Most of the time, an idea nobody had until you is worth the trouble. But if nobody implemented it so far, there must also be a reason.
The “first of its kind” ideas are not always a sure win, and for a good number of reasons.
First of all, there isn’t (yet) enough data to create a prediction blanket. You’re basically stumbling in the dark and that’s frustrating. Your decisions are based purely on your intuition and on the little amount of feedback you get from your own customers. I use the term “little” because it’s insignificant, the actual amount of info you may get may be huge, but it's still from only one source.
Second, there is a certain time needed for a critical mass of clients to engage with your products. If your idea is good, you may have a good number of early adopters, but early adopters can’t pay the bills. They may surely give feedback and be very useful as evangelists (much as we, on Steemit, are functioning these days) but they can’t assure a predictable and strong growth.
And third, you may end up in what I call “the one customer business”. Many “revolutionary” ideas are based on the fact that the founder solved a personal problem using a personal approach. But, most of the time, the problem remains personal. It’s just his problem. It can’t be replicated to a significant amount of people. Hence, the business has only one customer, the founder.
So, if your next startup will be “revolutionary”, “first of its kind”, “never seen before”, try to take a few steps back and ask for a few second opinions. This is not meant to inhibit your creativity, but to ground you more and avoid seeking novelty just for the sake of it.
Google was not the first in the search business, Atavista, Lycos and many other small competitors were rocking the boat until 2001. Google succeeded because it made something that it was already there, better.
Apple was not the first in the phone business. Do I need to remind you about a small Finnish company called Nokia? Of course, almost a decade after iPhone disrupted the market, Nokia is in rather dire streets.
And the examples can go even further than that, but I want to stop now and focus on another topic.
Namely, Steemit :)
I think that Steemit does a rather poor job as defining itself as the “first social media platform that really pays it users”. There were (and still are, to my knowledge) a lot of other players in this niche, from Tzu to all the plethora of MLM-backed “social platforms”.
I think Steemit could position itself better as “a social platform where contribution is rewarded”. That would take it out of the “first of its kind” area and position it as the “Google”, or the “Apple” of “reward based social platforms”. In other words, Steemit doesn't invent anything, but takes something that was already there and it makes it better.
Thoughts?
image source
This post is part of a 30 days challenge on business, you can find the entire list of articles here.
I'm a serial entrepreneur, blogger and ultrarunner. You can find me mainly on my blog at Dragos Roua where I write about productivity, business, relationships and running.
