I have been troubled by a couple of things in the last few weeks – why is it that when a new product comes out from someone new in the game the incumbent is written-off very quickly. Take the example of Andriod – Google is shipping 60,000 phones a day. And the assertion thus that Microsoft should be afraid even though it sold 2o million phones in 2008. Why is it that Apple has quickly managed to threaten Nokia, Microsoft and RIM in short space of time. Besides a superior product I think the reason is more entrenched in product release cycles.
If Nokia and Microsoft have been in the business way longer than Apple, they should have been able to react at lightning speeds to counter Apple. It was known for a long time that Google will enter the mobile space but why didn’t Microsoft react fast and come out with something hard-hitting? Same goes for search, real-time platforms, social networking etc. So why do we see this?
I think the real reason is the time established companies take to bring in new product releases. This is in my opinion nothing to do with the usual adage of – big companies are slow or reactive and bureaucratic . But that there is no defined process to have a frequent defined new product releases even if it is only with a set of small feature additions/edits. By this I do not mean security patches. The only company that is good at regular and frequent new product releases is Apple. Apple tends to do a complete overhaul of it’s product line every 18-24 months and small regular releases and upgrades every 6-12 months. The unofficial buying guide for Apple products sums it beautifully. Which other company has such predictable new product release cycles and overhauls? Other than Apple, Facebook and in some areas (like search) Google nobody does this well.
A process to make this happen in a large corporate will make sure it remains competitive and any new innovative idea is put into the market soon rather than wait for a new player to proves it’s worth – when it might become too late. If Microsoft and Nokia had such processes in place would we see such threats to it’s existence in the mobile space?
I doubt even companies like Google have such processes in place – which is why we see reactive and panic stricken incomplete and incompetent product releases like Google Buzz to catch up with the likes of Facebook and Twitter. Orkut strategy was totally broken and even in regions where Orkut was big they are now loosing ground as they cannot keep up with product/feature releases from Facebook.
So what makes Apple so good at this? I think the reason is their involvement in selling hardware which needs frequent new releases and overhauls. Which means that they have managed to do this for every product – whether software or hardware. Same might be for Microsoft when it comes to Xbox, but in other areas they don’t think that way.
Hardware industries can teach these web companies a few good lessons on new product release cycles.
Tags: Android, Apple, entrepreneurship, Facebook, Google, hardware, Microsoft, new product, Nokia, Orkut, product, Product Development, release cycles, start-up, Twitter, web
I always wonder do the big global multinationals have a war cabinet. And if so how do they operate? Who is the enemy? Who is the friend? Here I mean the big multinationals who are in the new economy and not the old economy of military hardware, manufacturing, energy etc. I mean more like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, IBM, Amazon, Dell, HP etc … Observe most of them are American.
Looking at the announcements from the likes of Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google recently they seem to be at war with each other. Facebook trying to bring down Gmail, Google trying to beat Twitter and Facebook with Buzz, Apple trying to beat Microsoft and Google and so on … It really looks like a Mexican stand-off.
But in this war against each other how do they react to each others moves. With budgets as big as a small country they need to have strategies and thinking which is not too far from managing and defending a country.
I am an admirer of Admiral John (Jackie) Fisher – generally regarded as one of the greatest admirals in the British Navy. Fisher is primarily celebrated as an innovator, strategist and developer of the navy rather than a seagoing admiral. One of his quotes springs to mind here – “Hit first, hit hard and keep hitting“. Now I truly believe in doing that to your competition. It is not survival it’s winning I care about when running a company. So does any of these biggie’s have such strategies and do they have admirals like Jackie who think like this?
Tags: Amazon, Apple, competition, Dell, Facebook, Google, HP, IBM, innovation, Microsoft, MySpace, Strategy, Twitter, War Cabinet
Innovation is a new way of doing something or “new stuff that is made useful”. It may refer to incremental and emergent or radical and revolutionary changes in thinking, products, processes, or organizations.
And it is this definition which made me wonder how one looks at innovation in different places. When it is incremental it is more like mutation within an organisation. An idea that goes through a change between silos due to exchange of ideas, inspiration from other areas, problems reaching or expanding customer base or just accidental discovery. More often than not incremental change doesn’t require inventing anything new. It is often just a matter of combining and recombining capabilities across disciplines, organizations, and sectors. These capabilities are usually kept under wraps and difficult to access. And opportunities in areas like healthcare, education, energy etc needs more opening up of these so more cross pollination and mutation might occur for us to see better solutions. Data sharing is one of the most important aspects of this mutation as it is with biological process of mutation.
The Big bang innovation is revolutionary changes that result from radically different way of thinking a problem and it’s probably solutions. Each big bang innovation is followed by an era of mutation with small changes until another big bang innovation happens in the area. One of the best examples of big bang innovation is invention and commercialisation of microchip or integrated circuits by Robert Norton Noyce who co-founded Fairchild Semiconductor and Intel giving Silicon valley it’s name. Ever since Moor’s law has made sure small innovation or mutation keeps innovation alive.
While there is nothing new in what I have discussed above. The biggest question facing those entrepreneurs, itching to build a new product, disrupt the norm, innovate and scale an organisation, is what kind of product to build and what kind of innovation to work on. Big bang innovations are very difficult and one sees a lots of failures. And the small innovations resulting from mutations are mistaken for big ones – typically how a feature is mistaken for a product. A clear understanding of the two will help the founders decide how to build the company, size it, raise funding, build, scale, target customers and look at possible exits. More often the big bangs take deep pockets and longer to succeed as they need mass adoption to succeed too – Google, Ebay, Amazon being typical examples. Mutations more often last for a short time, and target small niche markets thus surviving by being acquired quickly. Small changes caused by need, combination of disparate products/services and being in a risky environment where they can become obsolete quickly.
Google is probably the best example of a big bang which has a great ecosystem for mutations so they survive for a long time to come – just as biological organisms do. Other such examples are Microsoft, Facebook, IBM and Amazon – all big bangs who now are in constant mutation mode to make sure they survive the hostile environment they live in.
Before one starts on the entrepreneurship journey one needs to know what innovation they are working on. So what innovation are you? Big bang or mutations – remember there cannot be many big bangs
Tags: Amazon, Ebay, entrepreneurship, Facebook, Google, innovation, Microsoft, mutation, start-up, Twitter
The world is Web2.0 business is full of a single most frustrating statement – I know how to build but how do I sell? While a lot can be said about putting the product in front of your customer and test test test. One aspect of such tests is forgotten more often than now – proper feedback and what to take from it.
Feedback from your potential customer is very important. Which is why we have a crazy number of market research companies and people spending a lot of time finishing and polishing business plans. There are a huge number of people sending out surveys – right from large brands to the tinniest of start ups. I have been flooded with some of these surveys lately and on a close inspection most of them make no sense at all. Almost all questions are about – Would you like this x feature in the product? Do you value x feature in the product? Which of the features is most important to you? etc etc … But the most important question – “Do you need or value this product or service?” rarely ever gets asked.
This reminds me of a survey from someone wanting to start a a Pizza store in Germany. All questions pertained to “What sausage would you like on your pizza?” And they went away excited at what people wanted and started the store only to see nobody buying the pizzas. Who would want a pizza with sausages anyway? So they asked the wrong questions. The first questions should have been – Would you like sausages in your pizza?
To top it all – the most stoopid surveys are for women – trying to gauge their likes and dislikes in technology products. Always starting from the wrong end of things (colour matching a favourite) and patronising. Now will you get a correct feedback with that? No wonder none of them understand women customers.
Tags: business, customer, Feedback, Market Research, Survey, technology
While there might seem little or no difference between deadlines and milestones for many, I think there is a major difference. It’s like the difference between running a 100m dash a number of times continuously and running a steady marathon. I hate deadlines not because they make me nervous or I feel threatened with the time-lines. I hate them because I hate the aftermath of a deadline. I am the kind of person who uses a large hammer on a tiny pin – hence I have failed many times. Failures are for another day. I am yet to learn the art of not using a hammer on small pins and hence also be a marathon runner.
So why do I crave for milestones rather than deadlines? I hate the aftermath of a deadline when I have the worst empty feeling of nothing to do. I am sapped of all energy and drive to start anything new. If I don’t have a plan ahead I am like a flight with no flight plan and ready to crash. Milestones on the other hand are a continuous plan to keep things going and there is always an after-plan. I like the regular – “yet to do list” than a deadline to meet. Maybe that is why I hate exams as there is no after plan. And maybe that is why I like to build things and take them to market. I hate to party after a product is made as the real work is yet to begin – get the first customer. Should a start up party after a product is launched? Absolutely NOT!! The only person that is done at this stage is the tech team. Others need to start proving things now and need to meet milestones and not deadlines and now same goes for the tech team. It’s a marathon and you need to keep up and not work on a start-stop schedule. Hence my love for milestones and a dream of running a marathon (yeah right!!)
Tags: Rant
There is a rush towards real-time search spurred by the likes of Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, Google (Google Wave), Microsoft (through investment in FaceBook) etc. While I can understand why the likes of Thompson-Reuters, AP etc would like to be in real-time search, it is hard to say what the future holds for others. Will our appetite for real-time search take over most parts of our internet search? Am I interested in news about M&A, investments, politics, economics, business, disasters etc in real-time? While I get the news, I am more interested in analysis and so is rest of the population (IMHO). So while the main real-time search contenders cannot gain more than getting us news at the earliest and impact a small part of our appetite for information, they do little to give us insight, informed choice and educate us little about issues we know and understand less.
I am interested in news but more in analysis, I would like to know which bank failed but also why and on deeper analysis of how. I would like to buy a product with a good deal of information about it along with some good analysis but not just be the first to know about it’s release. So while real-time search does well on information now – it is more concerned with news and little else. I would for example want to know what is reason or affects of certain economic, political or social issue which has little to do with real-time search. Also when I look at some real world actions like the best deal for a ticket to NYC . Can I do without going on multiple real-time search (inc Google, Bing etc) and comparison sites for days and get some informed choice? I think there is an opportunity for what I call “Delay Tolerant Search” which in my opinion solves bigger problems and I think we have a great appetite for solutions around this. This holds true for some of our daily actions on the internet and quality of articles – which is why Rupert Murdoch is leading the effort to get people to pay for great content.
Tags: delay tolerant search, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, real-time search, Search, Twitter
I spent the whole day yesterday with some amazing people at Tommorow’s Web, a conference by young minds to discuss the future of Internet and Technology industry. It brought together young technology entrepreneurs giving their unique perspective on the Internet and future technologies. An excellent event put together by Grant Bell and Rob Day. The best part was no one of my age (oh shut up!!) was allowed to speak on stage
.
I shall refrain from calling all those I met yesterday as “young ‘uns” and call them “smart minds” as the presentations they gave were well above what I have heard many grown ups give. The quality of talks and content was well beyond my expectations. The talks ranged from well thought out, grounded and brilliant advice to freelancers from Anna Debenham to in-depth technical discussion on opening the web with a lot of API love by Jamie Rumbelow. A very confident and love your work from Nick Pellant to very sound design and user experience discussion by Greg Cooper. Not to be left behind a very well thought out business plan for Giglocator by James Proud. Meaghan Fitzgerald and Anna Debenham have covered the happenings at the conference.
While I loved being at the event reminiscing what I did when I was 16 years old – all I could think about was debating on political issues and concentrating on getting to a good university. Growing up in India in a high pressured environment where the T-shirts one wears was more important than how smart you are, there was no choice. Hence I think in some way I see the conference as liberation of the youth – allowed to do what they feel is right. Probably also because this is a choice these young entrepreneurs make and have little to fear of failure.
While I think the liberation of the youth and doing what one loves to do is a right thing as I always tell myself and any passionate entrepreneur, I fear for some of these smart minds as I think a lot of them do not have a “Plan B”. Perhaps I am being cynical, perhaps I am being practical or maybe plain insane. But the emphasis on going to university is what I grew up with and this is still the main driver in the east and in the US. While there is a lot of talk about how universities are failing the youth, not keeping up with the changes in technology, society, expectations etc – I think it’s these smart minds who will drive the change. And keeping them out of university is a “Bad Idea”. So is this “liberation of the youth” really right?
While I loved what a lot of them are doing – I think some of them are not really sustainable businesses over a longer term and some will fail. Some of these smart ones have never ever failed and I would hope they never do but having a plan B will make them more prepared and something to fall back on. I agree with James Dyson that what UK needs is more people going to university to study science and engineering and spend time learning things in depth – this is key to a sustainable UK economy.
I don’t mean to discourage any of the smart minds I met yesterday. I only think their potential is huge and needs to be nurtured and they need to have a plan B. And I think going to university is a key to that. I am by no means being a pessimist – I am an optimist and I think these smart ones have a great future.
On another note – where were BBC, Nesta, VC’s and other organisations who talk about future of UK’s technology scene but not around to cover such a promising event?
Tags: conference, entrepreneurship, internet, start-up, technology, Tomorrow's Web, UK, web
While this might sound odd and unbelievable to many I think Microsoft will do good to buy Zoho. While Zoho faces competition from Google with it’s Google apps there have been numerous complaints form customers about lack of proper integration between the various apps and with gmail which is quite frustrating to the enterprise user. Google has also been playing catch up with Zoho in terms of bringing in new apps and still lacks the complete office suite that Zoho does – including project management, CRM, marketplace etc. While Salesforce has a great SaaS product they will be beaten by Zoho soon as they lack the complete suite that Zoho seems unbeatable at. While Zoho has been slow at some products like Zoho mail, they have finally understood what the customer is really looking for.
I think Microsoft will try to buy Zoho. Microsoft has promised to release a free online version of their next MS Office but even they will struggle to integrate the suite well enough to meet the needs of a SME who is today moving to Google apps/ Zoho etc. While this makes commercial sense – Microsoft will be afraid of going for such a deal as the stock market will perceive them to be unable to build such a product themselves and see it as a sign of weakness. Which this might be true, but I still think they will be stupid not to approach Zoho.
A lot of business plans we see are a technology push where we have a technology in search of a problem and customer. The way to build a business and put together a business plan is to detail a customer problem/pain and look for possible solutions. Any solution found should have a way to acquire and retain customers. Also such a solution should if possible ride on an existing related growing solution to a customer problem and customer retention solutions. Once you retain customers business models to monetize will follow.
At the heart most business plans is customer adoption and not customer retention. Entrepreneurs and investors alike do not understand how behaviors change after adoption. Social networks, e-commerce portals and other internet portals are typical examples of businesses where entrepreneurs need to be able to come up with plans for keeping up with growth in customer adoption which can move from being linear to exponential very quickly. One needs to come up with scenarios and lead indicators to see which behaviors are being enacted to then bring in actions to grow further, lead and win in the market. Adoption does not guarantee winning it guarantees survival, retention guarantees us a win. It’s a theme even investor’s overlook while funding companies.
Amazon.com is one of the best examples of successful customer adoption, retention and continuous change and adaption to keep retention up while understanding how to react to exponential growth from a very linear growth pattern. This is still a challenge for Twitter and Facebook while retention is still up we will need to see what new innovative services and products they come up with to maintain this retention while keeping growth high so monetization can follow . Friends Reunited is an example of good customer adoption which then did not keep up the innovation in bringing new ways to retain customers and got stuck in ways to make money without understanding how to retain customers while the likes of Facebook, Bebo and Myspace too over most of their regular customers. While all above is known fact – the issue I am trying to point out is that most such companies have no plan to understand indicators of exponential growth and no plan to understand how customer retention is important. There is a need also to understand that customer retention comes from not being stagnant but by keeping innovation up and bringing in new products and services regularly. Is it any surprise that Bebo and Myspace will keep seeing retention numbers go down?
Tags: business plan, customer adoption, customer retention, start-up, technology
There is a pattern of how founders of internet and media companies think. The traditional way in which founders think of a start-up is – have an idea, raise some money, develop product, release alpha and beta and then get the first customer. This has been the product development model that has been followed by most of us. But why is it then that while all follow the above model some start-ups are successful while others are not? What is the difference between companies doing all of the above in the model? Is there any way to predict success or failure? Is there any way to reduce risk in early stage companies?
Some patterns keep coming up in early stage companies. Most entrepreneurs (founders and CEO’s) are focused on one thing – Getting to launch and getting the first customer. That is the single-minded drive for engineering, the management and the board. Another pattern is that such companies hire sales, marketing and business development staff based on the product development cycle/process as above. Around alpha/beta stage companies start hiring marketing, sales, get ready for launch, hire ad agency, blog, hold launch events etc.
When a start-up gets its product to beta the entire company parties. Who is done at this stage? Marketing? Business development? Sales? Only people who are done are engineering. Most start-ups have no way of managing the risk of getting the market and customers right. Why is it that we have tonnes of methodologies to measure and to help us get the products right but no methodologies to help us get the stuff about our customers and market right?
Start-ups use the tools from product management companies that have come up with lots of tools on how to manage technology risk but have almost no tools to manage customer and market risks.
Most often start-ups think of themselves as a junior version of a large company. The tools and processes for business development, sales and marketing in a large company are not transferable to a small company. So the assumption that expanding the sales team will increase the sales in fixed increments is false. What start-ups need is a customer champion as their sales, marketing and business development equivalents. A customer champion says we do not know who our customers are and we need to go out there and find them.
A customer champion needs to do three things
Customer creation is all about how do we create demand for our companies’ products and services? Any type of talking about your company is not done over day one or even when the product is built – on techcrunch kind of blogs. You hypothesis about – What your company is about, what services you are offering, pricing – will be radically different after you have some contact with your customers. Any press you get as a part of your company has to be part of a strategy and not a random tactic. Typically after you have understood what business you are in, who your customers are, and how you need to scale demand for your company.
Entrepreneurs are usually good at finding opportunities and building something from scratch but not at growing something repeatable. What a customer champion needs to be good at is running a “lean start-up” which combines customer development with agile methodologies for internal development and very quickly iterate its customers feedback and massive number of releases in a day/week.
Listen to your customer – you might be selling something but you need to listen to what your customers actually want. To find out if customers like your idea/product or not is not an outsourcable problem – the founders need to do this. Particularly the people capable of changing strategy need to be the ones securing good news and bad news.
Customer feedback sometimes requires you to reengineer the product. And this requires engineering in as a partner to do so. But you only want to do that when you are convinced that you understand enough about the customer and market so you are not just tweaking it for random customers.
In early stage ventures – Just passion, agility, personal skills of the entrepreneur etc is not enough you need logic and ask yourself one question every morning and evening – how do I keep reducing the risks. This will in effect lead to a tailored customer development process unique to each start-up and thus a customer creation methodology. The job of a CEO is risk reduction at each and every stage till he/she makes an exit. In my personal opinion the founder should leave the job of a CEO as soon as possible and become the biggest customer champion of his company.
Tags: customer champion, start-up, technology