I see this all the time, and the challenge is that 'ideas' never occur in a vacuum. Even when the people who have the idea don't consider any of the things going on around them, the success of those ideas are controlled by forces outside and sometime unrecognized.
One of the classics for me was the 'video phone' which was (and remains) a stupid idea. The idea that you would have a device, that only allowed you to communicate with the same family of devices, and provided by a single provider. Is stupid. The idea that you could interact with someone over a network in real time via a combined video and audio stream is a good one.
When Bell Labs proposed the video phone you could use a $1,500 hard wired terminal to send a 262 x 184 grainy black and white video stream to another person who used the same kind of dedicated $1,500 terminal. Not a lot of value to the end user there.
When you could use a $25 web camera and a bit of software to create a video and audio connection between your $1,500 computer and someone elses computer with a webcam, the computer and networking costs were already 'sunk' in the sense they already had justified their value, so video conferencing only needed to meet the marginal value of being able to see who you were talking too.
The difference between 'success' and 'failure' here was the environment in which the idea was presented, and the amount of value the idea brought relative to the cost of doing it. In the context of today's $29.99 cable internet video conferencing is a great idea, with $2,000/month 1.544Mbit T-1 lines it was a stupid idea.