I find myself inventing terms sometimes, and lately I’ve been using the term killer customer as a parallel to killer applications. Today I thought I’d share with you what I mean by it and why it’s a good term to have in the back of your mind when considering start-ups.
A killer application is that thing about your product that is so awesome that it just compels people to buy it. It’s that first application of the technology that proves its worth. For example last year I came to talk with a student at the University of Oslo who had worked with some other people to create a software that reduced lag in networking. It would only have to be installed on a server and it would use some previously unused capacity to send redundant information and thus reduce lag significantly. My first thought when I heard about this was: “Give it to me! I’ll make us all millionaires”. Unfortunately (for me) it turns out it was open source, and the code was already meant to be implemented into the Linux kernel. But that’s really besides the point, the point is that I could see a killer application at once. Online gaming. Everyone that has ever played a MMO over a bad connection with loads of packet loss will understand why this is a good idea.
With this in mind, it's easy to imagine a killer customer: World of Warcraft. If this technology hadn't been open source it’s likely that they would gladly pay a lot to have it implemented. And with Blizzard on board it would just be a matter of calling those other MMO games to stack up the other millions. When that market is saturated you could go after video streaming, stock market information, and so on. A great opportunity.
The killer customers, thus, are the obvious customers that will give you cash flow quickly. Sometimes killer customers are those that need your product badly, and that will be glad to pay for it. Other times it may be someone that agrees to let you use them as a reference. For example I once met up with a start-up in Houston that was a spin-out from a major oil company, the company had extremely low market risk because the oil company had committed to being its customer should it succeed in productizing their technology. Having killer customers reduce your market risk, and will give you a much easier time getting funding and getting people to trust that your company will succeed. You don’t need to call them killer customers of course, just remember that the first customer is extremely valuable!
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 technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
How to deal with uncertainty - the maximize options approach
In a recent blog post I wrote that it is becoming increasingly difficult to forecast the future. As I imply, the problem is choice: Lower distances between people increases the ripple effect of individual choices, and technology together with consumerism increase the sets of choices, and options available to each choice to create an exponentially growing possible futures.
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.” (Yoda)
Simply put I would claim that the uncertainty of the future is a function of the number of people that make choices, times the number of choices available, times the number of options available in each choice, times a coefficient for the impact of each choice. As all the factors that go in to the function have higher values now than they did earlier the uncertainty increases. What I don’t mention is how to cope with the increasing uncertainty; this is what I will address here.
Economists love choices, because they apply math to find the “right” choice. Consider that you’re in a TV game show, you get presented with two choices, a) 100% chance of $ 10 000 or b) 50 % chance of either $0 or $50 000. Any economist will tell you that the options are worth respectively $10 000 and $25 000, so you should choose b) (this is because given enough similar choices the average outcome would be those numbers). Now, if however, you chose b) and you lost and had to go home with $ 0, did you make the wrong choice? Many will say yes, because you lost all the money. These people think that a good choice is a choice that you would not change after you see the outcome; this seems to me like it is a bad definition. I think that you always have to judge a choice based on the information that was available at the time, thus it was still the right choice! If you are presented with a choice of this type, you should follow this procedure.
The problem, as the clever reader has already deduced, is that you rarely know the numbers. And this is exactly what forecasting has been occupied with since the beginning of the industrial era; how can we put numbers on stuff that we know very little about? There are tons of books on this subject, so I won’t go in to it, but rather utter my proposition on how to deal with uncertainty in choices in these days, and especially in the years to come. First, let me repeat myself, in instances where numbers are available or could be attained, follow the above procedure. This is for all those other instances.
I already professed my love for platform technologies, but I haven't explained why, so here goes. The more malleable a technology is, the more uses it can have, thus the more ways it can be successful should it fail in its intentional use. The more adaptable a technology is (Cēterīs paribus), the higher is the probability that its owners will find an application that is profitable. Consider a hypothetical example, two companies are specializing in medical technology, both companies have a development cycle of 15 years, and neither has any information about what its competitors are doing. One company is certain that it can make a cure for let’s say AIDS, and the other is certain that it can make a platform that will cure every bacterial infection known to man, but would only be able to market it for one use at a time. Assume that the technical challenge is equal, and that the main risk is that competitors beat them to market. Which company would you invest in? Since neither has any information about what their competitors are doing (the premise of uncertainty), I would invest in the bacterial platform company. The AIDS company has one chance to succeed, if someone else beats them to market they are dead, finito. If someone else makes the bacterial technology, the company can just change its marketing to target another disease, because the drug can target all diseases, but just market towards one at a time.
By the same principle, even if I don’t believe in global warming I believe in environmentalism, because an earth with rainforests have more options that an earth without them. A country with a highly educated workforce has more options than one without it. A company with several paths to market has more options than one with only one path to market. A technology with many uses has more options than one with limited use. A user friendly computer has more options than one that’s not. A diverse education gives more opportunities than one that’s specific. This principle is universal.
But, you may ask, how does this relate to forecasting the future? Well, the concept I’m trying to explain has two implications for you. Firstly, it means that if there are high uncertainty go with the option that leaves more options open. Secondly, when creating something, try to leave as many options open for as long as possible. If you don’t know how things are going to turn out right now, maybe you will have a better understanding in the future, thus closing doors prematurely is extremely dangerous and will become even more so in the future.
To wrap it up, here are some simple predictions made following this principle:
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.
"Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.” (Yoda)
Simply put I would claim that the uncertainty of the future is a function of the number of people that make choices, times the number of choices available, times the number of options available in each choice, times a coefficient for the impact of each choice. As all the factors that go in to the function have higher values now than they did earlier the uncertainty increases. What I don’t mention is how to cope with the increasing uncertainty; this is what I will address here.
Economists love choices, because they apply math to find the “right” choice. Consider that you’re in a TV game show, you get presented with two choices, a) 100% chance of $ 10 000 or b) 50 % chance of either $0 or $50 000. Any economist will tell you that the options are worth respectively $10 000 and $25 000, so you should choose b) (this is because given enough similar choices the average outcome would be those numbers). Now, if however, you chose b) and you lost and had to go home with $ 0, did you make the wrong choice? Many will say yes, because you lost all the money. These people think that a good choice is a choice that you would not change after you see the outcome; this seems to me like it is a bad definition. I think that you always have to judge a choice based on the information that was available at the time, thus it was still the right choice! If you are presented with a choice of this type, you should follow this procedure.
The problem, as the clever reader has already deduced, is that you rarely know the numbers. And this is exactly what forecasting has been occupied with since the beginning of the industrial era; how can we put numbers on stuff that we know very little about? There are tons of books on this subject, so I won’t go in to it, but rather utter my proposition on how to deal with uncertainty in choices in these days, and especially in the years to come. First, let me repeat myself, in instances where numbers are available or could be attained, follow the above procedure. This is for all those other instances.
I already professed my love for platform technologies, but I haven't explained why, so here goes. The more malleable a technology is, the more uses it can have, thus the more ways it can be successful should it fail in its intentional use. The more adaptable a technology is (Cēterīs paribus), the higher is the probability that its owners will find an application that is profitable. Consider a hypothetical example, two companies are specializing in medical technology, both companies have a development cycle of 15 years, and neither has any information about what its competitors are doing. One company is certain that it can make a cure for let’s say AIDS, and the other is certain that it can make a platform that will cure every bacterial infection known to man, but would only be able to market it for one use at a time. Assume that the technical challenge is equal, and that the main risk is that competitors beat them to market. Which company would you invest in? Since neither has any information about what their competitors are doing (the premise of uncertainty), I would invest in the bacterial platform company. The AIDS company has one chance to succeed, if someone else beats them to market they are dead, finito. If someone else makes the bacterial technology, the company can just change its marketing to target another disease, because the drug can target all diseases, but just market towards one at a time.
By the same principle, even if I don’t believe in global warming I believe in environmentalism, because an earth with rainforests have more options that an earth without them. A country with a highly educated workforce has more options than one without it. A company with several paths to market has more options than one with only one path to market. A technology with many uses has more options than one with limited use. A user friendly computer has more options than one that’s not. A diverse education gives more opportunities than one that’s specific. This principle is universal.
But, you may ask, how does this relate to forecasting the future? Well, the concept I’m trying to explain has two implications for you. Firstly, it means that if there are high uncertainty go with the option that leaves more options open. Secondly, when creating something, try to leave as many options open for as long as possible. If you don’t know how things are going to turn out right now, maybe you will have a better understanding in the future, thus closing doors prematurely is extremely dangerous and will become even more so in the future.
To wrap it up, here are some simple predictions made following this principle:
- Mobile phones that allows anyone to create uses will have more uses than a mobile phone that don’t, thus cell phone producers that have open platforms will outlive those that don’t.
- Countries that have an adaptable workforce will be less affected by upheaval, because they can shift the workforce over in other industries temporarily or permanently should disaster strike in a specific industry.
- Renewable energy producers that use existing infrastructure, such as oil from algae, will be more successful than those that gamble on technologies like hydrogen that requires major rebuilds of gas stations etc, because they have more potential customers, quicker.
- On demand television will outcompete fixed programming, because people will have more options on when and where to watch. On demand television also have more options on how to make money - the business model.
- The deck of cards will survive Monopoly, because you can play many more games with a deck of cards. Also you can do magic, tell someone’s fortune or even use them for a raffle.
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.
Friday, 12 March 2010
The five year forecast problem: A reason it’s becoming impossible.
Imagine for a second that you lived 4000 years ago, how difficult do you think it would be to forecast with some degree of certainty what the world would look like in 20 years? A fair bet would be that it would look very much like it did at the time of the forecast. If however you imagine yourself back in our time, it’s fair to say that such a 20-year forecast would be largely inaccurate. I think we all agree that forecasting has become more difficult and I pose that it just keeps getting worse. Why is this so?
I believe there are three driving forces to this. Firstly, the earth is finite; it has a fixed size, when population increase in a finite space, the distance between people decrease, and each person can reach more people. The direct effect of this is that there are almost no isolated pockets of people in the world, as opposed to 4000 years ago when there were almost only isolated pockets of people. This means that ripple effects of choices reach longer.
Secondly, the numbers of choices we are presented with are increasing, something that is reflected accurately in the movie Trainspotting: “Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television (…)” and so on. While most of our newfound choices are trivial in nature, such as what brand of cereal you want for breakfast, also the number choices that have severe effects are increasing.
This leads us to the third force, technology, which is more of an enabler of the second force. As technology gets more sophisticated, and more accessible, more people have access to items that they can use to affect the world in the direction they please. With more people, more choices and larger ramification of each choice, the equation that would accurately predict the future becomes immensely complex.
To illustrate this we can look at the incident at the WTC in 2001, how do the three forces affect this event? Firstly, the fact that people live closer (globalization) caused friction long before the bombing, as we all know, many people in the Arabic world were growing more hostile to western interference, while the west was growing more hostile to Arabic hostility, though one may put forth hundreds of arguments of race, religion, oil and so on, there can be little doubt that globalization and the shortening of distance played a crucial role. Secondly, not only were there a number of people with motivation to do something, there was a significant number of people with the possibility. Advents in travel and technology made it possible to get to the US, and the vast number of targets available to the terrorists made it impossible for the Americans, even if they knew that an attack was imminent, to predict where. The sets of choices of how and where to strike was so vast that prediction was nearly impossible.
The WTC bombing is but one example, if you compare the financial crisis of 1929 and 2008 you will find that the ripples of the latter traveled much further, faster. However the effects were less significant because more people had thought about how this could be handled, more choices were available. Also more people were in a position of power to induce a financial crisis, experts are still at it about what caused the crisis, was it a bubble? Was it the sub-prime market? Was it regulation? Or was it corrupt bankers? The fact that more people can willingly or unwillingly cause crises of various sorts, also leads to the inevitable fact that the future becomes more uncertain, because it’s not only determined by measurable events, but also by random choices made by people not on anyone’s radar.
The point here is that there are so many options, that however unlikely one isolated event is, it is extremely likely that several extremely unlikely events will occur. It’s not very likely that a specific fortune 500 company goes bankrupt in the next 20 years for example, but it’s very likely that at least one of them does. When there are several thousands of large events like this that will without a doubt happen, we can be certain that the changes in the next 20 years will be profound (so gambling on status quo is the bet with the worst odds), but since we don’t know which immense and unlikely changes will occur, just that some will, we have no way to know in which direction the world will shift. So we are left with the certainty that things will change, and the certainty that we don’t know in which way the world will change.
This also raises another concern. If the forces I have mentioned have driven our path to uncertainty, then we can expect the future to become even more uncertain in the future as these trends continue. Technology continues to evolve, the population to increase, and more people are getting the ability to make greater choices. So what will happen to our ability to predict the future? And what consequences will this have?
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.
I believe there are three driving forces to this. Firstly, the earth is finite; it has a fixed size, when population increase in a finite space, the distance between people decrease, and each person can reach more people. The direct effect of this is that there are almost no isolated pockets of people in the world, as opposed to 4000 years ago when there were almost only isolated pockets of people. This means that ripple effects of choices reach longer.
Secondly, the numbers of choices we are presented with are increasing, something that is reflected accurately in the movie Trainspotting: “Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television (…)” and so on. While most of our newfound choices are trivial in nature, such as what brand of cereal you want for breakfast, also the number choices that have severe effects are increasing.
This leads us to the third force, technology, which is more of an enabler of the second force. As technology gets more sophisticated, and more accessible, more people have access to items that they can use to affect the world in the direction they please. With more people, more choices and larger ramification of each choice, the equation that would accurately predict the future becomes immensely complex.
To illustrate this we can look at the incident at the WTC in 2001, how do the three forces affect this event? Firstly, the fact that people live closer (globalization) caused friction long before the bombing, as we all know, many people in the Arabic world were growing more hostile to western interference, while the west was growing more hostile to Arabic hostility, though one may put forth hundreds of arguments of race, religion, oil and so on, there can be little doubt that globalization and the shortening of distance played a crucial role. Secondly, not only were there a number of people with motivation to do something, there was a significant number of people with the possibility. Advents in travel and technology made it possible to get to the US, and the vast number of targets available to the terrorists made it impossible for the Americans, even if they knew that an attack was imminent, to predict where. The sets of choices of how and where to strike was so vast that prediction was nearly impossible.
The WTC bombing is but one example, if you compare the financial crisis of 1929 and 2008 you will find that the ripples of the latter traveled much further, faster. However the effects were less significant because more people had thought about how this could be handled, more choices were available. Also more people were in a position of power to induce a financial crisis, experts are still at it about what caused the crisis, was it a bubble? Was it the sub-prime market? Was it regulation? Or was it corrupt bankers? The fact that more people can willingly or unwillingly cause crises of various sorts, also leads to the inevitable fact that the future becomes more uncertain, because it’s not only determined by measurable events, but also by random choices made by people not on anyone’s radar.
The point here is that there are so many options, that however unlikely one isolated event is, it is extremely likely that several extremely unlikely events will occur. It’s not very likely that a specific fortune 500 company goes bankrupt in the next 20 years for example, but it’s very likely that at least one of them does. When there are several thousands of large events like this that will without a doubt happen, we can be certain that the changes in the next 20 years will be profound (so gambling on status quo is the bet with the worst odds), but since we don’t know which immense and unlikely changes will occur, just that some will, we have no way to know in which direction the world will shift. So we are left with the certainty that things will change, and the certainty that we don’t know in which way the world will change.
This also raises another concern. If the forces I have mentioned have driven our path to uncertainty, then we can expect the future to become even more uncertain in the future as these trends continue. Technology continues to evolve, the population to increase, and more people are getting the ability to make greater choices. So what will happen to our ability to predict the future? And what consequences will this have?
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, 1 March 2010
Thoughts About Way Too Needy Products or The Microwave that Went ”Me! Me! Me! Me!”
We have so many manufactured items around us that we often forget they are manufactured goods that at some time got bought, paradoxically we rarely think about many of these products. While we live in a mutually dependent relationship with these items, some product developers don’t understand that new products have to fit into the already existing eco-systems that are our lives.
In our everyday lives we interact with hundreds and maybe thousands of products, in fact mostly anything that we use are products of some sort, (look around you now, how many things that’s not some sort of a product can you find?) We once created all these items, but they also influence us back. I like to think about manufactured goods, services and anything that for some reason can be called a product as living in a symbiotic relationship with mankind, we depend on them, they depend on us. The reason we keep them around is because they (help) perform small tasks that makes our lives easier, for example a door can be opened or closed – a very practical notion that allows us to separate rooms and give them different functionality, different rooms are equipped with different products that perform tasks that naturally occur in that room, for example toilet paper, one of my favorite products, belongs in the bathroom and makes the tasks performed in there easier to handle.
The paradox is that we rarely think about how many products we are surrounded by in our lives, if you ask people how many products or items that was once manufactured they own, most people would grossly underestimate the number. This is because we only think about our iPhones and laptops and televisions or whatnot, we don’t think about door handles and the paint on our walls, we don’t think about that stack of newspapers or that jar of jam in the fridge. The fact of the matter is that we have so many things around us that are products that we can barely wrap our minds around it, which is a good thing. If we constantly went around being reminded of all our products we wouldn’t find time to do anything, and that’s why most products are made to blend in to our lives. So why does some product developers feel that their products are so important that they can disrupt the natural flow in the eco-system of man and his creations?
Let me give a couple of examples: Fire alarms beep too often and too loudly when the batteries go out, I get it! It’s important, but seriously, it can wait until morning. Some microwaves do the exact same thing, every 10 second it will let out a beep until you have opened the door. Why? Maybe the stuff I was heating said to let it rest for a few minutes, can’t I watch TV until then? Yet another example, to quote David l. French: “My Pantec phone...is so needy that in addition to sucking down juice like a college kid on St. Patty's day it makes you press 3 buttons before it even allows you to make a call.” Facebook e-mails you each time something barely happens, and it’s too damn hard to turn off (I just set my spam filter to catch *@facebook.com), I had to delete iTunes, because it kept downloading updates the size of entire musical albums every month, and frankly I don’t use it that much. And what’s with trying to force me to install Safari? I don’t want it!
Needy products are becoming an epidemic, and it needs to be stopped. If you are a product manager, try to think less about how important your specific product will be and more about how your products can fit into the lives of your customers. Products exist to make our lives easier or better, and people making products need to realize this and start focusing on the users’ interaction with products within the context of their lives. Products should not act as high-maintenance girlfriends or drama queens. Get serious guys; start making products that I want to keep around me.
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.
In our everyday lives we interact with hundreds and maybe thousands of products, in fact mostly anything that we use are products of some sort, (look around you now, how many things that’s not some sort of a product can you find?) We once created all these items, but they also influence us back. I like to think about manufactured goods, services and anything that for some reason can be called a product as living in a symbiotic relationship with mankind, we depend on them, they depend on us. The reason we keep them around is because they (help) perform small tasks that makes our lives easier, for example a door can be opened or closed – a very practical notion that allows us to separate rooms and give them different functionality, different rooms are equipped with different products that perform tasks that naturally occur in that room, for example toilet paper, one of my favorite products, belongs in the bathroom and makes the tasks performed in there easier to handle.
The paradox is that we rarely think about how many products we are surrounded by in our lives, if you ask people how many products or items that was once manufactured they own, most people would grossly underestimate the number. This is because we only think about our iPhones and laptops and televisions or whatnot, we don’t think about door handles and the paint on our walls, we don’t think about that stack of newspapers or that jar of jam in the fridge. The fact of the matter is that we have so many things around us that are products that we can barely wrap our minds around it, which is a good thing. If we constantly went around being reminded of all our products we wouldn’t find time to do anything, and that’s why most products are made to blend in to our lives. So why does some product developers feel that their products are so important that they can disrupt the natural flow in the eco-system of man and his creations?
Let me give a couple of examples: Fire alarms beep too often and too loudly when the batteries go out, I get it! It’s important, but seriously, it can wait until morning. Some microwaves do the exact same thing, every 10 second it will let out a beep until you have opened the door. Why? Maybe the stuff I was heating said to let it rest for a few minutes, can’t I watch TV until then? Yet another example, to quote David l. French: “My Pantec phone...is so needy that in addition to sucking down juice like a college kid on St. Patty's day it makes you press 3 buttons before it even allows you to make a call.” Facebook e-mails you each time something barely happens, and it’s too damn hard to turn off (I just set my spam filter to catch *@facebook.com), I had to delete iTunes, because it kept downloading updates the size of entire musical albums every month, and frankly I don’t use it that much. And what’s with trying to force me to install Safari? I don’t want it!
Needy products are becoming an epidemic, and it needs to be stopped. If you are a product manager, try to think less about how important your specific product will be and more about how your products can fit into the lives of your customers. Products exist to make our lives easier or better, and people making products need to realize this and start focusing on the users’ interaction with products within the context of their lives. Products should not act as high-maintenance girlfriends or drama queens. Get serious guys; start making products that I want to keep around me.
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.
Friday, 19 February 2010
Why the iPhone succeeded, a case of recognizing complex unmet needs, not technology revolution!
It’s hard not to notice that the players that were dominant in the cell phone market a few years ago have been marginalized by players such as Apple and Blackberry. It’s easy to attribute this to technology saying that the iPhone was so technologically superior to the phones of the time that it was inevitable, or that iPhone redefined the cell phone industry. However, it is important to note, I think, that the iPhone wasn’t mainly a technological innovation, in fact the technology to do most of what the iPhone does had been available for years, what happened was non-technology based disruption that largely was due to the incumbent industries inability to meet a very complex user need. Let’s look at the case of the iPhone to see what really happened.
Consumers were screaming for increased use of their cell phones, yet there was no solution in sight, but let’s for the purpose of limiting this post look at music as an example, keep in mind though that music is just one example and that you can replace “music” with “content” or “applications” in most places where I use the word. So, the consumers were screaming to use their cell phones for music, yet there was no good solution in sight. There were three parts of the infrastructure that needed to come into place, the content, the device and the network capacity, these were controlled by three types of actors with differing interests that would have to come together to put music on phones in a user friendly way: cell phone manufacturers, record labels (content providers) and phone carriers.
The manufacturers was happy with the way things were, incremental innovation, mostly in design, lowered the product life cycle so that new phones was bought all the time, they didn’t have to spend much on marketing, because consumers often bought what they were recommended in the (carrier owned) stores, so the best marketing was to have good relations with carriers, making sure both players made good money on selling that particular phone. The market mechanisms seemed to have stabilized, leaving no reason to think there was any change around the next corner. The manufacturers were largely dependent on the carriers. Since the stores where cell phones were bought generally belonged to the carriers, people chose their phone on the basis of what carriers offered them, the best thing a manufacturer could do was to be present in as many stores as possible, and just make sure they didn’t fall behind the other brands in innovation. Indeed a comfortable place to be for a large firm.
The record labels viewed cell phones as a treat, this seems to be their strategy with most new technology, so consumers were pirating music and putting it on their phones, with little revenue finding its way to labels. The labels would have preferred a pipeline of music that went through carriers, for example you would by a song for a few dollars through SMS or WAP. For consumers this took too long and was too expensive, for them it was easier to just use their pirated/ripped media library on their computer and use a cable or whatnot to transfer the songs to their cell phones. The phones didn’t have any storage capacity anyway to support buying a media library that would just work on your phone. In an effort to limit pirating, the music industry didn’t even make an effort to expand their market by finding a viable business model in cell phones or mp3-players.
The carriers on their part had a wholly different agenda, music didn’t really interest them. When a carrier imagined a future where wireless high speed internet access, together with technologies such as Skype was dominant, they got sick to their stomach, because that was a world where they were redundant. The carriers have been selling subscriptions that has a monthly fee and fixed prices on for example calls and texts, by adding free or cheap cell phones to the mix they could confuse buyers into buying subscriptions with crazy margins. If phones become internet based (with for example Skype as the carrier), they will at most be able to maintain the monthly fees, a prospect that will allow consumers to better understand what they are paying in relation to other carriers, this will lead to a lowering of the carriers margins, and force them to compete on price.
Needless to say, the phone carriers wanted to postpone the introduction of high-speed internet to phones and thus didn’t want music consumption to go through the high-speed connectivity that the consumers needed to effectively use their phones for music, because this connectivity could also facilitate other uses. For them the “pirate music on your computer then transfer to phone” model was sufficient, and no one bought a lot of music from the crappy stores they had anyway, why go into a market that clearly can’t be solved in their best interest? This stifled the innovation among the manufacturers, because, as noted above, they didn’t want to upset the carriers that they were so dependent on. And besides, they didn’t own any content that could be sold anyway, how would they make more money from adding functionality which someone else would get the revenue from (if anyone would get any revenue at all), and that their most important partners didn’t even want or push for? They settled for having the capacity to play music, in their crappy homemade players, and consumers would have to take it or leave it.
Enter Apple. Apple had three resources that allowed them to enter, they already had a deal with the record labels; the labels acting on their fear of becoming obsolete had agreed to sell music through iTunes for use in mp3-players, given that all effort would be made to limit the ability to copy the music, which suited Apple well. Apple also had the expertise to create ways for consumers to interact with the technology, this is really the only expertise Apple had that separated them, the technology, which is the third resource, was widely available, and Apple had a large engineering division that could make the phone. What happens is that Apple enters as a cell phone manufacturer and has a deal with the record labels. The high speed connectivity that carriers didn’t want and that the other manufacturers didn’t see any point in providing was pivotal to Apples plan, they wanted to make money not only on their phones, but on the extras as well, like iTunes. Apple also had a plan to sell other content, but let’s keep with the music for this post.
Apple had an advantage over the other manufacturers; they had a congregation that would buy their product no matter what. The iPhone was also perceived as an iPod with phone capability; to consumers this was just as good as phone with mp3 capability would have been. In addition consumers already knew how to consume music on mp3-players, they didn’t to the same degree know how to do this on their phones. Thus the iPhone was perceived as a better music player than the other phones, but not as inferior when it came to the phone capability. The incumbents in their infinite wisdom had their core competency in making phones, however this wasn’t perceived as important, because any technology company can make the phone part of a phone. These reasons add up to the fact that consumers wanted the iPhone, whether their carrier recommended them or not, this represented a shift in power, from the carrier’s power over the manufacturers, to Apples power over carriers. Even if the smart phone, here exemplified as the iPhone, likely will be the death of the carriers current business model (as noted above) in the not so distant future, the carriers needed to scramble to make sure they would be the one that had a monopoly on marketing the iPhone, because now the consumers would buy the carrier that had the iPhone, not the phone that carrier recommended.
Though I limited this post to apply to music it could just as easily apply to other content, such as movies or games. The point is that Apple sees an opening where the increasing needs of consumers are not reflected in the market offerings, and where the players that are necessary to fulfill this market need are looking the other way. If the three types of actors above had put their heads together, they likely would have seen this path to profit, and would have acted on it, but they were busy following different agendas. The genius of Apple lies in realizing that more sophisticated phones wasn’t the need at all, the actual need was made up of at least two different needs, the need for better phones and the need for some way to use the better phones. Apple set about to provide both at the same time, and it was this that gave them the ability to enter the market for cell phones with such a success.
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.
Consumers were screaming for increased use of their cell phones, yet there was no solution in sight, but let’s for the purpose of limiting this post look at music as an example, keep in mind though that music is just one example and that you can replace “music” with “content” or “applications” in most places where I use the word. So, the consumers were screaming to use their cell phones for music, yet there was no good solution in sight. There were three parts of the infrastructure that needed to come into place, the content, the device and the network capacity, these were controlled by three types of actors with differing interests that would have to come together to put music on phones in a user friendly way: cell phone manufacturers, record labels (content providers) and phone carriers.
The manufacturers was happy with the way things were, incremental innovation, mostly in design, lowered the product life cycle so that new phones was bought all the time, they didn’t have to spend much on marketing, because consumers often bought what they were recommended in the (carrier owned) stores, so the best marketing was to have good relations with carriers, making sure both players made good money on selling that particular phone. The market mechanisms seemed to have stabilized, leaving no reason to think there was any change around the next corner. The manufacturers were largely dependent on the carriers. Since the stores where cell phones were bought generally belonged to the carriers, people chose their phone on the basis of what carriers offered them, the best thing a manufacturer could do was to be present in as many stores as possible, and just make sure they didn’t fall behind the other brands in innovation. Indeed a comfortable place to be for a large firm.
The record labels viewed cell phones as a treat, this seems to be their strategy with most new technology, so consumers were pirating music and putting it on their phones, with little revenue finding its way to labels. The labels would have preferred a pipeline of music that went through carriers, for example you would by a song for a few dollars through SMS or WAP. For consumers this took too long and was too expensive, for them it was easier to just use their pirated/ripped media library on their computer and use a cable or whatnot to transfer the songs to their cell phones. The phones didn’t have any storage capacity anyway to support buying a media library that would just work on your phone. In an effort to limit pirating, the music industry didn’t even make an effort to expand their market by finding a viable business model in cell phones or mp3-players.
The carriers on their part had a wholly different agenda, music didn’t really interest them. When a carrier imagined a future where wireless high speed internet access, together with technologies such as Skype was dominant, they got sick to their stomach, because that was a world where they were redundant. The carriers have been selling subscriptions that has a monthly fee and fixed prices on for example calls and texts, by adding free or cheap cell phones to the mix they could confuse buyers into buying subscriptions with crazy margins. If phones become internet based (with for example Skype as the carrier), they will at most be able to maintain the monthly fees, a prospect that will allow consumers to better understand what they are paying in relation to other carriers, this will lead to a lowering of the carriers margins, and force them to compete on price.
Needless to say, the phone carriers wanted to postpone the introduction of high-speed internet to phones and thus didn’t want music consumption to go through the high-speed connectivity that the consumers needed to effectively use their phones for music, because this connectivity could also facilitate other uses. For them the “pirate music on your computer then transfer to phone” model was sufficient, and no one bought a lot of music from the crappy stores they had anyway, why go into a market that clearly can’t be solved in their best interest? This stifled the innovation among the manufacturers, because, as noted above, they didn’t want to upset the carriers that they were so dependent on. And besides, they didn’t own any content that could be sold anyway, how would they make more money from adding functionality which someone else would get the revenue from (if anyone would get any revenue at all), and that their most important partners didn’t even want or push for? They settled for having the capacity to play music, in their crappy homemade players, and consumers would have to take it or leave it.
Enter Apple. Apple had three resources that allowed them to enter, they already had a deal with the record labels; the labels acting on their fear of becoming obsolete had agreed to sell music through iTunes for use in mp3-players, given that all effort would be made to limit the ability to copy the music, which suited Apple well. Apple also had the expertise to create ways for consumers to interact with the technology, this is really the only expertise Apple had that separated them, the technology, which is the third resource, was widely available, and Apple had a large engineering division that could make the phone. What happens is that Apple enters as a cell phone manufacturer and has a deal with the record labels. The high speed connectivity that carriers didn’t want and that the other manufacturers didn’t see any point in providing was pivotal to Apples plan, they wanted to make money not only on their phones, but on the extras as well, like iTunes. Apple also had a plan to sell other content, but let’s keep with the music for this post.
Apple had an advantage over the other manufacturers; they had a congregation that would buy their product no matter what. The iPhone was also perceived as an iPod with phone capability; to consumers this was just as good as phone with mp3 capability would have been. In addition consumers already knew how to consume music on mp3-players, they didn’t to the same degree know how to do this on their phones. Thus the iPhone was perceived as a better music player than the other phones, but not as inferior when it came to the phone capability. The incumbents in their infinite wisdom had their core competency in making phones, however this wasn’t perceived as important, because any technology company can make the phone part of a phone. These reasons add up to the fact that consumers wanted the iPhone, whether their carrier recommended them or not, this represented a shift in power, from the carrier’s power over the manufacturers, to Apples power over carriers. Even if the smart phone, here exemplified as the iPhone, likely will be the death of the carriers current business model (as noted above) in the not so distant future, the carriers needed to scramble to make sure they would be the one that had a monopoly on marketing the iPhone, because now the consumers would buy the carrier that had the iPhone, not the phone that carrier recommended.
Though I limited this post to apply to music it could just as easily apply to other content, such as movies or games. The point is that Apple sees an opening where the increasing needs of consumers are not reflected in the market offerings, and where the players that are necessary to fulfill this market need are looking the other way. If the three types of actors above had put their heads together, they likely would have seen this path to profit, and would have acted on it, but they were busy following different agendas. The genius of Apple lies in realizing that more sophisticated phones wasn’t the need at all, the actual need was made up of at least two different needs, the need for better phones and the need for some way to use the better phones. Apple set about to provide both at the same time, and it was this that gave them the ability to enter the market for cell phones with such a success.
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.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Stepping out of the box (part 2): Techniques for stepping out of the box
This post continues from this post, and explains some steps that can be taken to step out of the afore-mentioned box.
Start anywhere but at the start
If you were to write a book, a criminal novel, where would you start? Most people I guess, would figure out a plot, and then start fiddling with the details. What if you just started to write? Don’t have a plot; don’t know how it ends or who the killer is. Just write something crazy, introduce us to the situation where the protagonist comes across the murder. Put in as many weird details as you can, then start working them out. The result will be very different than if you start by deciding how the murder took place, how the murderer covered it up and then write the book. In inventing it’s the same, most people start either with a technology or an unmet need. Don’t do that, find somewhere else to start. Find a crazy theory of where to start.
How about this? Most people start companies that they either know something about or that interest them. Find out what you know the least about and start with that. Find something that interests no one and start there. Think about roads, extremely boring, and I know nothing about making them. Maybe that’s a good place to start, exactly because I don’t know anything I can’t have any preconceived notions, I don’t know that I have to make the roads using asphalt and stone, maybe because I don’t know that I had to go to a university to ask someone, maybe I went in to the wrong building and met the wrong guy, but maybe it turned out that he had just invented a cheap material that would be perfect for roads, only that he hadn’t realized what the material was for? Maybe he had invented something completely different and you could go with that instead?
Find a starting place that is outside the normal, then you force yourself to think in a new way.
Challenge yourself beyond your capability
The previous example also advocates this point. A friend of mine considers himself a pickup artist, which means he goes out twice a week to pick up girls, and are fairly successful. However, he never uses the same approach twice, so each time he picks up a girl the difficulty goes up, and so does his success rate. My theory is that the more approaches he use, the further he comes from what is normal to do when picking up girls, and the less he is categorized as “the guy who just want to get laid”. It also shows that he is having fun, he’s a cool guy, that loves what he is doing. He says random things, and because of that he get’s random results. My point is that for us that accompany him we always think “that is never going to work”, but sometimes it does, and we are as surprised each time. The thing is that you never discover new grounds if you keep doing the same stuff. A business example would be the notion that start-ups cannot sell to fortune 500 companies. So people will generally tell you to not try. Why not? You have nothing to lose, call Microsoft, tell them about your product, request a meeting. Don’t think your product is good enough? Well, then your that guy sitting on the sideline saying that’s never going to work while your friend steps out of his comfort zone and get the girls. Embarrass yourself, fail, but try; you will be surprised at what you can achieve!
Give yourself over to chance
We make our decisions based on our assumptions, that means that there’s systematic errors in your decision making. If you want something new to happen you can throw a dice. Should I go to that interview or that interview? Throw a dice, let chance decide, not because there’s faith and everything is supposed to happen and so forth, no, because then you end up in situations that you normally wouldn’t be in, and then you get to think about problems that you normally wouldn’t.
Ask someone different
Take the Play-Doh example above, the solution to the problem wasn’t anything that was in the toolbox of the director or the MBA’s, it was a preschool teacher that came up with a solution. Again, if you keep doing the same you get the same results, if you ask the same people you get same answer. MBA’s are all in the same box, so ask someone that’s outside the box, maybe that can shed light from an angle you haven’t seen. If you however are a preschool teacher try asking an MBA. If you are a CEO, try asking someone on the floor, of you are an entrepreneur try asking an athlete. Find people that are different than you, that think different, that knows less, ask them and listen to them. It's not always those that should have the answers that have them, we often just assume they do. Did you know that monkeys can pick stocks just as well as professionals? Often better? Consider this excerpt:
How about that? So maybe amateur investors should stop listening to professionals and go ask the monkeys, or even start making their own theories - that shouldn't be based on the ideas of the financial advisors. (I would go get a sociologist to explain the nature of socially constructed reality if I wanted to make money on stocks, stock brokers don't even know what it is and yet the sociologist will claim thatit controls their every move).
It’s ok to be wrong
Seriously. It is. Whenever in an argument over what’s right and what’s not, try to think “what if I’m wrong”. A good way to do this is to whenever you have a discussion about something, take a break, go to someone that agrees with you and argue the other point. Often we are so sure that we are right that we cannot for the life of us even consider the alternative, but remember that the other person is just as likely to be right if that person believe in her ideas as strongly as you do!
Question all assumptions!
It’s well known that kids have an easier time learning languages than adults. Is it true? I don’t know. It takes a kid two years to learn their first language in a way that they can make themselves understood, and still it’s a couple of years before they speak it any good. I’m pretty sure I could learn French in four years if that’s all I had to do. That kids can learn to speak languages easier than adults is a cultural assumption. It’s something we all (or most of us) believe to be true. The thing is that it doesn’t have to be true, it can of course be true, but if you start questioning these assumptions when you come across them you will surprisingly often find that maybe they aren’t always true. The man running the factory in the example above assumed that his product could only be used for cleaning wall paper. His assumption was wrong, now we assume that making Play-Doh was his best course of action, maybe we are wrong? When you talk to someone, try figure out what yours and theirs basic assumptions are. Challenge them.
Crisis
When everything goes as planned it’s easy to keep routinely doing the tasks you have always done. When crisis appear, that’s when you have to think about new ways to do something. In a way crisis force you to consider option you otherwise wouldn’t, a teenager might not get into the educational program she wanted, so she has to look for new options, a company might discover that their product is no longer in demand, so they have to find new products, or new uses for their products. A new father might discover that his life is turned upside down, so he has to change his routines and his survival strategies.
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.
Start anywhere but at the start
If you were to write a book, a criminal novel, where would you start? Most people I guess, would figure out a plot, and then start fiddling with the details. What if you just started to write? Don’t have a plot; don’t know how it ends or who the killer is. Just write something crazy, introduce us to the situation where the protagonist comes across the murder. Put in as many weird details as you can, then start working them out. The result will be very different than if you start by deciding how the murder took place, how the murderer covered it up and then write the book. In inventing it’s the same, most people start either with a technology or an unmet need. Don’t do that, find somewhere else to start. Find a crazy theory of where to start.
How about this? Most people start companies that they either know something about or that interest them. Find out what you know the least about and start with that. Find something that interests no one and start there. Think about roads, extremely boring, and I know nothing about making them. Maybe that’s a good place to start, exactly because I don’t know anything I can’t have any preconceived notions, I don’t know that I have to make the roads using asphalt and stone, maybe because I don’t know that I had to go to a university to ask someone, maybe I went in to the wrong building and met the wrong guy, but maybe it turned out that he had just invented a cheap material that would be perfect for roads, only that he hadn’t realized what the material was for? Maybe he had invented something completely different and you could go with that instead?
Find a starting place that is outside the normal, then you force yourself to think in a new way.
Challenge yourself beyond your capability
The previous example also advocates this point. A friend of mine considers himself a pickup artist, which means he goes out twice a week to pick up girls, and are fairly successful. However, he never uses the same approach twice, so each time he picks up a girl the difficulty goes up, and so does his success rate. My theory is that the more approaches he use, the further he comes from what is normal to do when picking up girls, and the less he is categorized as “the guy who just want to get laid”. It also shows that he is having fun, he’s a cool guy, that loves what he is doing. He says random things, and because of that he get’s random results. My point is that for us that accompany him we always think “that is never going to work”, but sometimes it does, and we are as surprised each time. The thing is that you never discover new grounds if you keep doing the same stuff. A business example would be the notion that start-ups cannot sell to fortune 500 companies. So people will generally tell you to not try. Why not? You have nothing to lose, call Microsoft, tell them about your product, request a meeting. Don’t think your product is good enough? Well, then your that guy sitting on the sideline saying that’s never going to work while your friend steps out of his comfort zone and get the girls. Embarrass yourself, fail, but try; you will be surprised at what you can achieve!
Give yourself over to chance
We make our decisions based on our assumptions, that means that there’s systematic errors in your decision making. If you want something new to happen you can throw a dice. Should I go to that interview or that interview? Throw a dice, let chance decide, not because there’s faith and everything is supposed to happen and so forth, no, because then you end up in situations that you normally wouldn’t be in, and then you get to think about problems that you normally wouldn’t.
Ask someone different
Take the Play-Doh example above, the solution to the problem wasn’t anything that was in the toolbox of the director or the MBA’s, it was a preschool teacher that came up with a solution. Again, if you keep doing the same you get the same results, if you ask the same people you get same answer. MBA’s are all in the same box, so ask someone that’s outside the box, maybe that can shed light from an angle you haven’t seen. If you however are a preschool teacher try asking an MBA. If you are a CEO, try asking someone on the floor, of you are an entrepreneur try asking an athlete. Find people that are different than you, that think different, that knows less, ask them and listen to them. It's not always those that should have the answers that have them, we often just assume they do. Did you know that monkeys can pick stocks just as well as professionals? Often better? Consider this excerpt:
“In the four years since [Chicago Sun’s Monkey] has chaired and inspired this contest, his stocks have posted annual returns of 37 percent, 36 percent, 3 percent and, in 2006, 36 percent, beating the major indexes every time. It's proof that you don't have to be an insider CEO, an insider hedge-fund manager or a loudmouth on CNBC to make money in the market.”(read the entire article)
How about that? So maybe amateur investors should stop listening to professionals and go ask the monkeys, or even start making their own theories - that shouldn't be based on the ideas of the financial advisors. (I would go get a sociologist to explain the nature of socially constructed reality if I wanted to make money on stocks, stock brokers don't even know what it is and yet the sociologist will claim thatit controls their every move).
It’s ok to be wrong
Seriously. It is. Whenever in an argument over what’s right and what’s not, try to think “what if I’m wrong”. A good way to do this is to whenever you have a discussion about something, take a break, go to someone that agrees with you and argue the other point. Often we are so sure that we are right that we cannot for the life of us even consider the alternative, but remember that the other person is just as likely to be right if that person believe in her ideas as strongly as you do!
Question all assumptions!
It’s well known that kids have an easier time learning languages than adults. Is it true? I don’t know. It takes a kid two years to learn their first language in a way that they can make themselves understood, and still it’s a couple of years before they speak it any good. I’m pretty sure I could learn French in four years if that’s all I had to do. That kids can learn to speak languages easier than adults is a cultural assumption. It’s something we all (or most of us) believe to be true. The thing is that it doesn’t have to be true, it can of course be true, but if you start questioning these assumptions when you come across them you will surprisingly often find that maybe they aren’t always true. The man running the factory in the example above assumed that his product could only be used for cleaning wall paper. His assumption was wrong, now we assume that making Play-Doh was his best course of action, maybe we are wrong? When you talk to someone, try figure out what yours and theirs basic assumptions are. Challenge them.
Crisis
When everything goes as planned it’s easy to keep routinely doing the tasks you have always done. When crisis appear, that’s when you have to think about new ways to do something. In a way crisis force you to consider option you otherwise wouldn’t, a teenager might not get into the educational program she wanted, so she has to look for new options, a company might discover that their product is no longer in demand, so they have to find new products, or new uses for their products. A new father might discover that his life is turned upside down, so he has to change his routines and his survival strategies.
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.
Stepping out of the box (part 1): Taking the red pill / Drinking the Kool-Aid
What is the box?
Coming up with radical inventions requires you to step out of the box, but what does this mean? Well, the box is a metaphor for your preconceived notions. The box is the Matrix. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes and blinds you from the truth. It is said that Edison once fired a man for salting his soup before he tasted it; the reason is that this implied that the man was so blinded by the box that he forgot to check its validity. The man couldn’t know that soup needed salt if he hadn’t tasted it, but of course he assumed that he had to salt it because he had eaten so much soup that the salting was on autopilot. The box are all those things we take for granted. From the small things, such as “hamburgers are eaten with a side of french fries, not rice” to the big things, like, “the earth orbits the sun”, some of these assumptions may be true, but this isn’t really the point, the point is that the assumptions block us from thinking differently.
Why should we step out of the box?
First let’s look at why we are in the box. Our minds are designed to maintain the reality we believe exists, and generally this is very useful. What if you had to rethink how to open a door each time you walked through it? What if you had to decide if you liked your girlfriend each time you met her? What if the doctor had to convince you that the drugs you are taking actually will help each morning? It would make life extremely tedious, and the strain on our cognitive ability would be very high, so that our brains would require a lot more energy, i.e. we would need bigger brains and more to eat, which isn't good from an evolutionary perspective. Another reason we are in the box is because it is useful to maintain a sense of stability and reality. Research even shows that after people make a decision on any topic the brain will start to justify the decision so that you won’t change your mind so easily. This also goes for belief. Think about politics, when you decide that a certain party or politician is the one that should be elected it is really hard to change. This is called cognitive dissonance, and is just one of many mechanisms that help us maintain a healthy sense of continuity and reality, it makes us feel consistent. Historically this was useful because it freed up the brain to solve more important issues with its limited resources, in modern day society it's useful for that very same reason.
The problem with our sense of continuity is that it blocks our ability to think about what the world would be if it wasn’t the way it is. This is why US presidents are reelected more times than not. We strive for continuity, because we don’t understand how the world could be different. Stepping out of the box allows us to think about the world in new ways. It allows us to see things that others cannot see. First when you free your mind from the idea that transportation is either by foot or by horse can you start thinking about cars. Did you know that the wheel was never invented on the American continent before the Europeans arrived? They had circles, but no wheels, how weird is that? And no one can blame them, this is how our minds work. We see everything that exist as obvious and natural (the wheel for you and me), and everything that don’t exist, well it generally doesn’t occur to us.
Let me give you an example. I heard an anecdote that goes something like this: Once upon a time, in the olden days a man was running a factory, this factory produced a type of malleable sticky clay that was used to remove sot from the walls. You see, back in those days people warmed their houses by burning coal, and this left residue on the walls. A person would then buy some of this clay-like substance and roll it on the wall, the sot from the coal would then stick to the blob. Since the blob was white the coal would color it so you could even see when it was so dirty that you had to get a new one. One day however the sales started declining, a thorough market analysis revealed that people were using less coal to heat their houses, thus the demand for white clay-blobs fell as well. The manager of this factory started to worry, so he hired the best MBA’s in the kingdom to figure out what to do. The MBA’s effectivised the routines, lay off people, streamlined shipping and so on until they had reduced the cost of the factory to the point where it was impossible to reduce them further. The factory was however still in a crisis, because the problem of course wasn’t the cost, it was that no one needed their product. So what was he to do? In total despair he went to dinner to his sister, she was a preschool teacher, and as casual dinner conversation he explained everything and that he was probably going to lose his job and would have to shut down the entire business. His sister asked if she could look at the product and the manager fished out a piece of white clay from his pocket, his sister started molding it into shapes, and decided to bring it to her daycare the next day to show the kids. When she came back, she suggested making the clay in different colors, calling it Play-Doh and marketing it to kids. Today this business is much bigger than the wallpaper cleaning business of decades past ever was.
The moral of the story is of course that when you look outside the box of your usual surrounding you find solutions that you wouldn't otherwise find. This manager hired MBA’s, and no offence to MBA’s, they’re great, but they all think alike. If you need someone to think different, then don’t use people that think like you and each other. If you do the same, then how come you expect different results? MBA’s have a set of tools, and when you have a hammer, a surprising amount of problems looks like nails. Only when the manager (by chance in this case) got someone that thought differently to think about the problem could a radically new idea come about. To continue reading click here.
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.
Coming up with radical inventions requires you to step out of the box, but what does this mean? Well, the box is a metaphor for your preconceived notions. The box is the Matrix. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes and blinds you from the truth. It is said that Edison once fired a man for salting his soup before he tasted it; the reason is that this implied that the man was so blinded by the box that he forgot to check its validity. The man couldn’t know that soup needed salt if he hadn’t tasted it, but of course he assumed that he had to salt it because he had eaten so much soup that the salting was on autopilot. The box are all those things we take for granted. From the small things, such as “hamburgers are eaten with a side of french fries, not rice” to the big things, like, “the earth orbits the sun”, some of these assumptions may be true, but this isn’t really the point, the point is that the assumptions block us from thinking differently.
Why should we step out of the box?
First let’s look at why we are in the box. Our minds are designed to maintain the reality we believe exists, and generally this is very useful. What if you had to rethink how to open a door each time you walked through it? What if you had to decide if you liked your girlfriend each time you met her? What if the doctor had to convince you that the drugs you are taking actually will help each morning? It would make life extremely tedious, and the strain on our cognitive ability would be very high, so that our brains would require a lot more energy, i.e. we would need bigger brains and more to eat, which isn't good from an evolutionary perspective. Another reason we are in the box is because it is useful to maintain a sense of stability and reality. Research even shows that after people make a decision on any topic the brain will start to justify the decision so that you won’t change your mind so easily. This also goes for belief. Think about politics, when you decide that a certain party or politician is the one that should be elected it is really hard to change. This is called cognitive dissonance, and is just one of many mechanisms that help us maintain a healthy sense of continuity and reality, it makes us feel consistent. Historically this was useful because it freed up the brain to solve more important issues with its limited resources, in modern day society it's useful for that very same reason.
The problem with our sense of continuity is that it blocks our ability to think about what the world would be if it wasn’t the way it is. This is why US presidents are reelected more times than not. We strive for continuity, because we don’t understand how the world could be different. Stepping out of the box allows us to think about the world in new ways. It allows us to see things that others cannot see. First when you free your mind from the idea that transportation is either by foot or by horse can you start thinking about cars. Did you know that the wheel was never invented on the American continent before the Europeans arrived? They had circles, but no wheels, how weird is that? And no one can blame them, this is how our minds work. We see everything that exist as obvious and natural (the wheel for you and me), and everything that don’t exist, well it generally doesn’t occur to us.
Let me give you an example. I heard an anecdote that goes something like this: Once upon a time, in the olden days a man was running a factory, this factory produced a type of malleable sticky clay that was used to remove sot from the walls. You see, back in those days people warmed their houses by burning coal, and this left residue on the walls. A person would then buy some of this clay-like substance and roll it on the wall, the sot from the coal would then stick to the blob. Since the blob was white the coal would color it so you could even see when it was so dirty that you had to get a new one. One day however the sales started declining, a thorough market analysis revealed that people were using less coal to heat their houses, thus the demand for white clay-blobs fell as well. The manager of this factory started to worry, so he hired the best MBA’s in the kingdom to figure out what to do. The MBA’s effectivised the routines, lay off people, streamlined shipping and so on until they had reduced the cost of the factory to the point where it was impossible to reduce them further. The factory was however still in a crisis, because the problem of course wasn’t the cost, it was that no one needed their product. So what was he to do? In total despair he went to dinner to his sister, she was a preschool teacher, and as casual dinner conversation he explained everything and that he was probably going to lose his job and would have to shut down the entire business. His sister asked if she could look at the product and the manager fished out a piece of white clay from his pocket, his sister started molding it into shapes, and decided to bring it to her daycare the next day to show the kids. When she came back, she suggested making the clay in different colors, calling it Play-Doh and marketing it to kids. Today this business is much bigger than the wallpaper cleaning business of decades past ever was.
The moral of the story is of course that when you look outside the box of your usual surrounding you find solutions that you wouldn't otherwise find. This manager hired MBA’s, and no offence to MBA’s, they’re great, but they all think alike. If you need someone to think different, then don’t use people that think like you and each other. If you do the same, then how come you expect different results? MBA’s have a set of tools, and when you have a hammer, a surprising amount of problems looks like nails. Only when the manager (by chance in this case) got someone that thought differently to think about the problem could a radically new idea come about. To continue reading click here.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Google vs. Newspapers: Why Murdoch is right and why he will fail
Murdoch is right. By taking stories of Google, his customers will have to come to his site to read the news there. It has worked for Schibsted in Norway, but then again, they have a virtual monopoly on country wide news (at least a very high share). If more newspapers follow Murdoch, it will work for them to, but it is unlikely that it will work if only News Corp. Newspapers follow this practice. This may be viewed as a prisoner’s dilemma game. If no newspapers choose to have their news on Google, then the entire newspaper sector will benefit, because consumers will be forced to go directly to the sites they wish to read news from, and thus watch the ads, or pay for the content. However, in such a scenario each individual newspaper will benefit relative to the others should they choose to index their sites, because they might up their share of readers. Therefore it is likely that Murdoch will be alone outside of Google Search and Google News, and loose readers due to 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.
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.
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Fu the FAQ - or do it right!
If you own a website, my challenge to you is that if you ever create an faq, don’t guess what people would ask. That’s just stupid. Wait until you actually get questions! I’m so incredibly tired of clicking the faq link and getting to a site where the first 50 questions was probably never asked. Your faq is a place to go to get answers, not another advertising channel. If your most frequently asked question is “Why is *** better then everyone else?”, then something is wrong, ok! No one has ever clicked a faq link to get that answer. You see Microsoft does this right. On the IE8 faq the most asked question is “How do I uninstall IE8?” isn’t that just honest?
Monday, 19 October 2009
Change happens when change is due
In April 3, 1984 the Norwegian police raid a man’s home in Gjøvik, near Oslo. The reason is that the man has admitted openly to watching foreign television channels through his satellite dish. In the years that followed a number of laws were lifted due to the realization that it was impossible to isolate Norway from the rest of the world.
In 2001 a program called Napster changed the way we consume music, In a major lawsuit effort, the record companies was able to take down Napster, but the damage had already been done. Hundreds of sharing applications was introduced, technologies that was supposed to make it difficult to track and get the file sharers. In our time the main target of the copyright industry has been the thepiratebay.org, and maybe they have succeeded, but it seems each time they cut of the head of this “monster” that is copyright infringement, two new grow out.
The Napster incident was nevertheless not the first move from the copyright industry to take down technology. In 1976, following Sony’s invention of the Betamax (later overtaken by VCR), there was an upheaval in Disney and Universal Studios that led to a lawsuit to shut down the technology. The argument was that this new technology could be used to copy movies and store them for later use, and this would surely be the end of the movie industry. Bear in mind that back then the major income sources of these companies was from theatres and from television, you couldn’t simply buy the movies. The US Supreme Court found that the technology could not be banned, because it could also have legal uses, and that copying a film to watch it later was “fair use”. Today this seems obvious, but the Supreme Court judges disagreed on the matter, and it was only by one vote that the lawsuit was rejected (the majority changed from 6-3 for the act to 5-4 against in the last minute). Today the largest single source of income from the movie industry is sales of video for home use (through DVD/Blue-ray), something that the movie industry couldn’t possibly have predicted.
In the cases listed above, new technology is viewed by the existing power structure as a source of social change, something that can make the old actors irrelevant. In all of the cases progress occurs without the support of those in power, but by the power of the people. Technological change is a wave moving across society, it has force, and powerful change cannot be stopped. Technological change will happen when the time is right. Instead of fighting change, business should embrace it, and try to think how they can be their best in the new environment. How do change in technology, in society, in consumers represent opportunities for your company?
In 2001 a program called Napster changed the way we consume music, In a major lawsuit effort, the record companies was able to take down Napster, but the damage had already been done. Hundreds of sharing applications was introduced, technologies that was supposed to make it difficult to track and get the file sharers. In our time the main target of the copyright industry has been the thepiratebay.org, and maybe they have succeeded, but it seems each time they cut of the head of this “monster” that is copyright infringement, two new grow out.
The Napster incident was nevertheless not the first move from the copyright industry to take down technology. In 1976, following Sony’s invention of the Betamax (later overtaken by VCR), there was an upheaval in Disney and Universal Studios that led to a lawsuit to shut down the technology. The argument was that this new technology could be used to copy movies and store them for later use, and this would surely be the end of the movie industry. Bear in mind that back then the major income sources of these companies was from theatres and from television, you couldn’t simply buy the movies. The US Supreme Court found that the technology could not be banned, because it could also have legal uses, and that copying a film to watch it later was “fair use”. Today this seems obvious, but the Supreme Court judges disagreed on the matter, and it was only by one vote that the lawsuit was rejected (the majority changed from 6-3 for the act to 5-4 against in the last minute). Today the largest single source of income from the movie industry is sales of video for home use (through DVD/Blue-ray), something that the movie industry couldn’t possibly have predicted.
In the cases listed above, new technology is viewed by the existing power structure as a source of social change, something that can make the old actors irrelevant. In all of the cases progress occurs without the support of those in power, but by the power of the people. Technological change is a wave moving across society, it has force, and powerful change cannot be stopped. Technological change will happen when the time is right. Instead of fighting change, business should embrace it, and try to think how they can be their best in the new environment. How do change in technology, in society, in consumers represent opportunities for your company?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)