Lots Of Enthusiasm, Not So Much Profit

from the getting-over-that-hurdle dept

I was having a discussion recently with someone about the challenge of selling "TiVo-like" products - by which we didn't mean other PVRs, but products where (a) the product's benefits are difficult to describe but (b) the early adopters who sign on can't imagine living without it. It's a challenge a lot of companies face, and no one seems to have a very good answer. Some people think you just focus in on one differentiating aspect of the technology and pitch it relentlessly. Others try to build up word-of-mouth buzz. Still others try to get as many "trial" users as possible. It really depends on the actual product, but venture capitalist Kevin Laws is looking at these types of companies and wondering what it takes to jump that hurdle. Is it just a question of letting the companies grow slowly, instead of pushing for the mass acceptance right away, or is there something else to it? It seems to me, that the examples he cites of companies that have made it over that hurdle were less revolutionary than those that haven't. That is, while the iPod and the Treo 600 have done things right, both were actually smart updates on previously failed products in that space. The examples he mentions of companies that have struggled (TiVo, PayTrust) are companies that have spent more time trying to invent and define the space themselves. The real question, then, is whether or not companies that create a space can successfully hang on and remain relevant until the market actually takes off. In many cases, I wonder if those companies have trouble because they're so focused on their own product and defining the market that they miss out on the one big feature that catapults a competitor into market dominance.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2004 @ 9:19pm

    Passion, Profit?

    I thought you were talking about that other "Passion" that is in the news that is making plenty of profit - it isn't suitable subject matter for a tech blog, so your title gave me a double take.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. icon
    Mike (profile), 9 Mar 2004 @ 2:52am

    Re: Passion, Profit?

    Good point. Don't mean to be misleading... was just pulling off of Kevin's own title - though, I've now changed the one here.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2004 @ 7:32am

    VC's, Sex, Money and Zen

    VC's are in it for the money. VC's aren't patient. It's like adolecents/young adults and one-night stands versus dating. Some people are in a hurry to "get something". Some people are really involved.

    Angles and Inital round VC's are interested in building businesses, it takes many years so they don't have a choice. Later stage VC's are in it for the rapid return on their money.

    "Crossing the Chasm" faster means getting paid sooner.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Joe, 9 Mar 2004 @ 10:18am

    Not so much missing an important feature

    In the last line, you suggest that these companies miss an important feature. Typically, I think it's the opposite. Besides the fact that the first company has to spend the money to create a non-existent market, the company that defines a brand-new market often doesn't know the meaning of 'good enough.' A competitor that puts money toward the price point and does a minimum of features can often beat the initial mover in marketshare, if not immediately in technical perfection.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.