Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by SoftwareMaven on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @12:19AM
(#2805974)
But you will eventually become irrelevant, which makes new customer acquisition extremely difficult.
Most companies that profitably lead by following the pack do so by leveraging other products they produce as their way to the customer.
If you have a handful of "leading" products and a handful of "following" products, this can be a very good strategy as it allows you to produce "solutions" that leverage the sales of the leaders. On the other hand, it rarely works for a single product and doesn't work for long when all your products follow.
In general, following is usually a result of poor product management (doesn't understand the customer) or poor executive management (doesn't invest in product development). Rarely is it part of a well-considered strategy.
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by jamesteow on Monday July 25, 2011 @01:59PM
(#2803736)
I'm not going to equate my experience with everyone else but when I looked at why I switched from one service to another, it actually does relate to the strategies that 'don't work.'
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by karl_nerd on Monday July 25, 2011 @05:30PM
(#2804756)
I interpreted that it meant, especially concerning usability, that those strategies are not things you can easily differentiate with, they're rather commodities.
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by jff on Monday July 25, 2011 @04:27PM
(#2804464)
I like how in #1 he says, "Don't just do what others are doing!", then goes on in #2 to say, "You don't have to be original! Google wasn't the first search engine!"
Google is a good example, in fact, because they followed #1, #3, #4, and quite possibly #2 (a search engine that doesn't suck? How novel!). There also might be doses of #5 sprinkled throughout Google's work.
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by Wilduck on Monday July 25, 2011 @04:52PM
(#2804555)
The difference is that in the #1 point he was talking about not simply implementing the features of a competitor. If you notice company B has feature X and therefore decide you must have it as well, you may be in trouble if it turns out feature X isn't useful and is hard to implement.
So, it's obvious that while Google wasn't the first search engine, they also weren't simply copying Altavista's feature list.
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by SoftwareMaven on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @12:26AM
(#2805988)
I think you can build remarkable products by really understanding your customers and the people who would never buy from you. If you build relationships, you learn about their pains, and solving customer pains makes you remarkable, no epiphanies required.
Well, now that I've written this, I realized what you might have been thinking (eg "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" type of thing). To the extent an epiphany is an insight about your customers gained by understanding your customers, I completely agree with you. To the extent it is a "brain wave" out of nowhere that is going to magically save the product (which is what I think the article meant), then I agree with the article.
Re:Popular Web Strategies That Don’t Work
by jurjenh on Monday July 25, 2011 @07:12PM
(#2805143)
I think it is more targeted along the lines of what Amazon does. They create new products, but do it in a way that they don't bet the house, so its great if they work, but controlled if they fail.
You don't need to have epiphanies to be remarkable, but they sure can come in useful. The key point being don't bank on them, with the unwritten subtext of don't ignore them.
You don't have to "lead your market" to be profitable.
Most companies that profitably lead by following the pack do so by leveraging other products they produce as their way to the customer.
If you have a handful of "leading" products and a handful of "following" products, this can be a very good strategy as it allows you to produce "solutions" that leverage the sales of the leaders. On the other hand, it rarely works for a single product and doesn't work for long when all your products follow.
In general, following is usually a result of poor product management (doesn't understand the customer) or poor executive management (doesn't invest in product development). Rarely is it part of a well-considered strategy.
I disagree. Brilliant people make for innovation. Repeatable processes make refinement possible but not true breakthroughs.
Overall I think the statements made work very well for a consultancy selling services to management. I don't see them working so well for a startup.
Why I switched from Yahoo Mail to GMail: #1, #3
Why I switched from Digg to Reddit: #1, #3, #4
Why I switched from Facebook to G+: #1, #3, #4
Because if taken in moderation, those strategies not only work, but are essential to your success.
Google is a good example, in fact, because they followed #1, #3, #4, and quite possibly #2 (a search engine that doesn't suck? How novel!). There also might be doses of #5 sprinkled throughout Google's work.
So, it's obvious that while Google wasn't the first search engine, they also weren't simply copying Altavista's feature list.
Well, now that I've written this, I realized what you might have been thinking (eg "The Four Steps to the Epiphany" type of thing). To the extent an epiphany is an insight about your customers gained by understanding your customers, I completely agree with you. To the extent it is a "brain wave" out of nowhere that is going to magically save the product (which is what I think the article meant), then I agree with the article.
You don't need to have epiphanies to be remarkable, but they sure can come in useful. The key point being don't bank on them, with the unwritten subtext of don't ignore them.