True or false?
Scams are more likely to be vertically integrated.
Conversation
This feels true
2
7
Okay I’ve talked myself into believing this. The logic is simple. Vertical integration lends itself to more powerful branding and differentiation. This moves positioning from concrete commodity features to abstract woo and aura. Much friendlier to grift.
3
12
In Charles Fine’s Clockspeed there’s a model (dated; book is from 90s) about how industries cycle through vertical/horizontal. You get vertical phases when knowledge is more complex than orgs and highly tacit. Sectoral pioneer phases and macro disruptions drive verticality.
1
9
You get horizontality when org structure catches up, tacit knowledge gets codified, stack layer interfaces of formerly vertical structure get opened up. Brands weaken, horizontal products/ services compete on features and industry benchmarks rather than differentiation aura.
1
9
There is of course grift in horizontal eras too. But the type is different and solution is different.
In a declining vertical era you get eroding brand promise. Brands go from standing for superior differentiated quality aura to overpromise/under-deliver and monopolistic apathy.
1
1
In a horizontal era, knockoffs and unbranded sketchy quality things compete with branded things. Price premium is commanded by relationship trust and QA guarantees.
1
Vertical eras are driven by distant marketing pull, horizontal by relationship sales push.
Vertical marketing is built around customer belief in secret sauces, the horizontal sales is built around customer beliefs in quality guarantees.
2
1
Replying to
Would the cryptoscam of posing as Elon Musk with a similar Twitter account replying to his genuine thread with "send me Bitcoin and I'll double it back atchya" be a vertical scam? What would horizontal be then? Targeting people who were scam victims in another industry?
1
Replying to
Knock-offs that are just lower quality are a sign of horizontal on the rise. Outright fraud is vertical scam.

