5 ms·

This article is built on top of many faulty assumptions... Most notably,"When you’re second to market with a viable product, your customers will compare you to

This article is built on top of many faulty assumptions... Most notably,"When you’re second to market with a viable product, your customers will compare you to the company and product that got to market first." This assumes that the entire market knows about a solution the moment a first mover comes to market. The reality is that building a brand to the point where every prospect you approach is comparing you to an incumbent takes years. The first couple years of a new market opportunity, even with dozens of competitors, there are enough prospects in the market that you can be first to market with the people you reach and your competitors will be first to market with a different segment of the market. That being said, it is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL for every company to differentiate themselves in a way that they can't be compared to a competitor. There are some nuggets of wisdom sprinkled throughout this post, but It is clearly built on one subjective individuals perception of things that are beyond our control to really grasp. (i.e. the surface is successful because of a massive ad budget. I would argue the surface is a new category by itself.)

nostrademons 12y ago
That's true, but you also need a story about how you're going to grow your reach & influence faster than your competitor does. It can work, for example, if your main competitor is a hobbyist who doesn't take his product seriously. Ditto a major corporation for whom this is a sideshow that can't get resources from execs whose attention is focused elsewhere. But anybody can spend more money to tell more people about their product. This is not a competitive differentiator; if you do it, and the company who got to market first does it, they'll win simply through Gambler's Ruin, since they start from a bigger base.
- coffeemug 12y ago
  > This assumes that the entire market knows about a solution the moment a first mover comes to market. It doesn't. The first mover will start getting customers before you do, and as they do their ability to reach customers will grow exponentially. You might start reaching a segment of the market they aren't reaching, but they'll trivially be able to lock you out.
  - davemel37 12y ago
    My argument is that it will take at least 2 years for any brand to lock you out. This post assumes that the moment the press knows about a market, it's too late. Plus, even if you are late to the game, you can position yourself opposite the market leader and overtake them.
  - frandroid 12y ago
    Like Altavista locked Google out.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      Altavista falls under the "parent company believes it's an inconvenient sideshow, a technology demo for the company's main products" clause. The point of Altavista was to demonstrate the power of DEC's Alpha chips. That made it politically unfeasible to adopt one of Google's key innovations, using large quantities of commodity hardware to power innovative new algorithms.
- davemel37 12y ago
  In my experience, PR and third party validation will build a brand, not advertising. I do agree that the person who wins the perception of being first in peoples minds will win the branding battle...but I do not agree that the second place competitors won't build strong, viable companies. In fact, there are many examples of big brands being overtaken by smart positioning. Avis claimed, "we are number two so we try harder." to overtake hertz. Enterprise overtook avis by differentiating itself with a different distribution channel (central biz district instead of airports) IF you aren't the first mover, you need to position yourself opposite the first mover and you will gain market share. This doesnt mean you shouldn't try. It means you should be smart about how people perceive your brand and your competitors.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    In my experience, rental cars are commodities. I search on their websites for the lowest price and go with that. On my last 4 trips I have used all four of Avis, Hertz, National, and Enterprise. If they're trying to build a brand, they suck at it. (I guess that what they have managed to do is distinguish themselves from no-name budget operators...I wouldn't really consider going with a rental car I haven't heard of, even if it's mentioned in the press. But then, that's validating the original article's point, first-mover advantage is immensely important, and no amount of spending is changing that.)
    - davemel37 12y ago
      You are right, They are commodities, and commodities are where branding matters most. I guess I should differentiate two types of brands. There are category defining brands (i.e. Kleenex, Xerox, Google) and there are recognizable brands. The fact that you dont differentiate between avis, hertz, enterprise, and national, but exclude rent-a-wreck, which is almost always cheaper tells me that the commodity you are convinced you buy in price, is in fact driven by your perception of those brands. Being first in peoples minds is the BEST way to build a brand, but it's not the only way. The fact that Enterprise overtook Hertz as number one, even though they were late to the game...and the fact that you don't buy from only one brand, tells me that being first mover is not the only way to win a market. Although,to be fair, enterprise was a first mover in the "central business district" car rentals. I guess my point is that every business has the opportunity to define themselves in their own category, regardless of market conditions. That is the job of your branding. To create the perception that you are first.

nostrademons 12y ago

That's true, but you also need a story about how you're going to grow your reach & influence faster than your competitor does. It can work, for example, if your main competitor is a hobbyist who doesn't take his product seriously. Ditto a major corporation for whom this is a sideshow that can't get resources from execs whose attention is focused elsewhere. But anybody can spend more money to tell more people about their product. This is not a competitive differentiator; if you do it, and the company who got to market first does it, they'll win simply through Gambler's Ruin, since they start from a bigger base.

coffeemug 12y ago
> This assumes that the entire market knows about a solution the moment a first mover comes to market. It doesn't. The first mover will start getting customers before you do, and as they do their ability to reach customers will grow exponentially. You might start reaching a segment of the market they aren't reaching, but they'll trivially be able to lock you out.
- davemel37 12y ago
  My argument is that it will take at least 2 years for any brand to lock you out. This post assumes that the moment the press knows about a market, it's too late. Plus, even if you are late to the game, you can position yourself opposite the market leader and overtake them.
- frandroid 12y ago
  Like Altavista locked Google out.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    Altavista falls under the "parent company believes it's an inconvenient sideshow, a technology demo for the company's main products" clause. The point of Altavista was to demonstrate the power of DEC's Alpha chips. That made it politically unfeasible to adopt one of Google's key innovations, using large quantities of commodity hardware to power innovative new algorithms.
davemel37 12y ago
In my experience, PR and third party validation will build a brand, not advertising. I do agree that the person who wins the perception of being first in peoples minds will win the branding battle...but I do not agree that the second place competitors won't build strong, viable companies. In fact, there are many examples of big brands being overtaken by smart positioning. Avis claimed, "we are number two so we try harder." to overtake hertz. Enterprise overtook avis by differentiating itself with a different distribution channel (central biz district instead of airports) IF you aren't the first mover, you need to position yourself opposite the first mover and you will gain market share. This doesnt mean you shouldn't try. It means you should be smart about how people perceive your brand and your competitors.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  In my experience, rental cars are commodities. I search on their websites for the lowest price and go with that. On my last 4 trips I have used all four of Avis, Hertz, National, and Enterprise. If they're trying to build a brand, they suck at it. (I guess that what they have managed to do is distinguish themselves from no-name budget operators...I wouldn't really consider going with a rental car I haven't heard of, even if it's mentioned in the press. But then, that's validating the original article's point, first-mover advantage is immensely important, and no amount of spending is changing that.)
  - davemel37 12y ago
    You are right, They are commodities, and commodities are where branding matters most. I guess I should differentiate two types of brands. There are category defining brands (i.e. Kleenex, Xerox, Google) and there are recognizable brands. The fact that you dont differentiate between avis, hertz, enterprise, and national, but exclude rent-a-wreck, which is almost always cheaper tells me that the commodity you are convinced you buy in price, is in fact driven by your perception of those brands. Being first in peoples minds is the BEST way to build a brand, but it's not the only way. The fact that Enterprise overtook Hertz as number one, even though they were late to the game...and the fact that you don't buy from only one brand, tells me that being first mover is not the only way to win a market. Although,to be fair, enterprise was a first mover in the "central business district" car rentals. I guess my point is that every business has the opportunity to define themselves in their own category, regardless of market conditions. That is the job of your branding. To create the perception that you are first.