27796人阅读
刘未鹏(pongba)
C++的罗浮宫()
非常感谢waterwalk翻译了整篇文章，我整理了之后，见。
The Problem
So, why C++? Before you frown and turn away. Just try to answer this simple question.
Efficiency, right? Everybody knows the answer. But as it turned out, when discussing a programming language or everything related to one, one should be very specific. Now why&s that? Let me ask you another question: if efficiency is the only reason people use C++, then why don&t they just use C? C is admittedly more efficient than C++ (yeah, yeah, I know it has been proved that C isn&t to any significant extent more efficient than C++, so don&t get me wrong here, because even if they are equally efficient, the problem still exists).
I know you are going to say &better abstraction mechanism&, because after all C++ is designed to be a better C, one that has uncompromised efficiency and yet at the same time has all those fancy high-level features. But then the problem comes down to &does it really matter if the developers need those fancy features?&& I mean, after all we all have been hearing voices about KISS and stuff, and we all have heard about the claim that, compared to C++, C is more KISS so we should use C. This unstoppable argument has turned the comparison between C and C++ into a big myth (or maybe a mess). And surprisingly, it seems that many people do incline to C, the reason mostly being that C++ is so hard to use right. .
The real serious impact of this phenomenon is that it drives more people to C when they&re weighing their options, be them C and C++; and once they start using C, they will soon get satisfied and comfortable with what suffices, experiencing &. This is when they will come out and claim that C actually is a better choice than C++ even though they didn&t actually try to use C++ or they aren&t adequately good C++ programmers at all. The real answer, however, almost always begins with &it depends&.
So, did I say &it depends&? On what? Obviously there&re some areas where C is a better choice than C++. For instance, device driver development is usually something that doesn&t need fancy OOP/GP techniques. It&s just simp what really matters is the programmers know exactly how the system works, and what they&re doing. Now what about OS development? I&m not a guy who&s been involved in any kind of OS development myself, but having read a fair amount of OS code (Unix mostly), I&ve come to feel that there&s a significant part of the OS development that doesn&t need OOP/GP either.
However, does that mean that, in all those areas where efficiency matters, C is a better choice than C++? Not really.
The Answer
Let&s do this case by case.
First of all, when people are concerned about efficiency, there&re really two kinds of efficiency & time efficiency (e.g. OS, runtime, real-time applications, high-demanding systems) and space efficiency (e.g. all sorts of embedded systems). However, this categorization doesn&t really help us determine whether we should use C or C++, because C and C++ are . What really affects our language choice (between C and C++, of course) is the business logic (here by &business&, I don&t mean the &enterprise application business&). For example, is it better to use OOP/GP to express the logic or is it better off being kept pretty much just about data and procedures.
From this point of view, we can vaguely divide applications into two categories (of course, with the premise that what we&re concerned with is C/C++, not java/c#/ruby/erlang etc.): low-level applications and high-level applications, where low-level applications means the ones where fancy abstractions such as OB/OOP and GP are pretty much of no use, and high-level means all the rest. Now, obviously, of all the areas where C/C++ is used (because of their high-efficiency), there&re a significant number of &high-level& applications (see ), where abstraction is just as important as, if not more important than efficiency. And those are precisely the places where C++ is used and useful in a unique sense, and where C++ is a better choice than C.
Wait, there&s more. As it turns out, even in those areas where programmers don&t use high-level abstractions in their code per se, there might be a reason they should use C++, too. Why&s that? Just because your code don&t use class or templates doesn&t mean it doesn&t use a library that does. Considering the availability of all the handy C++ library facilities (with tr1/tr2 coming soon), I think there&s a pretty strong reason to use C++ in these cases - you can stick to the C core of C++ when coding (KISS in any way you want), and at the same time you&ve got some awesome C++ libraries at your disposal (e.g. STL containers and algorithms, tr1/tr2 components, etc.). And finally, there&s this one thing that&s always ignored by many people & sometimes KISS relies on abstractions. I think
made a crystal clear point about this in the prologue of his new book &&, where he laid down two blocks of code, one written in C and one in C++:
DIR*& dir = opendir(&.&);
if(NULL != dir)
& struct dirent*&
& for(; NULL != (de = readdir(dir)); )
&&& if( 0 == stat(de-&d_name, &st) &&
&&&&&&& S_IFREG == (st.st_mode & S_IFMT))
&&&&& remove(de-&d_name);
& closedir(dir);
readdir_sequence entries(&.&, readdir_sequence::files);
std::for_each(entries.begin(), entries.end(), ::remove);
And it&s even simpler in C++09:
// in C++09
std::for_each(readdir_sequence(&.&, readdir_sequence::files), ::remove);
I think this is exactly the reason why one should use C++ even in those cases where he doesn&t really need class or templates in his own code & the handy C++ libraries he will find very useful does. Similarly, if an efficient container (or a smart pointer) will save you from all the boring job of manual manipulation of memory, then what&s the point of using the primitive malloc/free? If a better string class (I&m not talking about std:: everybody knows it&s not the best C++ can do) or regex class& can relieve you of all the cluttered string-manipulation code you don&t even want to look at, then what&s the point of doing it manually. If a &transform& (or a &for_each&) can do your job in one line so succinctly and clearly (and I know, of course, C++ need lambda function support for those & that&s what C++0x is for), then what&s the point of hand-written for-loops? If high-order function is really what you need, then what&s the point of using awkward workarounds to approach the same deal?
KISS doesn&t mean &primitive&; KISS means using the most suitable tool for your job, where &most suitable& means the tool you use should help you express your mind as straight (and succinct) as possible, as long as it doesn&t compromise the readability and understandability of the code.
The Real Problem
People might say that C++ is much more easily misused than properly-used, and C, on the other hand, is always more manageable and controllable as to complexity. In C++, an average programmer might come up with a whole bunch of highly coupled classes that degenerates fast into a big mess. But this is actually a separate issue. On the one hand, it can pretty much occur in any object oriented language. There&re always programmers who dare to write classes on top of classes even before they have any idea what HAS-A is and what IS-A they learn all the syntax of defining a class and inheriting one from another and they thought they&ve grasped the essence of OOP. On the other hand, the reason it appears to be more serious in C++ is because C++ has so many accidental complexities that impede the design, and because C++ is so flexible that pretty much every problem in C++ has several alternative solutions (thinking of all the GUI libraries) so that weighing all the options becomes a hard job itself. The accidental complexities are a historical baggage that C++0x is trying so hard to (and hopefully will) the flexibility with respect to design isn&t actually a bad thing if you think about it - it helps good designe and if someone blame them for hurting his brain then maybe it&s his problem, not the language&s; maybe he shouldn&t be the one to make a design. And if you&re so worried that your fellow C++ coders will be enticed by fancy high-level features and that your project will eventually get screwed, then maybe what you should do is setting up a coding standard and enforce it (or you can just follow , or stick to the C core or C with class part of C++ if necessary), not flinching away just because there&re risks (risks that can be avoided by policies), because then you will not be able to access all the C++ libraries anymore, mind you.
On the other hand, there&s this more important psychological problem & if there&s a bizarreness in a language, then eventually someone will find it and people will be attracted by it, and it will draw energy from the main people effort of doing something really useful (It&s kind of like the Murphy's Law), let alone the ones that can lead to an (on some level) . People are inherently attracted by scarce resources. Corollary: Tricks and bizarrenesses are scarce resources, so they draw people&s attention, not to mention the fact that mastering a trick makes one feel special in the herd. The bottom line is, .
How many black corners are there in C++? How many tricks are there in C++? All in all, how many accidental complexities are there in C++?
To be fair, most of the tricks and (you might say) techniques that have been
(i.e. modern C++) are driven by , particularly the needs to implement
(thinking of all the components in boost). And they did lead to (on some level) elegant solutions to real problems. Think about it this way: if you&re put in a place where either you have to use tricks to implement something really useful or you don&t implement it so other people won&t have the benefit of using it. What would you choose? I know that
chose the former & implementing them, no matter how hard and tricky and cumbersome the implementation is.
But all those arguments don&t change the fact that we deserve to have a language that supports a clean way to express our minds in code. Take boost.function/boost.bind/boost.tuple for examples,
will tremendously simplify (by reducing the LOC to nearly 1/10 of the original) the implementation of the three (and many, many more to come) libraries, and the code will become succinct and as simple as possible, too. Auto, initializer-list, rvalue-reference, template-aliasing, strong-typed enums, delegating-constructors, constexpr, alignments, inheriting-constructors, all those , they all have one goal & eliminating the various accidental complexities or embarrassments of the language.
As Bjarne Stroustrup said, obviously C++ obviously people get scared and sometimes turn away. But &people need relatively complex language to deal with absolutely complex problems&. We can&t make a language more powerful by taking features away from it. Complex features like templates and even multiple-inheritance can be useful if they&re exactly what you need, you just have to use them very carefully and by necessity so that you don&t shoot yourself in the foot. Of all the complexities in C++, the ones that really get in our way are the accidental complexities (someone might call them &embarrassments&), not the paradigms the language supports (there&re only three). And that&s a very important reason why we should embrace C++0x, because it aims at eliminating the long standing accidental complexities C++ had and make obsolete all the arcane tricks (there&s absolutely huge amou check all the C++ books and maybe the boost library and you&ll know what I&m talking about) so that we can express our mind clearly and directly.
The Conclusion
C++ is hard, and even harder to use correctly. So when you decide to use it, be careful, always know where you are and what you really want. Here&s a simple guideline:
Do we need to be efficient?
If so, then
Do we need abstractions in our code (think very carefully on this one, because it&s very hard to estimate whether the benefit of using the high-level features of C++ outweighs the risk of us the proper answer depends on how well trained your programmers are, what coding standard you follow and how well it&s enforced, etc.)?
If so, then use C++. Otherwise,
Do we need good C++ libraries to ease our job?
If so, then use C++, but meanwhile always remember what you are doing & if your code doesn&t really need all the fancy abstractions, then try not to
don&t use class or templates just because you&re writing code in a .cpp file and using a C++ compiler.
Otherwise, use C, but then you might wonder why not just use the C core of C++. The same reason as always: people get easily sucked into fancy language features even when they don&t really know if they&re going to help & I can&t tell you how many times I wrote a bunch of classes only to find out &what the heck are these classes for?&. So, if you can stick to the C core or C with class part of C++ and keep simple things simple, or if your code needs a migration path from C to C++, use C++ then, but be very careful. On the other hand, if you need neither abstraction mechanisms in your code nor quality C++ libraries because what you&re doing is so simple that you don&t even need convenient components like containers or strings, or you decide that the benefit C++ can bring you in your project is minor to an extent that it&s not even worth taking the risk, or you just simple don&t have enough people that can use C++ in a proper way, then maybe you should stick to C.
The bottom line: keep simple things simple (but remember that simplicity can be achieved by using high-level libraries); use abstractions when necessary (and even then,
follow good design principles and ).
我的讨论组
* 以上用户言论只代表其个人观点，不代表CSDN网站的观点或立场
访问：3046501次
积分：17019
积分：17019
排名：第171名
原创：116篇
评论：3609条
(1)(1)(3)(3)(3)(2)(1)(4)(4)(4)(2)(3)(4)(1)(3)(7)(1)(6)(5)(3)(3)(4)(7)(12)(6)(1)(2)(2)(1)(1)(1)(2)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(4)(2)(4)(5)(1)(1)哪类产品适合在微信上做营销？为什么？
母问题：如何做好微信营销？
按票数排序
看了的回复，是根据受众行为习惯和产品类型做的矩阵分析，很有想法，点了感谢，但没点赞同，因为我觉得“爱上网”和“不爱上网”做分类不太准确，现今很多爷爷奶奶级的亲属都是微信的重度用户了，他们还不怎么会用淘宝/微博呢。很多年长的人，对移动互联网的使用都是从微信开始的，猜测微信的实时在线数已经超过了QQ。综上，的讨论很有启发性，但因为工具设计失误，导致分析结果有偏差。我在后面的内容给出我的分析意见，希望与大家讨论商榷。【以下分析截止2014年2月，讨论内容基于微信5.2版本】————————正文————————微信的功能比较杂，已经形成独立品牌的包括：朋友圈、微生活，加上基础的即时通和LBS，以及刚刚出现还摸不清方向的微信红包……几种功能形式不同（特指媒介角度）、用户渗透率也相差甚远，因此，此文就这几个功能分开讨论：1、微信朋友圈微信朋友圈的广告最像硬广告，所以我们从微信朋友圈说起。我们可以先拉出最经典的消费者决策模型来评估：如图，消费者购买决策过程的复杂程度不同，其中最主要的是参与程度和品牌差异大小。同类产品不同品牌之间的差异越大，产品价格越昂贵，消费者越是缺乏产品知识和购买经验，感受到的风险越大，购买过程就越复杂。阿萨尔(Assael)根据购买者的参与程度和产品品牌差异程度区分出四种购买类型。如图，消费者购买决策过程的复杂程度不同，其中最主要的是参与程度和品牌差异大小。同类产品不同品牌之间的差异越大，产品价格越昂贵，消费者越是缺乏产品知识和购买经验，感受到的风险越大，购买过程就越复杂。阿萨尔(Assael)根据购买者的参与程度和产品品牌差异程度区分出四种购买类型。 消费者高度参与，需要经历大量的信息收集、全面的产品评估、慎重的购买决策和认真的购后评价等各个阶段。如购买计算机、汽车、商品房等。 不同品牌商品间差异不大，但价格昂贵、或是偶尔购买的商品和风险商品。消费者希望听到有关其它品牌商品的一些优点，证明自己的购买决策是正确的，以化解购后的不协调感。 不同品牌商品间差异较大，但价格便宜，经济风险小，如食品、化妆品等商品。消费者愿意经常尝试一下未曾用过的商品或新产品，其购买行为表现出一种寻求多样化的特点。 消费者花最少的时间，近便购买自己熟悉的品牌，是最简单的购买行为。主要是价格低廉、经常购买、品牌差异小的产品如食盐、鸡精、牙膏之类的便利品。根据这个矩阵分析，我们可以看到，理论上紫色象限的产品例如3C最适合在朋友圈做推广（因为复杂购买货化解不协调购买模式下，消费者对朋友推荐的信任远远超过广告主的鼓吹宣传，而朋友圈恰恰是一个基于熟人关系的社交媒介平台！）。但事情又没有那么简单。麦克卢汉说“媒介即信息”，我们综合要考虑微信朋友圈搭载哪些信息形式，才能准确分析出现实状况下，到底哪些产品适合在微信朋友圈上做推广。大家在微信圈晒什么信息？首当其冲的无非是：美食、娱乐、旅游、美女照、恩爱照和孩子照片。这时候我们发现，你在微信朋友圈植入吃喝玩乐的广告还算贴切，如果莫名其妙发一条3C产品广告就很突兀生硬、甚至是无礼（骚扰他人屏幕）。这样算起来，现阶段最适合在朋友圈推广的产品类型是红色象限的产品如快消品明星产品、景区、餐厅、娱乐等体验式消费品：甚至，因为微信朋友圈流行晒孩子，教育类产品也蛮适合在微信朋友圈做推广的：以上三个例子都需要注意广告内容的形式，不要太粗暴的硬广，最好做到有趣、有料（详细情况查阅内容营销相关资料）。试想，消费者在一个环境优雅的高档餐厅享受了低调奢华的一餐，顺便发一些照片秀一下当晚的生活品质，这多符合用户在微信朋友圈的行为习惯啊。如果将来微信能支持“在贴图的同时能粘贴商户链接”那就更完美了！那是不是说，3C产品在微信朋友圈没戏了呢？不一定！刚才说到了，之所以觉得紫色象限最有前景，是因为在消费者“减少失调购买行为”和“复杂性购买行为”中，对朋友推荐的信任远远超过广告主/推销员的鼓吹宣传——大家都有过在QQ上求助朋友、请他们帮你决策购买的经历吧？当然了，现阶段微信朋友圈的功能还不足以承载3C产品的推广：消费者只是偶而购买3C产品而已，你根本不知道他什么时候需要什么产品，冒然的产品广告或者活动促销纯属无的放矢，形成信息污染。如果设计一个“帮我挑”功能，就能倒过来！当用户产生购买需求的时候主动征求朋友建议、同时触发广告推送！那么情况就大不一样了——这时候消费者已经处在AIDA模式最末端的Action阶段（相关阅读：），真正的临门一脚啊，朋友们给的意见，将会极大的影响当事人的品牌决策。这就是信任的力量。也是微信朋友圈的力量。下图为本人模拟的“微信朋友圈-帮我挑”界面及流程：（淘宝有“帮我挑”，但它是针对其他购买者等陌生人或者弱社交关系发起的，所以这个APP的使用率很低）如图，当事人可以用分类形式筛选一个意向范围，如图，当事人可以用分类形式筛选一个意向范围，选择几个产品请朋友们投票；或者直接输入多个意向产品请朋友投票。他甚至可以直接定向给特定的朋友（例如数码达人）提醒他们收看。而朋友们呢，他们可以通过投票或者评论甚至帮忙转发的形式给予反馈，最终促进当事人的消费决策。对于微信产品本身而言，这个“朋友圈帮我挑”这个功能是有助于提升朋友间的互动热度——且这种互动是积极健康的（朋友求助、朋友帮忙、经验交流、和谐融洽），这种结果是微信产品开发团队喜闻乐见的。而对于微信销售团队而言，“朋友圈帮我挑”至少可以产生两处绝佳的广告位，带来大量高品质广告主。如图，广告位A可以卖给产品厂家，广告位B则适合电商网站。此处虽然是以3C产品为例，但是汽车、净化器等功能性生活用品均可参照此例。熟悉广告行业的人都知道，汽车、3C等都是最有钱且素质最高的优质广告主。由于消费者处在AIDA模式最末端的ACTION阶段说明他们已经具有极其确定的购买意向、非常接近购买环节了，厂商们绝对不会吝啬在这个节骨眼上砸入重金广告费。而对于电商网站，广告位B是重要的引流入口，不赘述。最后，对于用户而言，我们可以在发动“帮我挑”行为之后，被奖励几块钱的微信红包/现金券（反正有厂商替我们买单的是吧），也是有收益的事情。至于用户体验嘛……整个过程还是很简单便利的。综上，至少朋友圈稍作升级，有望轻松获得大量优质广告主，且这将是一个多方共赢的局面。2、LBS营销目前，通过“附近的人”和“摇一摇”功能，目前，通过“附近的人”和“摇一摇”功能，色情行业私底下有挺热闹的运用。由于微信公众号是不带地址信息的，所以商业号在这方面难以有什么动作。未来不好说，如果微生活能支持LBS，未来的商用前景是无限的。3、微生活营销虽然微信用户有6个亿，但微生活的真实用户数量恐怕还不到1000万。微生活对外宣称，领卡人数是3000万，里面到底有多少人真实使用过这张卡？三个人里面能有一个人使用吗？不好说。在微信用户中，微信朋友圈的使用度差不多是100%吧。微生活会员卡的使用度就差得远了，也就网购经验丰富的年轻人能操作这些东西，对于年长的用户而言，这个玩意儿的使用门槛还是挺高的。基于此，目前微生活的市场体量还很小。但是，由于微生活是一个CRM系统，从长远看，它能创造很强的用户粘性。据微生活自己的人讲，据微生活自己的人讲，微生活的核心是CRM。目前主要对餐饮商户推广，不免费。基于微信CRM的个人定制化促销推送前景很大，这一点我不否认。高额费用（不仅仅指服务费，企业在使用这个平台的时候还会增加管理成本和人员成本）会一定程度限制其发展。更重要的是，这个东西的使用效果与商户的执行力度直接相关，再好的功能如果不被利用也是只沦为噱头。微生活会不会跟企业CRM的推广陷入一样的尴尬境地？这需要在2014年继续观察。针对微生活营销中的“赠券”功能，我稍微延伸一下。我提供一个假想：微生活赠券有没有可能跟月饼券一样，被民间私自发展为一种金融产品？这是个有趣的问题。理论上讲，我给你送礼，你不理论上讲，我给你送礼，你不一定需要真的到店去真实消费（绿色箭头流程），如果商户愿意直接回收我们的现金券呢（黄箭头所示），这事儿还真不能说得太细。考虑到国内限制三公消费，大环境下，老戏法借助微生活平台能玩出什么新变种，还真不好说……有一点可能肯定：如果我假想的这种可能成为现实，大额的现金券一定比小额的现金券使用率更高，整个平台的交易额一定相当可观（在微生活的市场成熟阶段）。在餐饮行业之外，利用微生活和即时通，“类中介行业”可能大量节省运营成本：（“类中介行业”：房产/招牌中介、调研公司、在线教育培训、DM派发等各种需要雇佣大量人员“扫大街”而不断动态更新数据库的行业）我不是说，靠着微信平台就可以不要中介公司了，而是说，可能节省低端人力奔波带来的成本。以某些咨询公司为例，他们为企业提供神秘顾客服务，手下一大批兼职的暗访员（经常是大学生），相当于会员；在从前，一旦有项目，他们需要逐个通知，当面培训，为了核实暗访员巡查结果的真实性，需要用到很复杂琐碎的文件程序。有了微生活平台就可以不一样了，筛选会员即可一对多下达工作单/培训教材；而暗访员在规定时限内上传一个带位置信息的监测照片/语音/视频即可证明自己完成了工作（企业对市场督导人员的管理亦可参考此例）。不过对于公司来说，他们本身不希望会员资料落到微信手里。所以将来具体怎么用，还得他们自己琢磨。这个方向也许能玩出一些花样，但它不会是微生活的重点（因为对微信而言没什么收益）。4、其它如果说微信的初繁荣和性有关，那么今年春节微信红包的大热则是因为游戏和博彩。微信红包是移动营销中一个有里程碑意义的产品，连马云都形容其“偷袭珍珠港”。作为新事物，我们目前数据不足，暂时不做评论，待看2014年风云变幻吧。
目前我见证过的1、酒吧、咖啡馆方式：不一定要官方的，申请一个私人帐户即可，主动找附近的人聊天。比如咖啡馆在写字楼附近的，可以搜索附近的人，问候一下：还没有下班啊？营销信息放在签名那里即可。混熟了，变成朋友，自然愿意帮衬或者帮助宣传。当然如果维护帐户的是美女，效果会翻倍。2、蛋糕店整合新浪微博微博平时介绍蛋糕的促销信息、制作花絮，分享老顾客的反馈和小故事。比如有美女顾客来了，可以晒微博，上图，@对方，配上俏皮卖萌的文字。加微博互粉可以享受优惠。通过微信寻找附近的人，进行互动，并邀请对方互粉，并给以第一次消费比较大的优惠，进行锁定。3、招聘适合大型商场，工业、产业园区，劳动力密集，而且上班时候消遣方式不多，微信解闷是个不错的方式，在签名中写出招聘信息，可以找到合适的人。4、餐饮、小吃凡是通过微信跟自己提供的帐户打招呼，即可享受x折优惠，或者买x送一优惠等。宣传内容可以是签名或者主动邀请。暂时这么多。各种社交应用互相整合，才能够发挥较好的效果。微信、默默用以互动，新浪微博进行信息的发布，做到不骚扰，让对方自然的接受信息，不然会起到反效果，破坏自身形象。
转一个我之前回答类似问题的：核心答案是：产品或者品牌离消费者越接近，越适合做微信推广。在回答决定性这个问题之前，我先说一下我入行没多久自己问的更狠的一个问题：社交网络推广有用么？差不多之前的2-3年里，这个问题一直困扰我，到现在我也在困扰。比较幸运的是，我在之前的4年里做的客户跨度很大，B2B到商超到建材到快消到服装，从跨国企业到国企到地方民企到淘宝客都有涉及，得出了一些个人可能比较片面的看法，仅供参考。判断社交网络推广对客户有没有用，我会从以下几个维度做判断：1.企业品牌或产品与消费者的亲密度2.企业品牌或产品购买决策者与网络的亲密度3.企业所处行业的成熟度和特性首先根据1、2两个原则，把我之前做过的一些客户放在适合的位置，做了一张图：注意，考虑到最后一个特性和不同客户自身的特点，此图绝对是不绝对的，得结合实际情况考虑。说到底，社交网络是一个企业接触消费者的渠道。它和电视、广播、报纸、杂志、户外没有本质上的区别。只要是你的品牌和消费者，尤其是你产品、服务的购买决策者是和网络亲密的，你就可以通过社交媒体去做推广，而且必定会有作用。不过如果客户所处的行业越成熟，社交网络起到决定性作用的可能性越低。因为足够成熟的行业，线上线下行业内的传播推广方式必定很多，其中会有很多被无数次证明是有效的，那么社交网络推广很大程度上，会成为另外一个篮子里的鸡蛋，能成就成，不成也不会有很大影响的那种。决定性作用？如果要起到决定性作用，那么社交网络推广带来的销量起码占到50%吧。那么反向推一下，如果社交网络推广能对品牌推广起到决定性作用，那么，它必定需要满足以下几个条件：品牌/产品是适合网络推广的，它与消费者是亲密的。社交网络推广要起到大的作用，品牌/产品本身的基础必须是良好的。比如杜蕾斯，品牌底蕴好，话题点多，品牌为消费者熟知，所以它是适合的。有的品牌没有底蕴，太新，或者很难有话题，做社交网络的基础就不太好，付出的努力就要更多，产生决定性作用的可能性就小。消费者与决策者是一体的，或者很亲密。产品的使用者和购买决策者必须是一体的或者很亲密。比如饮料的饮用者和购买者往往是同一个人，所以社交网络推广会有效果。如果不是一个人，比如是商务会议的饮料，那决策者在购买时不光考虑品牌，还会考虑价格、体积、档次等等因素，社交网络推广就很难有决定性效果。尤其是很多母婴、儿童产品。社交网络推广面向的是妈妈和宝宝的组合体，妈妈购买需要考虑的因素太多了，孩子喜欢不决定一切，社交网络推广很难起到决定性作用。品牌/产品其他的推广渠道很少或几乎没有。既然社交网络推广要起到决定性作用，其他推广渠道就必须很少或几乎没有。否则，你怎么知道你的销量增长是来自于人民广场的户外广告牌还是央视的TVC还是微博微信？消费者购买渠道畅通。社交网络推广的特殊性，决定了其实很适合冲动型消费。既然冲动了，如果购买很难，那销量增加自然很乏力。铺货多不多，网络有没有完善的购买渠道等等。冲动能否转化为销量，是能不能产生决定性作用的关键。品牌/产品成长空间大。品牌产品本身是否具有增长的潜力。产品是否在行业内有独特的优势，是否市场是一片蓝海。一个产品因为本身的问题压根卖不动了，来找社会化网络推广求助，最终能有效的，可能性很小，能起决定性作用的，概率更低满足以上条件，我觉得就是天降祥瑞祖坟冒烟，遇上千年难见的好客户了！如果给的钱多，那就必须去烧香拜佛感激祖上阴德了！好客户到手，社交网络推广能够大发神威的可能性存在，余下的，就看大家的能力了。可惜，就这种还是会有人搞砸……唉……
1. 特殊行业，大家懂的。我家附近酒店多，现在“附近的人”一半是这种。2. 酒吧，同上，但更委婉，算情感营销。3. 招聘，同样的我家附近老板不少，经常看到有人直接招人。4. 中介，房屋什么的也有发展空间。5. 快消，比如宿舍楼下的小炒。所以大概都有个特点，地点固定，多服务周边人群的适合维信营销。比如你是做辣锅的吧，有个微信号，开着放手机里，签名写个 xxx 今日菜金6折或许周边上班的人无聊在讨论吃啥时，某个埋头玩手机的人大喊，这里xxx今天打折，就去消费了。
　　我认为，可能是两种品牌可以做，一个是很大众化市场的品牌，另一个就是很利基市场的小众品牌，走两个极端。大众化品牌应该把微信作为一个互动的平台，而不是广告推送平台，真的，你都已经地球人都知道了，人家喜欢你，加你为好友，把你当朋友，你还每天发小广告，谁受得了。比如KFC如果做一个微信，我说我想吃汉堡了，他再告诉我哪里最近，然后给我一张折扣券，或者订餐电话之类的，就会很好。千万别一到吃饭的点，就推送一条“要吃汉堡么?”另一种，一家很有特色的餐厅，通过微信告诉有限的客户怎么走，以及最近发生的故事，会是一个情感沟通的好方式。　　小结一下：　　1. 微信是个好平台，但现在很多微信营销走偏了。　　2. 品牌商要推送信息，而消费者其实不希望收到传单。　　3. 微信营销需要创新，需要在找需求和互动上多下功夫。　　欢迎大家探讨。
除了小姐还是小姐。上微信的一般有寂寞无聊的特点，小姐刚好可以解决需求。在西湖边上随便一搜，都是xx酒店伴游，全套服务bla bla。
狭义和广义的快消都适合
最近打的正严的服务业。
外卖，其实最好最需要。
我身边对微信营销做得最好的，也是最得利的，是服装店小业主。进了新款，自拍的美美的上新，然后发到朋友圈去。当然介绍也写得非常引人入胜，充满遐想。于是顾客们自投罗网的去问价，甚至老顾客看了照片就订货了，都不必上门，发个快递就搞定了一切。做得最好的一个朋友说，现在只要专门在微信上发照片，哪怕店里没人上门，她都赚的很ok了。
1.微信运营适合传统媒体，如报纸杂志。2.电子会员卡适合商店，酒店，服装店等。3.企业的社会化招聘。4.电子商务，第三方平台分享到微信，直接购买。5.企业的小型客户管理。6.线上活动与线下活动的连接，这个谁适合啦！7.至于基于地理位置的购物，感觉啪啪更适合，哈哈。
微信更大的价值在于客户管理，可以从微博、SNS、线下沙龙等各个渠道收集到的忠实粉丝，再进行核心用户管理，每天聊天互动之类的，达成朋友关系后，通过口碑的方式，把你想要传达的信息借他们的口传达出去。这个更偏品牌。至于销售，可以借助开放平台与手机端app结合，实现销售。线下商店，跟地理位置服务挂钩，未来也许会摇一摇摇出相关的商家，然后通过沟通，吸引用户进入到商家
哪类产品适合在微信上做营销？为什么？ 这个问题提的非常好！首先我认为跟个人相关的产品、服务等，比如生活服务类的、医疗类的、娱乐类的等等适合做微信营销。因为微信的社交属性非常的强，微信的用户希望能够有个非常贴切的交流环境。在微信平台上人人平等，比如医疗类里面当某个人感觉身体不适，于是可以通过微信跟在线医生交流得到相同的反馈。不仅节约了时间还降低了看病的费用，同时通过分享后，圈子内的好友很快明白同样的情况！无需在重复咨询了。。。
1、需要重复性消费客户的行业，例如：餐厅、商场、超市；2、需要客户光顾多次才能最终达成成交的行业，例如家居卖场、房屋销售；3、服务性行业，例如：洗车、钟点工、洗衣、美容等。方便信息查询以及预约服务，长期消费还可以弄个VIP什么的，，，
任何产品都可以在微信上营销。
但不是所有产品都适合在微信上销售。
很多产品都不适合在微信上成交。
这么说好像有点绕。如果你想在微信上卖东西，并且通过微信成交，那么高频率低决策的商品比较适合。
食品生产企业下一步必然是拥抱微信，因为微信有7亿用户，人多的地方消费需求就集中。微信必然会颠覆很多产业，但并不是可以取代生产厂，恰恰相反，这种颠覆是为了将这些生产厂家变得更有效率，活的更好，因为可以和消费者随时保持联系，便于收集顾客的需求。现在微信营销的争论似乎已愈演愈烈，笔者采访了成都金沙岛信息技术有限公司的吴总，她对微信营销研究的深度可能会解决大家的疑惑。吴总讲：成都食品生产企业究竟要怎样用好微信平台，首先我们这里需要明确，微信是一个社交平台，是一个沟通的工具。在
这个迅速变革的时代，除了人与人的沟通，还要有企业和消费者的沟通，你不可能轻易了解所有顾客的消费心理，人工调查费时费力，效率底，而微信可以让企业和消费者一直在线联系，消费者对产品的意见，对口感的不满可以第一时间微信发给厂家，厂家可以及时调整生产工艺或者解决消费者的诉求，让上帝感觉到自己真是上帝，而不是一直拖延，甚至不理人家，这样就做到了最好的客服体验，别看就这一个小小的改进，他可是致命的颠覆，消费者看的就是服务，其实产品大部分都是同质化，口感也相差不是很大，比的就是服务，所以我想食品企业的移动互联网思维最核心的就是借助微信来变革服务，提升客服体验，必须这样，因为消费者的心理发生了变化，现在是体验经验，食品生产厂家要认识到自己不是做产品，是做服务，属于服务业，服务业的宗旨是让你的用户满意。随着互联网成长起来的用户群体正在逐渐成为消费的主力，食品生产企业要花时间去研究用户的行为和习惯，借助大数据、移动互联网、微信平台等新兴工具去研究用户，甚至在这个开放式的环境下直接让用户参与产品的研发和设计，这样不是就颠覆了传统的模式吗。是啊，在信息社会的今天，企业只有跟上时代的脚步，才不会被颠覆。
聚拢目标用户，精准提供需求所需内容，目标人群相互讨论更便于发现需求。
大学校园组织是否可以呢
B2B的企业到底应该怎么搞呢？没想好。貌似除了推送信息，很难有什么直接对话的机制。建立一个圈子吧，有觉得会很怪异
微信现在越来越流行了，用户量激增，其实不同行业都可以以不同的方式来进行微信营销，微信只是一种工具，你可以用它来打造品牌，可以直接进行O2O的在线营销、最核心的就是做好定位，通过线上线下的推广，获得大量的关注，这跟微博是想通的，但是微信用户粘性更高一些。}