best tool for the job). The point is: whatever it takes. You need to know enough technical concepts to be fast and loose with whatever will move the needle best. You're making few marketing decisions, but many technical ones.

So: fully agreed with your other comment. Marketers will be well-served by getting into some of the code, because it'll enable them greatly. But if I were hiring a marketer->coder, I'd be a lot more wary.

Up until today, I've disliked the growth hacker "thing". But these posts have clarified it for me. I'm generally irritated at the non-bschool vibe around here, but on this issue I'll lean heavily on the coder side.

[bretpiatt]

All the details of programming are complicated and you can justify it with your expert knowledge as fact. Perhaps marketing is just as complicated but seems simple since you just see the output / results and do not have the expert knowledge to realize the detail that went into it?

[richardw]

I certainly don't think world-class marketing is simple at all. You get brilliant people in all roles, and I'm in awe of the best in the business. But most startups don't need killer deep-knowledge marketers who could design a marketing strategy for Coke but have learned to program a bit. Most startups need someone well-versed in technology who knows enough about marketing to move the needle on growth.

[lsc]

Yes, anyone can become a really bad marketer by reading a book, just like anyone can become a really bad Engineer by reading a book.

The thing is? being a good marketer has more to do with who you know (and who knows you) than what you know. (just like being a good Engineer has more to do with how well you can figure things out than with how many languages you know.)

knowing people that can get you press is super important for marketing people (and, of course, the ability to get people to like you.)

[arturnt]

My mistake; I would define it either way.