New products need to provide value. We all know that. But further than that it needs to be clear what the product does and why people should care. This will let your product escape the trap Google Buzz, New Coke (or even better Crystal Pepsi), Cosmopolitan Yogurt, Palm, other PDA’s, and countless other products that no one in the world could understand what were good for went right into. Products need to have a clear intrinsic purpose, and they need a company around them that clearly explains externally what the product is, what it does, and why we should care.
New products should have a killer application. For example Twitter’s killer app was status messages that fit into a text message. Now it’s important to note that a killer app isn’t necessarily what you will end up doing. The killer app is what you start out doing! Today I don’t care if Twitter updates fit into a text, now I use it because I already am. Killer apps allow you to find a niche that’s big enough for you to start growing your business. For example I think that in [insert random number here] years there will be a big company that deals in robots, kind of like a Microsoft of robots. If I wanted to start that company today, I wouldn’t care what robots would be in 20 years, I would find a small niche in which to start making robots today that could provide me a basis for new niches and eventually a world leadership in robots. Maybe I would start with toy robots? Certainly I could make a lot of fun stuff without requiring too much AI at the offset? Nevertheless a killer application is something more specific. It’s something that makes my robots intrinsically better than other robots. Maybe my toy robots could play board games? Certainly the technology to allow robots to play the games already exist, the only technological challenge left would be to get the robot to recognize the game, the location of the pieces and give it the ability to move the pieces autonomously.
USP’s are something else, they’re extrinsic, but they are very much related to killer apps. A USP is a Unique Selling Proposition, to understand it fully you should go to your local supermarket, locate the aisle that has toothpaste and read the tag lines. Every brand will have toothpaste for whiter teeth, cleaner teeth, anti-bacterial, anti-bad breath and a few that attempt to do it all. Think about it, do you really think there’s a lot of difference? Most of the toothpaste is just filler anyway, the parts that differentiate the products are measured in parts per million, so it likely wouldn’t be all that difficult to put all the good stuff in a single ultimate toothpaste. Continuing the robot example above, we could for example use “A friend for life”, or “Playmates forever” as a USP. This is how people understand your product. Notice that the USP don’t only separate the product from other robots, but other toys as well.
The difference between the two is that the killer application is the use of your product; the USP is what separates your product from all those others in the mind of the consumer. For start-ups however you often find yourself being so original that your product will be mentally sorted in a new category. In these cases, it pays to use the killer app to create a USP because you fortify your position as the one that provides that application. Combining a clear view of killer apps, niche markets, product positioning and business strategy will align different interests in your company so that product designers, business strategists, marketers, finance people, sales people and so on all understand what the company is setting out to do, and can agree on it.
If you liked this post or any other post feel free to click the “follow” button to the right to stay tuned to new posts when they appear. You can also follow me on Twitter as @vetleen.
Showing posts with label funding start-ups. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funding start-ups. Show all posts
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Do I launch my product or do I develop it further?
As a start-up you will eventually end up in a situation where you have to make a choice; do you spend your last money on improving the product, or do you spend it on launching your product and marketing it? Most marketers will tell you that you should always have a perfect product (you see the “product” is one of the four P’s in marketing). But I disagree.
Imagine that you have $1000, but you are afraid it will get stolen, the only way to avoid this, it seems, is to buy a safe. Unfortunately the safe cost $1000. Would you buy the safe? The same concept applies here, do you make a fantastic product that no one will hear about or do you make a mediocre product that many hear about? I would chose the latter and then use the money I make to improve the product later. This will grow your company quicker. And let’s face it, you have no idea what the consumer want in a product anyway. Just face it.
This is of course assuming this is a new product to some extent, you probably don’t know what people want, even if you think you do. Edison started rolling out electricity at an alarming rate, the killer application, was of course electric light. This meant that when people first got electricity, the outlet was a socket that matched the light bulb, not the socket we know today. Little did Edison know that washing machines and electrical irons would come along and that a socket where you had to screw in the cord would become dangerous. Everything, as we know now, worked out well for Edison, but he had no idea what electricity was going to be, or how big it was going to be. Start rolling out your product, make money and adapt your product to the feedback you get, who knows, maybe the technical improvement you have in mind isn’t what you should improve at all?
I also talked to a former product developer at Phillips once, he now runs his own company. He explained that Phillips, and the other big ones, never launch with their best product. Launch with your number two, price it in the stars, and then when your sales decline, introduce the next generation at the same price and lower the price of the last generation. And never launch a new generation until the next is in a drawer somewhere ready to launch
If you liked this post or any other post feel free to click the “follow” button to the right to stay tuned to new posts when they appear. You can also follow me on Twitter as @vetleen.
Imagine that you have $1000, but you are afraid it will get stolen, the only way to avoid this, it seems, is to buy a safe. Unfortunately the safe cost $1000. Would you buy the safe? The same concept applies here, do you make a fantastic product that no one will hear about or do you make a mediocre product that many hear about? I would chose the latter and then use the money I make to improve the product later. This will grow your company quicker. And let’s face it, you have no idea what the consumer want in a product anyway. Just face it.
This is of course assuming this is a new product to some extent, you probably don’t know what people want, even if you think you do. Edison started rolling out electricity at an alarming rate, the killer application, was of course electric light. This meant that when people first got electricity, the outlet was a socket that matched the light bulb, not the socket we know today. Little did Edison know that washing machines and electrical irons would come along and that a socket where you had to screw in the cord would become dangerous. Everything, as we know now, worked out well for Edison, but he had no idea what electricity was going to be, or how big it was going to be. Start rolling out your product, make money and adapt your product to the feedback you get, who knows, maybe the technical improvement you have in mind isn’t what you should improve at all?
I also talked to a former product developer at Phillips once, he now runs his own company. He explained that Phillips, and the other big ones, never launch with their best product. Launch with your number two, price it in the stars, and then when your sales decline, introduce the next generation at the same price and lower the price of the last generation. And never launch a new generation until the next is in a drawer somewhere ready to launch
If you liked this post or any other post feel free to click the “follow” button to the right to stay tuned to new posts when they appear. You can also follow me on Twitter as @vetleen.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Crowdfunding: An Idea for a Business
I recently came across a guy named Gijsbert Koren from Netherlands, which introduced this idea of “crowdfunding” to me. He explains:
“Crowdfunding, inspired by crowdsourcing, describes the collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and pool their money together (via internet) in order to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.”
Though his question was more in the direction of what could go wrong, I started thinking about it, and realized this could be made in to a lucrative business.
Mission: To bring together people that want to invest small amounts of money in entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurs that need early stage funding.
Concept: A webpage with an auction-like system that allows entrepreneurs to post their business together with funding needs, and let small time investors “bid” on pieces of a company. For example an entrepreneur would say what his company was doing, at what stage it was, how much funds it needed, how much of the company it would be willing to give away for that amount and other relevant information. Let’s say he needed $50k and would be willing to give away 30 % of the company, an investor willing to invest $100 would then be able to post a bid for 0,06 % of the company. When and if the entrepreneur reached $50k, the bid (along with the other bids) would get accepted.
Business model
There are many ways to make money on this, some alternatives are:
- 1 % of the money invested or the of ownership of the start-up could be retained by the site
- 1 % of the returns could be retained by the site
- The site could provide services, like board members, to help develop the firms that are invested in
- Books and other relevant material could be sold in a related webshop (it is likely that not only those that use actual the services of the site would visit the site)
- Posting a firm could cost a small amount
- Placing bids could cost let’s say 0,1 % (so $10 out of $10 000 should be bearable)
- If you receive funding it cost 0,1 % of the funds received ($ 50 in the case above)
- Public support?
Marketing
Would you need investors or entrepreneurs first? And how would you reach and recruit them? This is of course a difficult issue, maybe you need some funds? (Can it be crowdfunded?) I’m sure that getting in touch with entrepreneurs should be easy enough, you can use personal contacts with incubators and such, most entrepreneurial districts have emerging technology funds, technology transfer offices and incubators that can point you in the right direction. Investors would maybe have to be reached through some sort of viral marketing? Or would ads in newspapers do for this kind of service?
Problems:
Some issues deserve some attention here, even if I don’t like to consider the problems the first day of a new idea.
How would you avoid scams?
In a small country like Norway it would be possible to only allow entrepreneurs to post after meeting them, and talking to them, a sort of due diligence light. In larger countries, like the US, this would of course be difficult, but maybe you would have to send in some paperwork or letters of recommendation?
How would investors get their returns?
A bid could be posted in a number of ways, the entrepreneur could say that he accepted that people would bid for the company, and get a share of it. That way, the investors would get dividends and profit from a potential exit. The entrepreneur could also chose to look for loans, that way the investors would get their money back at a certain date with the interest that was agreed upon. If there are 500 investors that has invested $100 each and they all have different terms, this could obviously offer some difficulties, this could be solved by the site acting as a proxy. Meaning, the site creates a fund for each entrepreneurial venture that gets funded and the site technically owns the small-investors part of the start-up. The dividends and money from the exit is then paid to the site, which forwards each parties money back to them.
How would the investors get a voice in the company?
If, as suggested in the previous part, the investors are represented by the company, board decisions could be done through a proxy that is the site. By investing through the site you agree that the site, as the technical owner, has a representative on board whose job is to represent the small investors.
But what about taxes?
These laws probably are different between countries, and I’m not an expert. I would however imagine that this would be double taxed, first a tax when the site collects dividends, and then a tax when each investor receives their money.
If you liked this post or any other post feel free to click the “follow” button to the right to stay tuned to new posts when they appear. You can also follow me on Twitter as @vetleen.
“Crowdfunding, inspired by crowdsourcing, describes the collective cooperation, attention and trust by people who network and pool their money together (via internet) in order to support efforts initiated by other people or organizations.”
Though his question was more in the direction of what could go wrong, I started thinking about it, and realized this could be made in to a lucrative business.
Mission: To bring together people that want to invest small amounts of money in entrepreneurial firms and entrepreneurs that need early stage funding.
Concept: A webpage with an auction-like system that allows entrepreneurs to post their business together with funding needs, and let small time investors “bid” on pieces of a company. For example an entrepreneur would say what his company was doing, at what stage it was, how much funds it needed, how much of the company it would be willing to give away for that amount and other relevant information. Let’s say he needed $50k and would be willing to give away 30 % of the company, an investor willing to invest $100 would then be able to post a bid for 0,06 % of the company. When and if the entrepreneur reached $50k, the bid (along with the other bids) would get accepted.
Business model
There are many ways to make money on this, some alternatives are:
- 1 % of the money invested or the of ownership of the start-up could be retained by the site
- 1 % of the returns could be retained by the site
- The site could provide services, like board members, to help develop the firms that are invested in
- Books and other relevant material could be sold in a related webshop (it is likely that not only those that use actual the services of the site would visit the site)
- Posting a firm could cost a small amount
- Placing bids could cost let’s say 0,1 % (so $10 out of $10 000 should be bearable)
- If you receive funding it cost 0,1 % of the funds received ($ 50 in the case above)
- Public support?
Marketing
Would you need investors or entrepreneurs first? And how would you reach and recruit them? This is of course a difficult issue, maybe you need some funds? (Can it be crowdfunded?) I’m sure that getting in touch with entrepreneurs should be easy enough, you can use personal contacts with incubators and such, most entrepreneurial districts have emerging technology funds, technology transfer offices and incubators that can point you in the right direction. Investors would maybe have to be reached through some sort of viral marketing? Or would ads in newspapers do for this kind of service?
Problems:
Some issues deserve some attention here, even if I don’t like to consider the problems the first day of a new idea.
How would you avoid scams?
In a small country like Norway it would be possible to only allow entrepreneurs to post after meeting them, and talking to them, a sort of due diligence light. In larger countries, like the US, this would of course be difficult, but maybe you would have to send in some paperwork or letters of recommendation?
How would investors get their returns?
A bid could be posted in a number of ways, the entrepreneur could say that he accepted that people would bid for the company, and get a share of it. That way, the investors would get dividends and profit from a potential exit. The entrepreneur could also chose to look for loans, that way the investors would get their money back at a certain date with the interest that was agreed upon. If there are 500 investors that has invested $100 each and they all have different terms, this could obviously offer some difficulties, this could be solved by the site acting as a proxy. Meaning, the site creates a fund for each entrepreneurial venture that gets funded and the site technically owns the small-investors part of the start-up. The dividends and money from the exit is then paid to the site, which forwards each parties money back to them.
How would the investors get a voice in the company?
If, as suggested in the previous part, the investors are represented by the company, board decisions could be done through a proxy that is the site. By investing through the site you agree that the site, as the technical owner, has a representative on board whose job is to represent the small investors.
But what about taxes?
These laws probably are different between countries, and I’m not an expert. I would however imagine that this would be double taxed, first a tax when the site collects dividends, and then a tax when each investor receives their money.
If you liked this post or any other post feel free to click the “follow” button to the right to stay tuned to new posts when they appear. You can also follow me on Twitter as @vetleen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)