Kawasaki on Why Your Startup is Dead if You Can’t Enchant
firstround.com
firstround.com
And the rest of the advise in here is just pat. People will be more likely to buy from you if they like you? You don't say! You should anticipate problems ahead of time? Well I'll be!
Why is your business failing? It's probably because you don't understand your customers. It's probably because you never talked to them in the first place. Here is an exercise that actually works: go outside. Go to the nearest local business you can find. Talk to a person who works there, bonus if it's the owner. Browse the store. Introduce yourself. Make up a story about being new to the neighborhood and needing a shower head or something if you have to. Get them talking about themselves. Ask them how long they have been there. Establish a repoir. Pay attention. People will tell you the problems they have. They are always looking for a solution. Just listen, and you will discover it. No, you can't do it from your desk. Get on your feet and go outside. In half an hour of talking to a real, potential customer, you'll have more good business ideas than from 6 months of sitting around with your partners brainstorming ideas.
Then do it again. Make this your Saturday morning habit. Go to every coffee shop or dog grooming business or what have you in your area and talk to anyone you can. Be "that" guy who talks to strangers in public places. It works.
I'll even save you a little time and tell you what people don't want: They don't want computers. Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.
> Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.
You're right, but unfortunately there are a lot of instances where the data initially shows otherwise. One naive way of looking at Google glass, for example, is that the early adopters did want wearable computing... and from that conclusion other electronics manufactures should make more types of wearables: watches, pedometers, shoes, etc. Surprise, surprise... many of the wearables have failed (looking at you Samsung) despite based heavily on the initial market research because they didn't actually do anything useful.
In the case of wearable computing, customers didn't say they wanted to wear their phone on their arm or strap a phone to their heads. They wanted hands free, no fuss, error free access to information. Same market as stuff like Siri or Kinect. The problem is simply the implementation. Trying to tap on the little watch screen is god awful. Trying to get Siri to understand what you want as soon as you try to ask for something useful is almost impossible. The implementation falls down hard - hard enough to be unusable.
Same thing for mobile browsers. I remember really wanting a pocket version of internet explorer because of how useful it would be. Actually using it on the old Windows Mobile devices was basically impossible though because the implementation was terrible and unusable. Today however, I use my mobile phone's browser all the time because the implementation is good. There was nothing wrong with what I was asking for - quick pocket access to the web - but there was a lot wrong in what Microsoft thought I wanted - a handicapped version of their web browser that didn't work.
Talking is not listening or understanding. Wearable computing will definitely be a major hit once someone works out a good implementation.
Yeah, agree that listening was the culprit. I guess what I'm saying is that many of the young people hear "I want a mobile version of my browser" and go off to build the windows CE version based on your literal desires. The fix to that doomed behavior isn't better listening, per se, because that connotes if you hear every word you understand what the customer really wants.
Most great products address an unarticulated need. In many ways, these unarticulated needs are NP Complete: They are hard to find solutions in polynomial time but are extremely easy to verify.
Glass' success is tied to delivering on that core premise. If Glass is currently not fulfilling it, then its popularity is strictly in being a status symbol, meaning it's ultimately a fad, a fashion statement (that's probably why you don't really see it on the east coast). Without fulfilling that promise, it's doomed in its own time as well.
Your examples absolutely will be failures and it is for this reason. Pedometers and wifi enabled shoes, the way I've seen them implemented, cause the user to have to do more work. The user can't just put them on and run and forget they are there and their running will improve. The user has to configure it with their system. Then they have to remember their login every time they want to look at their charts. Figure out how to make sense out of the chart. Should they be running farther, or would pushing faster be better? A graph of distance over time doesn't tell you that. The product creates distracting work for the user and THAT is why it fails.
Make that pedometer upload to a server and have a physical trainer email the user personalized instructions on how to improve their running every week and you have a pedometer that means something to users.
But I think that this might be harder for some people to do than others. That is to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger to gather intel. In a sense it's really social engineering. And it takes practice. Luckily there are plenty of places to stop into and to gain experience at no cost. No amount of reading (or Guy Kawasaki ismns) will get you to the same place.
"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it." - Nelson Mandela
If a person doesn't think they can execute despite their fears, then being in business for themselves is not for them. Fear never goes away. At best it gets replaced by new fears.
There is a reason they are a small business owner and not an employee of a similar business across town. They love their work and they want to steer the ship. I don't think you can even lump in "they want to get rich", because most of the small business owners I know make a middling-to-low, middle-class income.
So yes, part of being that person who thinks they can be in charge is that they tend to be arrogant. They probably have reason to be. They probably got told by everyone around them that opening the town's 10th pizza shop was a stupid idea, they should just stick to law school like their father. And yet somehow a small town can support 10 pizza shops! When you get to disprove your detractors, it tends to make you feel like you know everything.
The trick is learning how to work that attitude. You don't approach such people with "buy my product, do more work, and we'll tell you what you're missing". You approach them with, "how would you like to spend more time at home?"
From board meetings (http://firstround.com/article/The-Secret-to-Making-Board-Mee...)
...to equity grants (http://firstround.com/article/The-Right-Way-to-Grant-Equity-...)
...to product thoughts (http://firstround.com/article/42-Rules-to-Lead-by-from-the-M...)
They're really nailing it.
First: "There are studies funded to measure hand firmness and eye contact because they're indicators of authenticity and enthusiasm."
Really?? I understand the importance for the CEO to be likable, even if he is an asshole. Steve Jobs had that precisely because of his authenticity and enthusiasm. But why make such an effort on faking it if you can be it?? What a sad life to fake evey handshake. Authenticity must need a bit of practice, because we are kind of trained to "lie to please". But with some diligence, one can start to be a little more self-confident and authentic, caring less about others might think (see that this the exact opposite of faking handshakes?). And enthusiasm should be natural too. If you are not enthusiastic with the product you are creating, you shouldn't be creating it. Or at least you should expect and accept that it will no "enchant" anyone and work hard to be just profitable.
If I understood it correctly, the first part of the text tell to "dress to match your audience" and practice your handshakes in order to be more authentic. In other words, go through a great length of faking to be authentic. That was just a weird advice.
I will try to enchant, be authentic and enthusiastic by rejecting every advice Kawasaki gave here. I think it is the logical thing to do.
While I do agree that financial motivations are usually less compelling than social and ego-driven motivators, there are times in an industry's evolution where they do matter, especially in trying to establish a new professional class. Would Lyft, Sidecar, and UberX drivers exist for fame and glory alone?
Revver was about a lot more than the just the rev-split - we were building an open network that rewarded video creators for their efforts and sought to let them to make a living performing the craft they loved.
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2669
The only issue I have with this article is the point about not going to the C suite. I think that can be true of many services, especially ones that are free or low cost so that the users are actually building the momentum and can adopt the product at their level.
Where it falls short is when you need a strategic partner or if you are looking for a big enterprise sale. The middle and lower levels provide the execs with the validation and market fit but don't have the authority to make those kinds of purchases, so you are largely wasting your time if the executives are not in the room.