Growth Times

ReadWriteStart, the entrepreneur’s channel of ReadWriteWeb, nicely published an article I wrote for them called 10 Principles For Not Killing Your Startup.

With the new wave of entrepreneurs brought about by the financial crisis, I suspect the mortality rate of startups is at an all-time high. I didn’t find robust data to back my observation yet, but I did come across a page that points out that, before the financial crisis:

• the chances were six in a million that an idea for a high-tech business eventually would become a successful company that goes public;
• a venture capitalist financed only six out of every 1,000 business plans received each year;
• and bankruptcies occured for 60% of the high-tech startup companies that succeeded in getting venture capital.

Wow. Persistence is paramount.

As you know if you have visited my “corporate” blog, my mission in life is to change that. Start-ups shouldn’t die. They should live, prosper, and grow into healthy businesses that make people happy.

So I tried to identify the most frequent root causes of death, and for each, I created a principle. You will find the result here: http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/03/10-principles-not-killing-startup.php#comment-195260

Please help make the list stronger by commenting and offering additional principles.

Develop, Fund, Lead, Market commercialization, Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, managing a startup, new business, product management, Start Up, start up mortality, start-ups, starting a business, tech ventures, venture

If you still read magazines… you might have seen GotoMeeting’s “Do the Math” ad, comparing the cost of their service to that of a business trip. Brilliant.

Companies too have noticed and, in virtually every sector, they are leveraging ubiquitous electronic connectivity to chomp the cost of sales and improve lead generation and conversion rates.

Always be (electronically?) closing

A good way to do that is to map the sales process, slice it into different pieces, and hand each over to specialized sales “agents” – be it a piece of software, an inside sales person or a road warrior. With new online capabilities, it is now possible to keep it all synchronized without losing information between each agent. Additionally, ideal sales paths are created for different types of prospects to maximize the ratio of “sales outcome” over “cost of sales”. The sales outcome is roughly based on the “probability of success” times “sale payout”, over the anticipated life cycle of each prospect.

Over time, by tracking wins and losses electronically, companies develop a nice database that can be mined to create predictive models and used to enhance the sales process.

Of course, the business payoff is in improved efficiency, by getting the most expensive agents (road warriors – in general) to spend more time on what they do best – and having the rest completed both effectively and cost-effectively. At last, road warriors can “always be closing” rather than sourcing and nurturing leads.

For the company, that also means that less field sales reps are needed. Expensive road warriors – where they are still required – are becoming one small part of the process, more the exception than the rule. Most transactional sales can be completed over the web, and consultative sales are greatly facilitated through web support. According to a recent survey by Dr. James Oldroyd, a professor at the Kellogg School of Management, hiring of outside sales reps is almost flat, while hiring of inside sales reps is growing healthily at 7.5%. The recession plays a role in this, but I have no doubt the change we are undergoing is deeper, and will continue to amplify as the web gets smarter and our world gets smaller.

Develop your sales process as you would develop a product

Funneling prospects and clients is nothing new. But the web has taken it to a whole new level, making the entire process cheaper and more precise. And with the bar being constantly raised, a focus on the “whole sales process” is increasingly decisive: established companies must further invest in updating and refining theirs, and early-stage ventures in nailing it through deliberate design and rapid testing.

The sales process needs as much attention as your product – and sometimes more. The sewers of history are filled with dead companies that got their product right but their sales process wrong. Poorly managing the sales process is a sure recipe for disaster. Think of it this way: the sales process really is about creating a “product” around the product.

What we call the product, ultimately, is just a mechanism enticing customers to give us money in exchange for value. But there is generally much more to delivering this value than the product. Apple, for instance, offers quality products, but not just that: it provides excellent support, an intelligent approach to sales by staffing its stores with lots of relatively well-paid and relatively smart attendants, a brand that makes you “cool” by association, an integrated online store, a higher price point that reinforces the impression of quality – and overall, a controlled, consistent, reassuring purchase experience. A lot of the sales process is even built into the product itself, when you think of it (especially for the iPod).

Still, it’s not perfect. There is no follow-up on purchases (or is there?), or little that makes it possible for them to capture expression of interest and categorize them by probability of sales (or is there?), and failed attempts at capturing a more mainstream audience in computers – largely attributable to the narrow reach of their sales process in my opinion.

If engineering the right sales process is tough in B2C, it’s even harder in B2B, because of the cheer range of options available to a company there. Just think about the many different ways one can market a knowledge management solution, for example: pricing (subscription, one-time fee, freemium+consulting),  , delivery model (cloud, on-site, hybrid), market (legal, medical, etc…), audience, lead generation (wherefrom?), follow-up (when, how, what?) etc… Surely getting it right and keeping it right is going to take quite a bit of trial-and-errors. Like developing the product did.

So why have dedicated product development and management people, and not a sales process development and management function in your company? The only reason I see for that is that most tech ventures are started by product-oriented people. So the solution is simple: think about the sales process in terms of a product and have it managed likewise. Ultimately, you need sales process experts in your company, and functionally those are not much different from product experts. It’s just the subject of their attention that differs.

Illustration with some sales process innovations

At a small, fast-growing cleantech venture I worked with recently, we introduced changes and innovations to improve their sales process.  We developed a Lead Generation and Client Satisfaction Manager role to qualify and learn about prospects prior to handing them over to a sales rep, created an online CRM system with Lead Scoring, added automatic Google Mapping (when completed, all prospects will be visible on the map – reducing the cost of visiting a particular area) as well as a “Nurture Marketing” capability (grouping leads and customers into different clusters based on precise criteria, each going through a different sales path). They’re even creating a demo video that – together with an inside sales phone call – will replace sales rep visits to low-potential prospects.

(This is the complete version of a post published on the RIC Mississauga blog)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Lead generation metrics should emphasize opportunities not just leads (thecustomercollective.com)
• New Survey: The Impact of Sales 2.0 Tools (thecustomercollective.com)
• The information gap between marketing and sales – and how to fill it (thecustomercollective.com)
• SaaS and the Evolution of Inside Sales (thecustomercollective.com)

Develop, Market Customer relationship management, lead conversion, Lead generation, Marketing, Marketing and Advertising, sales funnel, sales lifecycle, sales process

Image via Wikipedia

To any current or would-be entrepreneur, I highly recommend the following video of a presentation this month by Aaron Patzer, CEO of Mint, which was recently sold to Intuit for $170 million.

At first I thought it was a bit long, at 22 minutes, and so I figured I’d only watch the first few minutes. 23 minutes later, I am writing this blog post. Aaron goes over the start-up creation and growth process in practical details, even presenting slides from his own original pitch.

One thing, I’m not a fan of the first advice he gives, about focusing entirely on the product and hiring only engineers when you start, which has some truth to it in a number of situations but can lead to complete trainwrecks in others. Someone on the team needs to tie your development to a market need and a winning revenue model – it may not have to be a business person, and a well-atuned engineer can do that as Aaron shows, but it’s got to be someone with a certain ability to think ”market”. Leaving that detail aside, his advice is a gem.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Aaron Patzer lays bare Mint’s numbers (vator.tv)
• Making a Mint (kevinsgreatadventure.blogspot.com)
• Startups 101: The Complete Mint Presentation (techcrunch.com)
• Mint CEO unveils global expansion plan (vator.tv)
• Intuit to buy Mint for $170 million (vator.tv)
• Intuit to swallow Mint for $170 million (news.cnet.com)

Develop, Fund, Market, Scale Aaron Patzer, entrepreneurship, Fundraising links, growth stages, Mint.com, Start Up

Varun Mathur, the Techvibes Community Manager, who I just learnt is based in Toronto (I look forward to meeting you, Varun), made an excellent point yesterday in his Techvibes post on What Separates 37signals And Twitter ? 

For all the talk about “getting to revenue” as fast as possible, VCs are still valuing companies based on hype and unproven potential for exponential revenues. You can build valuations based on traffic, but if you can’t attach a realistic average $ amount to a visitor, and if you are going to hemorrhage your traffic as soon as you offer ads, then your valuation is built on shaky grounds – which in finance means you should likely be extremely conservative or discount it.

I don’t say there is never a case for giving high valuation to companies that have great brand awareness and usage even if they haven’t made a buck yet, but my thesis is that the risk of this revenue never materializing should lead to discounting valuations more heavily than they currently are. VCs should put their valuation through a simple risk-based, probabilistic tree analysis, contemplating the likelihood of 3 basic scenarios:

1. will never get to revenue and can’t sell or IPO company
2. can never get to revenue but can get company acquired
3. can get to revenue (and then look at the different types of revenue to differentiate linear from exponential in particular)

The problem, which ultimately has to do with the probability and payoff you attribute to each scenario, is especially with number 2. Even in this market, founders and VCs can rely on overpriced acquisitions to unload a company to an unsuspecting acquirer (hello eBay).  And so, with the right connections, the probability of scenario 2 is still implicitly weighted higher than it should likely be in VC valuation models.

My theory is that the Silicon Valley is an echo chamber for tech venture hype (just like Wall Street for blue chips), and a lot of founders and investors are masters at amplifying and riding this wave – rather than focusing on actually creating a revenue engine. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, yes, there are a lot of respectable-looking scammers in that business, and very successful ones too.  VCs won’t tell you this but lots of them love embracing irrational exuberance, because bubbles is how they get rich quick. 

Right now the real-time web is where this exuberance can be found. To Varun’s point questioning whether 37signals didn’t get Twitter-type valuation because of its Chicago location, I would add that perhaps the main reason why a valley-based Twitter will get a higher valuation than a Chicago-based or Canada-based twitter is that irrational exuberance dies off quickly when you have to take a 5h flight to close an acquisition -  reality-distortion fields don’t work well that far from the epicenter of the tech mecca. Locations that can turn perception into reality have a clear edge in businesses that rely on hypothesis for their valuation. So, yes, if 37signals want to reach astronomical values, it would do well to move to Mountain View or Palo Alto, drop any source of revenue, and change its name to reduce the likelihood their past revenue figures will constrain their future valuation.

However, that’s not all. In all fairness, one must point out that the potential for exponential revenues by 37signals as a platform developer targeting, well, application developers, is lower than a Twitter that can be used by potentially anyone. There is a lesson here for business models. Based on whether you target revenue or fundraising, your runway and product mix looks very different. In the first case (seeking revenues), you often need to diversify across a small range of products to test and create multiple sources of revenues – alpha, beta and subsequent market iterations are less dangerous because they don’t impact your long-term success as badly as a highly hyped flop from a VC-funded venture. You can fix things, there is less pressure to grow to $100M in 5 years, and quite often the decision to give you money is distributed across many potential users as opposed to concentrated on just a few VCs (who know and speak to each other).

In the second case (seeking capital), you often have only one chance to build buzz, and if it fails to support your story, it’s unlikely you’ll raise a round, and it’s likely you’ll die of capital thirst. So you want to bet the farm on one-single make-or-break application. It’s a different discipline. But still, the problem remains in the fundraising model, that it doesn’t encourage you to build your product with a revenue model in mind, until often too late in the game.

All in all, that’s a real problem for venture consultants like me as we generally encourage start-ups to get to revenue asap, and then a Twitter investment by VCs reactivates pipe dreams that all you need to do is a cool app and you’ll be a millionaire. If you are after VC money, it’s better not to make revenues if those are going to disprove the revenue potential of your model… Maybe that’s why new VCs need to emerge that don’t take a “winners take all” approach to investment, and instead focus on growing real revenues across their portfolio. Mmm, sounds like a hybrid of VC and management consultant… Did I just evolve my model? Thanks Varun!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Silicon Valley’s Mass Delusion (gawker.com)
• Report: Twitter valued at $1 billion in new deal (infoworld.com)
• Facebook ‘cash-flow positive’ in second quarter (msnbc.msn.com)
• What Do We Expect From A Startup Exit? (regulargeek.com)
• We Hold Twitter Ransom For $100 Billion Dollars (techcrunch.com)
• Why Facebook’s IPO could be disappointingly weak (dailyfinance.com)
• Has Twitter’s growth rate finally bottomed out? (thisisherd.com)
• Twitter Valued at $1B? Peanuts! 37Signals Worth $100B! (cloudave.com)
• Facebook Now Has Over 300 Million Users (mashable.com)
• The Twitter investment and the decline of venture capital (cdixon.org)
• Intuit Buys Mint.com for $170 million (businesspundit.com)

Develop, Fund 37signals, Capital Access - Financing, Initial public offering, monetization, revenue generation, Revenue model, Silicon Valley, tech venture, twitter, valuation, valuation model, venture capital

At Growthroute, we believe that start-up leaders should encourage candid inputs on their company and products, and be open to discussing things that don’t work. They should welcome that feedback at least as well as they receive compliments on their successes.

Highlighting deficiencies in due time (and offering solutions) gives entrepreneurs an opportunity to address them before they really hurt, while surrounding oneself with yes-sayers is a well-known recipe for failure – and yet still as common today as it was millennia ago. So you don’t want to surround yourself with either yes- or nay-sayers, you want smart folks who tell it as it is. In the age of twitter,  getsatisfaction, yelp and blogs, being able to productively process their feedback - even when perceived as harsh - is more important today than ever before. Not doing it means not getting it.

It all starts within

In my experience, rowing in the right direction as a company requires a unique ability to invite, intelligently filter and incorporate constructive criticism. This ability must be built into your start-up culture and processes. It is absolutely critical not to prevent anyone -be it in your team or outside- from expressing substantiated concerns – and even less substantiated ones. And that starts with not punishing them when they do. Companies who don’t practice this miss critical market signals and drown in their own self-delusion.

It also starts at the top. The founders are usually the single biggest impediments to fostering a culture of constructive criticism. More than any other type, entrepreneurs tend to be driven by a strong love of freedom and independence, and we also like to be solely associated with the decisions that led our companies to success. While entrepreneurship pride helps us at many levels, unfortunately, it also makes it harder to open ourselves to criticism and learn from it quickly. 

Have you experienced start-ups that felt a lot like the Church of Scientology? Where you were “in” or “out”. Part of the tribe, or outcast. Where performance mattered less than “fit” with founders, something so fickle it leaves everyone with a differing thought wonder whether they will be around the next day. You know, organizations where real decisions are taken behind close doors, people who don’t contribute anything are still around because the founders like them, and turnover is high.

Too many start-up founders think that to row in the same direction, team members need to be somewhat constrained in their ability to think critically. They establish a culture encouraging groupthink and “following the leader” – while punishing anyone voicing a different opinion on fundamental leadership matters . There, “team-playing abilities” actually mean “blind submission to the top”. That kind of personality cult and indoctrination may feel good for the founder but it’s not doing any service to the company. Silencing people who sighted the icebergs might help momentarily calm the passengers (including investors, often a key reason for the opacity  – more than anyone, they should encourage a culture of transparency) but it doesn’t make danger disappear.

As entrepreneurs, please, let’s not require anyone to “believe”. Belief is not prescribed, it is earned. No one “believes” because you ask them to or pay them for, they believe because there is a good reason for them to. It’s our job to give them a reason. Don’t ask your people to “believe” in you and your ideas. Make them believe in your company by showing its capacity to fix mistakes, to correct trajectories and to produce great things as a result. Hire not followers, but people who showed they can accomplish great things and have a commitment not to you or even your vision, but to the success of the company.

At a company I previously was involved with, I highlighted – only after completing plenty of value-added projects as most there know well- that product development was well behind schedule (several release deadlines missed) and politely suggested that for a while, one of the founders might want to spend his time make the technology work as opposed to dealing with other matters. Most people in the team had the same concerns. Opening up my mouth was not in my direct interest, but in that of the company, and that’s why I did it. I also thought the founder would be clever enough to integrate that feedback productively instead of reacting to it instinctively.

Saying it publicly was interpreted as a lack of faith, and I was fired summarily. Keeping in line with the overall philosophy, at the time I was warned against talking publicly about my experience – the kind of things that makes you want to write a blog post about it. Much time has passed, but the company stagnates with a solution that, by all accounts, still doesn’t work and does not achieve traction. Many of my colleagues there, including my successor, have experienced the same fate and been ousted – scapegoats are obviously in demand. If that’s the culture you want to create, be ready for the results. Very sad, especially since it would be so easily fixable, and so much potential is lost by this approach.

Every company has problems. What differentiates the winners from the losers is the ability to recognize those issues and address them quickly and openly. Even a core deficiency can usually be fixed quite rapidly, once spotted. One just needs to be able to hear the signals.  Foster an atmosphere of truth. Chances are everyone will row in the same direction if they feel you are going in the right direction and that they contributed to choosing it. People naturally want to believe and to contribute.

Same goes for outside critics

Repeatedly, founders make the mistake of thinking that journalists, product reviewers, bloggers, and other messengers threaten a company’s momentum. They don’t. What does is how good the company’s solution is, and how the company reacts to their feedback.

In practice, I am sometimes contacted and asked to comment on new products, especially on my blog Semantics Incorporated. I also pick new solutions on which I want to offer my impressions. In two cases since the start of this year, entrepreneurs expressed discontent when as part of my review, I highlighted a few core deficiencies (quite often even next to an ocean of praises!). One even launched personal attacks on twitter as a result (see my blog if you want to know who did ;)

I am not alone. In the recent and less recent past, unfortunately, I have witnessed quite a few entrepreneurs being keen on receiving public accolades but quick to dismiss any constructive comments – and even go out of their way to attack the commenter instead of recognizing her help, thanking her, genuinely asking for clarifications and clinically considering the comments as valuable inputs – which would be the right thing to do, and would gain them lots of public goodwill. Other entrepreneurs, like Andraz Tori when I criticized the email version of his product Zemanta (whose blog version I praise extensively and continue to use avidly – see at the end of this post) have done just that and earned my highest respect.

Being told that your baby is ugly is tough as an entrepreneur. I know that first-hand. But the good news is that, unlike the biological kind (for now), you are not stuck with this baby as is, you can improve it. And while you may have heard that your product is ugly, the commenter may have just intended to say that it would have more potential with some minor changes.

I work quite hard at trying to provide unbiased and productive analysis, and as a result my comments often highlight weaknesses and shortcomings, next to strengths and praises. I always strive to provide corresponding solutions. That’s nothing personal. I don’t make exceptions to that rule, even with friends, and I don’t want anyone, even friends, to spare me the truth either.  Now, don’t take me wrong, there are some rules of engagement: not criticizing everything with little or no substance and without trying to offer solutions, not using overly aggressive language, and not doing it with a hidden agenda, for example. But when assessing whether someone has crossed those lines, remember that the common entrepreneur’s bias works towards magnifying those signals and minimizing the actual information that they channel. So, before you throw down the gauntlet, take a minute, think about what the person is trying to say, and reflect on what could be useful in the context of your company.

Let’s not be utopian, human nature is at work here. Ego gets in the way. As a rule, we tend to prefer those who support us. But ask yourself: who, really, supports us? The ones providing constant positive feedback, even if insincere? Or the ones highlighting a potential trap that may prevent you from reaching our objectives? Don’t be so quick at dismissing constructive criticism and qualifying your commenters as biased or unproductive whiners. More often than not, they are not. The main reason most of us comment on things is ultimately because we want them to work better for us. When human nature becomes highly counter-productive, override it.

Of course, I am not interested in any feedback you might have on this post ;) (well, if you really insist, you can place a comment, and I also just claimed a GetSatisfaction page for Growthroute at http://getsatisfaction.com/growthroute - it may take a few days before they approve it, apparently, so please be patient and do return to it!)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Managing Feedback (slideshare.net)
• A Risky Approach to Feedback (openmode.ca)
• Criticizing Your Friends is Hard (openmode.ca)

Develop, Scale blogs, constructive criticism, customer feedback, Entrepreneur, feedback, getsatisfaction, innovation, journalist, leadership, market feedback, product development, product review, Start Up, twitter, yelp

I have just added a reading list on Growthroute’s website, to help clients, prospects and would-be entrepreneurs quickly identify some key reference frameworks that drive our actions. If you exclude the all-time classic of Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, which deserves its own section, this list is divided in 6 parts, inspired by the Develop/Market/Fund/Scale framework Growthroute uses to classify the type of actions and projects we work on with entrepreneurs:

• Broad guides on entrepreneurship: those books attempt to cover the whole entrepreneurial process, from generating ideas to building them to marketing them and financing them. Some of those books, such as Richard C. Dorf’s Technology Ventures: From Idea to Enterprise, are used at MBA and commerce programs, while others are established general references.
• Develop: books in this category primarily help readers figure out where to start, what market to target, what product to launch, and what go-to-market to pursue. This category includes thesis books such as Crossing the Chasm (my personal favorite), Blue Ocean Strategy, or the Innovator’s Solution, and other strategy pamphlets.
• Fund: this contains guides to raising money from VCs and Angels. There are generally less references in this category, I think primarily due to the more limited consumer appeal of the topic, and the general focus on learning by doing rather than by reading in that field. This said, I think the books listed here are excellent introductions to the topic.
• Market: it’s one thing to build a great product and another to get it spoken about. Or is it? In my opinion, an integrated promotional strategy using the product at its very engine and a select channel mix works best. Those books focus on that, i.e. making your product as “word-of-mouthable” as possible and effectively leveraging the right delivery mechanisms to amplify the buzz. If you read only one, then I recommend Chip Heath’s Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. By all criteria, this is the bible of buzz.
• Scale: so you have a great product and some market traction? What next? These books help you structure the organization for exponential growth, keep the momentum going and reap the dividends. Blueprint to a Billion: 7 Essentials to Achieve Exponential Growth, by David G. Thomson, is probably the most straightforward and useful reference on this topic.
• Lead: this really is a sub-chapter of the “scaling” section, but the importance of good leadership cannot be underestimated once your organization starts to grow and founders have to rely on others to get stuff done. Those books make excellent points on management practices and are designed to make you think about your own approach and style. Chris Bradford was my professor at Stanford and his book Power Up: Transforming Organizations Through Shared Leadership, is the one that made me the most about leadership styles.

Lastly, I also listed a must-read for anyone planning to rely on business book theories to drive their companies: the Halo Effect, which argues that business book authors often confuse the causes and consequences of the business “best practices” they advocate. In our reading list, I have tried to avoid authors who do that, although even some of the books I listed fall for the halo effect at times. But one thing is certain, you won’t find Good to Great here!

Let us know what you think of those books and please do ping me if you feel like I missed any that should figure here.

Develop, Fund, Market, Scale business classics, business reading list, Entrepreneur, entrepreneurship books, Publications, start-up books, top business books, venture reading

As previously announced, I was at Communitech last Friday to talk with their Product Management group about the key challenges to launching blockbuster tech products. I decided  to tackle the divide between Techies and Biz types, as this has consistently been one of the main hurdles I saw at the ventures I work with. I was a little worried as at first I expected possible controversies over some of the points I brought up, but to my surprise this resonated well and strongly with most people in the room. About half the room were techies and the other biz types, so the distribution was spread nicely in the middle. There were no punch exchanges, mud fights or even light food fights (or food light fights for that matter).

I posted my presentation on Slideshare, so you can find it below. I had two hours at Communitech so this is quite a long deck of 40 slides. It’s all there. For those who attended, note I revamped quite a bit of it and there are several slides I didn’t show during our discussion. So you  can take a fresh look at it.

Slideshare did a poor job with the graphics so, for example, the cover page I was so proud of is all scrambled. Time permitting, I am available to deliver this presentation at other forums and welcome invitations. Rest assured I have unscrambled slides to present.

Canadian entrepreneurs, Develop blockbusters, business plan, commercialization, consultant, Digital divide, divide, Fundraising links, go-to-market, market hit, marketers, mental models, monetization, Product manager, Revenue model, Science and Technology, techies, venture

My friend Fred Sweeney of VG Partners pointed me to this interesting call for help by the biotech industry in Canada, whose start-ups are finding it difficult to raise money to survive, let alone thrive. In these times of hardships, the ventures with the least obvious path to commercialization and revenue are the ones who suffer first and most. Given the lengthy development cycles and uncertain payout, biotech ventures evidently stand at the frontline of the crisis.

What all that shows is that a start-up should at all times be able to articulate the revenue model it is proposing to pursue. It should tie all its current efforts to this model, or “reverse-engineer revenue” as per the expression I coined at GrowthRoute. Doing just that provide three benefits: one, you stand in first row against competing start-ups when comes the time for VCs to hand out cash; two, keeping your eyes on the prize helps you identify where to focus your efforts today, and better allocate your current resources; three, spending some time thinking about how you will make money could point to nearer-term sources of revenue you may not have thought of.

Without a destination and a map to get there, you can have a tight ship and yet run it in circles. Better to never count on the government to get you back on track.

Develop, Fund biotech, biotech industry, business model, canada, commercialization, customers, eyes on the prize, Fred Sweeney, government programs, innovation, innovation entrepreneurship, Revenue model, Technology, technology commercialization, venture capital, vg partners

Great entry by Jon Worren on Why the chasm still exists, on the blog of Toronto’s innovation hub MaRS. Nicely complements the last post on this blog.

Develop chasm, hub, innovation, mars discovery district, toronto

What do the Wii, iPod, iPhone, netbooks, Facebook, Rockband, and Twitter have in common?

All of the technology these blockbusters required was available before they were conceived. None of them hinged on any technological breakthrough. What Apple, Nintendo or Asus did was taking clues from the market and reassembling technological bits into one coherent solution for users. And not just coherent, but also simple and easy to articulate. The Wii? A video game console designed to maximize fun for friends and families. The netbook? A lightweight computer that fits in a handbag and lets you surf the web. The iPod? A simple music player that integrates nicely with an intuitive music store.

By reverse-engineering actual user needs, these companies opened up a vast market for people who don’t care about technology, don’t want to see technology, or hear about technology, and only want something that does the job. For the Wii, that would be a video game device that’s fun, entertaining, with a lightning fast learning curve.

It’s worth repeating: customers don’t buy technologies. They buy solutions. That’s even true of B2B customers. If your technology does not fill a specific need in the market, you might get funding for a pilot project, you might even get VC money (many venture capitalists used to be CTOs), but you won’t get replicable, exponential market success. That’s why it is worth wrapping a research effort around a user need that can drive market success.

Market success and competitive differentiation can come from a number of sources, and technology is only one of them. Peter Drucker talked about that extensively in his book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, detailing other systematic sources of successful innovation such as changes in demographics or perception. Drucker offered commercial banking and health insurance as examples. We can lengthen the list at will: in addition to the iPod and the other examples I provided above, take McDonalds, car sharing, or Lego. Technology often is an enabler, but rarely is it the only one, and rarely is it adopted in the market without some significant transformation.

As such, the concentration of human resources into technology, which I witness at a number of start-ups, strikes me as vastly unbalanced, and almost certainly throttling the potential of innovation. The existing venture ecosystem, especially in Canada where I live, reinforces this bias by funding and rewarding technology-driven innovation much more than the other forms of innovation, be it through government R&D grant and tax incentives, commercialization programs and technology-obsessed VCs, or ultimately the self-perpetuating cycle of market-myopic entrepreneurs breeding another cohort of market-myopic entrepreneurs, supported by investors just because that’s the way it’s always been and where the government and VC money goes.

The power is in the last mile. If you’ve figured out how your technology will help someone with something, it is worth a hundred times what it was before you did. Make it a million times more if you figured out how to monetize it as well. That’s why the Apple, Nintendo, or Harmonix (the creators of Rockband – check out this video in which they explain how they centered their development around the idea on togetherness rather than just music creation) of the world focus first on defining that market need. The others focus on developing a technology and then figuring out what to do with it. That succeeds too, at about the same rate one hits the jackpot on a slot machine*.

* unless a government program and/or a VC blinded by their unconditional love for technology bails you out, of course.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: Apple May Enter TV Business (technologizer.com)
• Nintendo to launch camera, music-ready DS in Japan (canada.com)
• Google releases Books browser for iPhone (tuaw.com)

Develop blockbusters, car sharing, growthroute ventures, innovation and entrepreneurship, iphone, market success, peter drucker, rockband, successful innovation, technological breakthrough, Technology, venture capital, venture capitalists, wii