Growth Times

To Revenue has a new address! I have decided to rename To Revenue into Growth Times, to better convey this blog’s core concept: assisting growth companies in their journey towards explosive growth. Additionally, most of my clients have already achieved revenues, so To Revenue was a bit of misnomer.

A little more profoundly perhaps, in this time of recession, I also want it to express my belief that the ultimate antidote to all crisis is human creativity and  innovation, targeted towards solving real problems and driven by a sense of financial, social and environmental purpose.

And lastly, it’s a better-sounding and more attractive domain name. Let’s not underestimate the power of packaging and marketing!

Please update your RSS feed subscription to this one: http://feedproxy.google.com/growthtimes

Market Blog name change, Domain name, entrepreneurship, growth, growth company, growthroute ventures, tech venture, To Revenue

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

Paul Graham this month writes on the risk of VCs becoming irrelevant as the cost of start-ups “approaches” zero.

I humbly disagree. The cost is just shifting from hardware and software to talent, processes, and marketing programs.

Paul Graham is claiming from what feels like an “entrenched techie” standpoint that I noticed more than once reading his blog – which I do respect and admire – that “the web has made marketing and distribution free”.

Not so fast.

What wizard is going to run your cheap adword campaign (or maybe adword is dead too?) How are people going to find your site? What’s your sale process and have you understood your audience? How are you going to answer those service calls and emails? Are you going to run the next Google on the cloud? There are costs associated with all of that, and, even if they are compressed by technology too, the investments required to keep differentiating yourself are increasing.

What’s worse perhaps is that, with all its focus on IT, Paul seems to forget that not all start-ups are web start-ups. How about biotech, cleantech, robotics? Is marketing and distribution free for those ones as well?

There is, as always, some truth in what Paul is writing – the man is smart – but in my view, VCs are certainly here to stay and scale those start-ups that can make it into serious money machines. What do you think?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Could VC be a Casualty of the Recesssion? (Paul Graham)
• The End Of Venture Capital As We Know It?
• Valuing Innovation: Is a new stock exchange in our future?
• Where Have All the Bold VCs Gone?

Scale end of venture capital, growthroute ventures, innovation entrepreneurship, Marketing, Paul Graham, Start Up, Technology, venture capital, Y Combinator