First Product to Market is Irrelevant

TL;DR — Takeaway

Ricky Bobby got some bad advice from his father, who taught him, “If you’re not first, you’re last.”

More profoundly, the Dalai Lama teaches us, “In a world where ego reigns, it is empathy that holds the power to change lives, bridge divides, and create a more compassionate society.”

The “Importance” of Being “First”

I’ve worked a few places, as I’m sure you have, where the business strategy of the Product revolved around “speed to market”.

Perhaps you’ve had or heard of a conversation similar to this:

Stakeholder — “We’ve got to build the Whoosiwhatsit immediately!”

Product Lead — “Why immediately?”

Stakeholder — “So that our customers see we have it before our competitors do.”

Product Lead — “Why are our competitors building it?”

Stakeholder — “I don’t know. Because they think we are.”

Product Lead — “Why do they think that?”

Stakeholder — “Because our Sales team told a prospect that we are, and the prospect told our competitor.”

Product Lead — “Why would our customers, specifically, find it valuable?”

Stakeholder — “It seems pretty cool.”

If getting something out to market is the goal, then this conversation is fine. (Outside of the troubling part of what Sales is telling prospects.)

If the goal is building a product that people will use, enjoy, continue to use and tell their network of people, then winning the gold medal for crossing the finish line first is not a supportable business or product strategy.

When Winning Silver was More Rewarding

First place didn’t last, but they’re still competing.

Like in Motorsports, the “leader” in business products can change between competitors multiple times over the course of the race. Comparing software development to one of the lengthier, multi-day endurance races rather than NASCAR or even Formula One, products will stay in this race until they crash or consumers are no longer interested in that type of product at all.

1. America Online (AOL) began in 1983 under a different name, and was known for communities for topics of interest, instant messaging, chat rooms, email, local and regional news, cloud storage, and online gaming. Since then, many other companies provide one or more of these services, and AOL isn’t forefront of most people’s minds. During the era of dial-up internet, AOL was also an access provider. Now AOL is a white-label of Yahoo, and aside from being a news source and email provider, a subscription can give you a “Comprehensive protection for your identity, data and devices.” Like being an access point to the Internet, they’re now a centralized access point for LastPass, McAfee and a few other partner products.
2. Myspace, launched in 2003 as one of the first global social media entities, before anyone as calling it social media. It was extremely customizable to the individual’s personality, and included blogs, chat forums, a music player, Facebook launched in 2004, and we know how that’s going. After changing owners a few times, Myspace is now primarily a music player, and most of people’s content was lost, although I still have my “Top 8” saved.
3. Yahoo started in 1994. Ask.com (originally known as Ask Jeeves) started in 1996. The first prototype of Google search was out in 1995, but they didn’t officially launch until 1997. Yahoo and Ask still can’t compete, but they didn’t go away like AltaVista did. It will be interesting to see what AI will do for other search tools like Bing and DuckDuckGo, but with all of Google’s other services, it’s hard to see them stop leading the pack anytime soon.

You have to Pivot!

Having endurance and staying relevant is much more important than being first out of the gate. It’s detrimental to stay the same, when “change” is the only constant in this world.

In 1985, Blockbuster certainly wasn’t the first retail store to rent VHS, Beta, and DVD movies, but they were certainly the biggest or most well-known in the USA, even through its peak in 2004. There’s still one store remaining, thanks to supporting nostalgia from parent company, Dish Network. Blockbuster tried to pivot by introducing video game rentals, DVD-by-mail, streaming, video on demand, and cinema theater as new business models were introduced by companies such as Redbox, Netflix, and GameStop. (Fun fact — Dish Network also owns Sling TV.)

The thing that Blockbuster lost sight of was their customers’ needs and desires. Their business model successfully sought out to solve a few “problems”:

1. People wanted to watch (or re-watch) movies after they were no longer in theaters.
2. People didn’t want to pay the cost of a movie (and snacks) in a theater, or simply were more comfortable in private.
3. Waiting for network TV or the subscription channels to have rights to air the movie sometimes took a year or longer.
4. Even if they could wait, people didn’t always have the time to schedule their VCR to record the movie, would forget entirely, or didn’t have a blank tape.

Competitors Redbox and Netflix realized that the Blockbuster retail stores had some additional problems and limitations.

1. Rental fees were cheap, but the late fees really added up.
2. Some stores charged a fee for not rewinding the VCR tape (obviously not relevant to DVD’s).
3. The desired movie wasn’t always available, and wait lists got long.
4. Retail stores aren’t always open.
5. Having other people know which movie you rented could be embarrassing, especially in a small town where the cashier knows everyone.

Personally, I believe that if Blockbuster hadn’t tried to maintain the retail business as its flagship, and put all new marketing and development into online streaming, they’d be one of the top 5 available today.

Asking the Right Questions

Humans have been asking questions about the world around us since the dawn of time.

Product Management is the owner of the “WHY” question supporting the motivation behind a Product. Whether the Product Manager is responsible for strategy, technical details, market-facing or all these roles all in one person, they are all focused on customer needs, and concerned with the following:

1. What’s the problem?
2. What are people doing now to fix or eliminate that problem?
3. How successfully is the problem being resolved?
4. Can our team provide a better solution that what’s currently available?
5. Should our team actually provide that solution?
6. If we charge for the product, will people pay, and based on the value provided, how much will they pay?

Remember, just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done. Also, some premium products are free, and the “best” products aren’t always the most expensive.

Additionally, nowhere in the list of PM concerns is there a question of a competitor already providing the product. Yes, looking at the competition will help answer some of the listed questions, but based on what we’ve seen repeatedly in the past, a competitor being “first” isn’t a critical concern. What’s important is providing something that consumers will find more valuable, and is difference enough from the competition that it sets your product apart.

If anything, sitting back and watching how users respond to the competition is more educational that building your own prototype. Google Glass came out in 2013, and although updated versions were being sold up until this year, it will no longer be supported after September. Even if Apple wasn’t starting to develop Vision Pro 10 years ago, they’ve certainly learned from Google’s product and have created an entirely new headset that will be adopted by many, but probably won’t gain worldwide adoption until the price point comes down and the value to consumers can be understood.

The Danger of not Asking “Why”.

One of my go-to references for not understanding why a product or feature is being built is the $170 million flop in 2014 when Amazon first introduced the Fire Phone.

Why did they build it? Because Jeff Bezos wanted it.

Why did Jeff Bezos want it? Because competitors already had smart phones, and he believed Amazon could have a piece of the market, even if it wasn’t a large piece.

What would set the Phone apart? Since “everyone” has smart phones, and “everyone” shops on Amazon, a phone based around and optimized for Amazon products and services would be very convenient for consumers. The problem was, they didn’t ask consumers what features they would want in order to give up their existing iOS or Android devices. The decision was business focused and not consumer focused.

Summary

Doing something for the business, without considering the full value to customers is a disaster waiting to happen.

Being first to market as the goal is only a method to stork the company’s ego. No company slogan should be “Look what we did!” but rather, “Look at the value we gave to people and the abilities people now have.”

Sure… some companies will get lucky and build something that reaps in a fortune. But unless they pivot and focus on the customer, it’s unlikely that luck will be a lasting strategy.

Your Technology Product Philosopher

~ Dutch

Relative ADHD Superpowers

I normally try to come up with something about the topic that a Neurodiverse person can do differently, perhaps “better” than a Neurotypical person. When it comes to asking questions and thinking about people and not business, nothing stands out to me this week. I’d be happy to hear from someone who might!

============================================================

If you’d like to discuss a Product Idea, or about ADHD in the workforce, schedule a free 30-minute session with me. I love meeting new people and discussing ideas on using technology to make the world a better place.

My name is Dutch. I’m a Strategic Product Manager, a lifelong geek and military veteran who lived 50 years before being diagnosed with ADHD. My topics may vary from article to article, from product lifecycle, to motorsports, family dynamics, long distance cycling and more. Feel free to subscribe and hang on for the ride!