Our last week’s topic of discussion “In search of the “Globeshaker”: Social Venture Ideation” was an immensely interesting one. What I realized was that if venture “ideation” was a toughie, “social venture ideation” is a more demanding one, for the simple reason that a great business idea need not necessarily be a great social idea. But then, considering that a good social venture idea has to necessarily be a good business idea first, there are many positives to take away from reading Paul Graham’s startup ideas - http://www.paulgraham.com/
This is so because, I happened to read Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry’s article on Business Insider – “10 Brilliant Startups That Failed Because They Were Ahead Of Their Time” - http://www.businessinsider.
The recurring theme was that somehow, someway these brilliant startup ideas were waylaid because there were addressing a market or society not yet ready for the leap that the startups envisaged. It could also be that the available technology or infrastructure of the day wasn’t suitable for the needs of the idea. And in my opinion, this is an important thing to be careful about. Even the best of ideas are only relevant if they can be applied now and today. Overtime an idea can be powerful enough to generate a market or an industry of its own – Touch phones are one such idea. But in the end, any new startup idea worth its salt, has to be not only relevant, but also be implementable now and in the near future. Only then can the idea gain sufficient user traction.So this makes me think that the key to a successful startup is not just a “globe shaking idea” but a “globe shaking idea that combines with a delivery system that disrupts human behavior the least, at least initially”. Because change is inherently discomforting and maybe even frightening for most people, startups may need to possibly avoid requesting “leaps of faith” from early adopters, especially when means of delivery of the product or service has technological or infrastructural challenges.
Which begs the question; would “webvan” – the online credit and delivery grocery business that went bust spectacularly in 2001 (and now part of Amazon.com) be a success today? Is the society more open to grocery purchases on the web than it was in 2001? Webvan spent over $1.5 billion in 2001 prices to build its own infrastructure for the business. Is the infrastructure for such a business readily available now (without having to spend billions of dollars) than in 2001? And so, was the webvan business in 2001 “much in the future” than now? Food for thought for all of us.
This is so because, I happened to read Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry’s article on Business Insider – “10 Brilliant Startups That Failed Because They Were Ahead Of Their Time” - http://www.businessinsider.
The recurring theme was that somehow, someway these brilliant startup ideas were waylaid because there were addressing a market or society not yet ready for the leap that the startups envisaged. It could also be that the available technology or infrastructure of the day wasn’t suitable for the needs of the idea. And in my opinion, this is an important thing to be careful about. Even the best of ideas are only relevant if they can be applied now and today. Overtime an idea can be powerful enough to generate a market or an industry of its own – Touch phones are one such idea. But in the end, any new startup idea worth its salt, has to be not only relevant, but also be implementable now and in the near future. Only then can the idea gain sufficient user traction.So this makes me think that the key to a successful startup is not just a “globe shaking idea” but a “globe shaking idea that combines with a delivery system that disrupts human behavior the least, at least initially”. Because change is inherently discomforting and maybe even frightening for most people, startups may need to possibly avoid requesting “leaps of faith” from early adopters, especially when means of delivery of the product or service has technological or infrastructural challenges.
Which begs the question; would “webvan” – the online credit and delivery grocery business that went bust spectacularly in 2001 (and now part of Amazon.com) be a success today? Is the society more open to grocery purchases on the web than it was in 2001? Webvan spent over $1.5 billion in 2001 prices to build its own infrastructure for the business. Is the infrastructure for such a business readily available now (without having to spend billions of dollars) than in 2001? And so, was the webvan business in 2001 “much in the future” than now? Food for thought for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment