Comments (2)

By brantcooper, July 26, 2011 10:33 am

As technologists working on new products and new markets, we tend to forget where we are on the technology adoption lifecycle curve.  That’s a mistake.  Here’s why:

1. Nobody cares

See all that white space under the middle of the curve?  Those are people using products that aren’t yours. They are inundated with new offers every day. They exist in a world of information overload. It doesn’t matter how great your technology is, nobody knows about you, nobody cares about your product.  See that white space under the line marked by the blue dot?  Yeah, me neither.  If, for example, you are building a new web app that demands people spend time on your site, whether you’re the new deal site du jour or a “disruptive” new Q&A site, you’re competing against limited attention, ie., limited time carved out for spending time online.  Never mind your actual competition. You have to either increase the amount of time people spend online, or steal time from Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, CNN et. al.

2. You have a long way to go

Inside our early adopter bubble, we think a TechCrunch mention is the end all, be all.  What % of the US population has never heard of TC, 97%?  See where the curve starts accelerating up?  That’s about where the chasm lives, waiting to swallow you up.  Of course As Steve Blank likes to point out, you’re lucky if you even get to the chasm. We are easily distracted by minor (albeit clever) improvements to infrequent activity on technology platforms that from a global perspective, are obscure.  Say, like posting photos that look like Polaroids to Twitter. Not only are we enamored with such minutiae, but are ready to declare such features “the winner.” Of what, who knows?  You can try Leapfrogging early adopters, but that requires millions and millions of dollars (see iPhone/iPad).

3. Your entire ecosystem is early

Have you noticed the resurgence of email newsletters? It’s as if technologists finally got the DMA memo that email is (still) the online communication tool of choice among consumers.  In other words, if you want to reach customers, email is better than Twitter, Facebook, SMS, etc.  Not that these aren’t effective, too, for some segments, but like it or not, email is king.  The point is that the distribution of users on the platforms your product depends on, determines your market potential.

If your strategy depends on early majority platforms, you will need patient investors and money to burn. If you aim to leverage established platforms, remember that users generally like them the way they are (that’s why they were successful).  It’s hard to alter user behavior within a platform, too.

Of course, your objective might be to overthrow entrenched players, or perhaps to re-segment their market.  But remember that the momentum achieved by established companies successfully converting the “early majority” crushes your “better” product.

Use your fellow “early adopter” denizens to help vet your product, determine what works to solve pain, reward passion, instigate sharing, but don’t assume your success here and infatuation with your wiz bang technology represents a real market.

Comments (14)

By brantcooper, April 28, 2011 11:57 am

Despite Dave McClure’s imploring to “kill a feature” and Eric Ries‘ urging to “cut your product in half, then halve it again,” most startup founders I encounter are trying to work their way toward Product-Market fit by planning and building new features. The analytical mind of an entrepreneur, both engineer and business-side, naturally tends toward solving problems and ostensibly, features solve problems. But it’s the wrong approach for most startups.

Solution-centralism starts in Customer Discovery.

More often than not I encounter surveys that pay scant homage to the problem, usually has a means of filtering respondents. For example, a typical survey asks “do you have this problem” and if so, how appealing do these solutions sound?  Tweaks to the problem description involve messaging more than understanding.  In other words, the startup team focuses on understanding what words resonate with respect to the problem, as if  the problem itself is fully understood.  Interestingly, the problem continues all the way through to asking pricing questions that evoke dubious responses like “would you be willing to pay?” or “how much would you be willing to pay?”  There is no direct connection to value in these questions.

You hear this in elevator pitches all the time, too.  Egocentric pitches assume the features (and even the benefits) make the problem compelling.

In fact, the opposite is true. The willingness to pay depends on the depth of pain (or passion).

One of my favorite Eric Ries quotes:

If you can’t sell magic, you can’t sell your solution.

Nobody cares about your solution.  They care about solving their problems.

Solution-centralism continues in Customer Validation.

Your product is out the door and you have some market signal, but are still searching for Product-Market Shanggri La.  And you have the feature list and engineering spec that is going to get you there.  Everyone does.  You’re one feature away.  Always.  Your iteration loop has an invisible exit gate.

This is the chasm before The Chasm.  This is where you become the anti-Dropbox, a shattered “tip of the spear.” This is where you become unable to answer who you are:

• too many features;
• features people don’t use;
• features across too many market segments;
• features to keep up w/ Jones’ Widget Co.

Stop.  Please.

Problem-centralism Wins

Be a problem expert. In this age of fast development and no IP protection, whoever “owns” the customer, wins.  You own the customer by understanding and solving their problem better than anyone else.  This is why Customer Development, when properly done, is critical to your success.

• When surveying users early on, focus on problem statements before solution.  (FYI, I am working on an application to help with that.)
• Interviews are critical toward establishing empathy.  Emotion indicates resonance and cues you when to dive deeper, rather than going shallow and broad (like surveys).
• Product demonstrations are not for “show and tell,” but rather is this solving the problem (exercising the passion).
• Messaging/positioning around problem lures the unsuspecting and suspicious alike.
• While iterating product toward what resonates, kill features.

Ultimately your addressable market size depends on amount of pain (passion) in the market, i.e., the size of and number of market segments that share a “big enough” pain (or passion).

Comments (0)

By brantcooper, March 21, 2011 1:16 pm

At long last, here’s the video from Steve Blank’s presentation last month.

Steve Blank speaks to San Diego Tech Founders from Brant Cooper on Vimeo.

Contents:
00:00 My Intro
03:17 Why Accountants Don’t Run Startups
- Old constraints on startups
- Entrepreneurial explosion
- Startups vs Small Businesses vs Large Businesses
- IBM example of big company disruptive innovation
- What did my income statement say in month 1?
- “You’ve just washed ashore on an a deserted island with a knife in your mouth and a loincloth.”
- Searching for a business model, not a business plan
- Customer Development
58:26 Atoms or Bits (New Material)
- Physical vs Online products
- History of Lean
1:03:26 Sloan vs Durant
1:08:41 Q&A
1:29:50 My Conclusion

Be sure to come check out entrepreneur turned investor Mark Suster talk to San Diego Tech Founders March 31.

=> Startups RSVP here.

=> Investors, Service Providers, Professionals RSVP here.

Comments (5)

By brantcooper, March 15, 2011 12:45 pm

Steve Blank and Alex Osterwalder have combined their respective methodologies, Customer Development and Business Model Generation, into a powerful business model generation and testing framework.  There are several good sources for how these two mesh, including this Jan post on Osterwalder’s blog, here and most recently, in Blank’s SXSW presentation:

Blank’s Customer Development is critical, otherwise speculating what comprises your startup’s business model is just another academic exercise.  Arguably, one could easily waste as much time documenting assumptions on your business model canvas as documenting them inside a 40 page business plan.  The canvas exposes your hypotthesis and customer development tests them.  It’s a laudable ambition to document and test all of your business model canvas components.

But how much is necessary to get going?

All building blocks are not created equal.  I believe there’s a natural progression towards figuring out your business model and many blocks are directly dependent on prior blocks.  Is it worth the time to document 2nd or 3rd tier blocks before establishing the reality of 1st tier?  The answer, of course, depends on you and your business.  It doesn’t hurt to go as far as you can at the start, unless the activity inhibits you from getting started, i.e., “getting out of the building.”

To use a rather simplistic example, you might presume that your customer is an enterprise-sized business that requires a field sales force and partnerships with highly technical systems integrators.  What if your customer ends up being a medium-sized business that requires SaaS product distribution?  Early customer development might very well point you down the correct path from the outset.  Some business model components flow naturally from validated core hypotheses.

The real dilemma in my mind is, what do you test first? The key to getting started is to nail the validate of the core hypotheses: Customer, Problem, Solution.

Go to the #CustDev White Board

In our book, The Entrepreneur’s Guide to Customer Development, Patrick Vlaskovits and I developed a white board exercise to help think through business model risk in order to determine what to test first.  The key components are:

=> draw the ecosystem around your business as you imagine it, including partners, distributors, customers.

=> determine which are mission critical — in other words, can you get going without any?  Which are absolutely necessary?

=> state the value proposition for each mission critical participant — what determines whether or not they join the ecosystem?

=> list the minimum product functionality necessary to get entities to participate.

=> prioritize the risks (technical and market) based on the above.

Ultimately, what you trying to prioritize is: what’s the quickest way to fail your business model. The “value path” of testing your business model runs through testing the the core value proposition of each of your mission critical ecosystem entities.  Easiest to test means:  what you can test in the shortest time frame.

If building a landing page and driving traffic to it has the potential of killing your present business model hypotheses, then it’s a legitimate “intermediate MVP” and worth testing.  But be careful.  Are you sure you’re not testing your ability to drive some amount of traffic or your positioning?  If a 3rd party API doesn’t provide the hooks you need to develop a critical piece of technology and therefore your business model fails, maybe that’s what you test first.

Documenting the building blocks of your business model = good.  Using the #CustDev White Board exercise in conjunction helps you determine what to document and test first.

How do you determine what to test first?