Cater to a Niche

A guy I know in the NY Tech scene asked me for advice on his new application and the market for it. It occurred to me that he's built a great utility that could be used for many different purposes. You might say he's built a platform in a particular category that makes it easy for just about anyone to launch a service in this medium.

He hasn't given me the go ahead to mention his company...that's why I'm being opaque.

Point is: Being a platform (think: Twitter, Blogger, YouTube) is a formidable goal, however, it's hard to accomplish and doesn't succeed as often as niche plays. The target market needs to understand what they can do with the service. Remember, people don't want tools; they want what the tools can do for them. (Reminds me of the expression: People don't want drills, they want the hole it makes.) Defining the target market for people makes it easier for them to understand the fit. For instance, don't just say it's a communications platform; tell us that it's an innovative way for teachers to communicate with student. Cater to a niche.

Finding the niche market and succeeding in it is easier. And if need be, the same underlying technology can be applied to other niches later.

It reminds me of the expression, "Jack of all trades, master of none." When you're trying to solve a problem, you want an expert, not a generalist. The same holds true for products (IOW, people want the right tool for the job).

Attention, That's the Point

Image via WikipediaQuite often the pitch you get or the pitch you receive asks for your time. "Could you spare 30 minutes to meet with me to discuss...", or "I just need 5 minutes of your time to show you the value of our service".

But it isn't time. It's attention.

In this age of distraction and "multi-tasking" (a misnomer, but that's another post) it's not easy getting someone's attention. But the point is, it doesn't matter how much time you have been granted. Make sure you get their attention and use that attention wisely to make your point.

For instance, don't write a long email describing your product if your intent is to get a meeting. A long email is a "homework assignment",  and no one likes homework. Keep the email brief, grab their attention with a genuine statement, and ask for the meeting. Once you have the meeting (and their attention), then you can tell them more.

Realize that when most people say they're too busy to meet with you or they're too busy to advance your project, it's not because of a shortage of time. It's that there are too many things that demand their attention - and the perceived benefit you're presenting does not justify attention.

So, if you're not getting attention, fix the perception (are you not articulating it effectively?) or fix the benefit (does your product need improvement?). 

Thanks for your attention.

Related Articles I Chose With Zemanta's Help...

• Multi-tasking is a waste of time! (gabrielcatalano.com)
• Yes, Virginia, there is attentiveness (roughtype.com)
• Warning: Your Attention is Under Siege (blogs.hbr.org)

The Many Versions of the "Free" Business Model

There's been a lot of buzz of late regarding the use of "free" in business models. With Chris Anderson's recent book Free, and the ever popular "Freemium" model among internet marketers. And let's not forgot the troubles that many publishers are having reconciling their decisions to offer their content for free online. What I've witnessed is a lack of distinction between different uses of free in business models, and some folks jumping to the conclusion that just because there's a free offering, that it must be some new phenomenon.

Don't get me wrong, the Freemium model is a very valid and compelling model in my opinion.  I'm just pointing out that not all models that incorporate free are Freemium.  Here are a couple of examples...

Free, like a Metro newspaper
No surprise, free newspapers that you can pickup in the subway or around town are advertising supported. The "money flow" in the business (advertisers paying publishers) is disconnected from the customer base (the readers). More readers does indeed boost advertising revenue, but there's no effort in this model to extract cash from readers.

Free, like Twitter
Many internet companies offer free services, such as Twitter and Facebook. In addition to advertising (like the example above) these companies are looking to leverage their audiences by charging businesses for use or exposure to that audience. Again, the customer base is not being asked to pony up cash. (and this isn't to say that these guys won't go the Freemium route later, or that they have no business model).


Free, as in Freemium
Free in this model is used as a "tasting" that leads to a portion of the userbase upgrading to the premium version. This is one way that LinkedIn makes money. They offer a great service that needs lots of users to sign-up in order for their model to work (which is another reason to offer a free service - their model wouldn't be too useful if there was no one in your professional network) and a portion of the users pay for their premium offering.

So, if you're thinking about applying a marketer's favorite word ("Free") to your business model, make sure you have a clear understanding of the different versions and implications of free business models.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Monetize The Audience, Not The Content (avc.com)
• Chris Anderson Discusses the Free Business Model, Promotes Upcoming Book (techcrunchit.com)
• Not All "Free" is Created Equal (cloudave.com)
• Vanity Fair, and Anderson vs Anderson (paul.kedrosky.com)

Pair Programming: An Interesting Model

Image by lumaxart via Flickr

I read an article by the NY Times Online this past weekend and it really resonated with me. It's all about "pair programming" where two software developers work side-by-side, one as the "driver" and the other as the "navigator". Here's how the author defined it:

One person does the actual writing, or coding, and the other person checks it, corrects it and offers suggestions as it's being written. Programmers, or software developers, refer to these roles as driver and navigator.

At first, as the author points out, it would seem that this is two people doing the job of one person - and thereby an inefficient use of human resources. But as it turns out the end product is of such a higher quality that less resources are spent later in fixing bugs and such.

And it got me thinking that there are a lot of disciplines within business that could benefit from this concept. Quite often we work on our own to "develop" business plans, sales strategies, marketing objectives, or product roadmaps.  So, pair programming is just the implementation of the collective intelligence (a.k.a., "two heads are better than one") making these end products better.

But this shouldn't be taken to the extreme, otherwise you end up with "death by committee".  That would be taking collaboration too far because too many voices restrict the flow of innovation unless strict discipline is enforced. I think creative juices flow better when there are just a few people involved at a time and they recognize that it's an evolving discourse; you don't need to have all the answers going into it.

You also don't look so foolish when you're thinking out loud if there's someone else in the room with you.  :-p

Related articles by Zemanta

• Preoccupations: For Writing Software, a Buddy System (nytimes.com)

How I Use Twitter

Image via CrunchBase

I follow interesting people and not so interesting people (some of my friends :-p ) on Twitter.  I won't get into a whole explanation of what Twitter is over here. If you don't know, get a quick education on their site and at oh, about a million other places on the web.

People use a lot of different third-party applications, on their desktops and on their handheld devices to participate in Twitter.  I've tried a bunch, and this isn't intended to be a review of any of them, but more so a peek into how I use Twitter.

Shocking as it may be to some of my geeky friends, I actually use SMS on my BlackBerry to follow the most interesting Twitter conversationalists and friends. It's just a handful of people and brands that I follow in this manner. However SMS is probably by far the most common way that I post tweets to Twitter.

I have TwitterBerry and TweetCaster on my BlackBerry, and use them mostly to pick up @messages. Still not sure which one I like better. The later is more feature rich, but the former is more responsive as an app.

I've stayed away from the third-party apps on the desktop because I know they would immediately consume more of my time than I'd like. So I check in once in a while, taking a sip from the hose, on the Twitter website itself.

Now, that's mostly the mechanics of how I use Twitter. I actually use it to hear about interesting news from the people that I follow and click-through to the interesting things they've written and discovered on the web.

I use it to discover interesting articles linked to by the people I follow.  And as a way to easily communicate with friends and colleagues.

To me, the most powerful aspect of Twitter is the professional implications - and maybe that's why their recent valuation was at $1B - money in them thar hills.  I use it to find professionals that I need to reach for my job. LinkedIn is a powerful tool for finding WHO the people are at a particular company, but you can't easily communicate with them on LinkedIn (unless you pony up the cash for their premium account). On Twitter, you can communicate with them - albeit in public - but it's just a conversation opener.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Social Media Is Changing The Rules For CRM (networksboise.wordpress.com)
• Social Media and The Reality of Control (altitudebranding.com)

Chasing Your Competiton = Suicide

Image by Got Jenna via Flickr

It's widely accepted that you should never say that you have no competitors when giving a presentation to investors or business professionals. The theory goes that if you're the only one who has thought of this idea, or similar ideas, then it's probably not a good idea. Some form of competition validates what you're doing.

But that doesn't mean that you should spend too much time focused on what these competitors are doing. I think you should be aware of what they're doing, but never let their actions and features inappropriately drive your strategy. If you do, you're just a copycat - a follower instead of a leader.

And chances are you're not doing or planning the same exact product or feature-set as these "competitors". You must be doing something unique and innovative, otherwise where's the value in what you offer? So, you'll want to do it differently than your competitors IF you want to do it better.  Reminds me of this quote (attribution unknown):

"Different isn't always better, but better is always different."

And if you're doing is differently (and hopefully better), then you should not be copying your competitor. That's just lazy and closed-minded.

Irritate, Innovate, and Iterate

Image by andercismo via Flickr

I recently said this to someone in regard to product design, and I'm not sure if it's original or not. But it hit the spot:

You don't have to pay attention to the details, just don't be surprised when your competitor does.

I think it's really important to nit pick - to find things that could be improved upon, even if only marginally. Doesn't every little bit count?  Focusing on little things may sound trivial, but little changes (especially in the copy text and UI of software used by thousands or millions of users) can make a big difference.

And what does it say about your company if your product clearly shows a lack of focus on the details? Don't get me wrong, sometimes we only have the resources available to address the "big issues" and focusing on the little one's is irritating. But innovation doesn't always involve big ideas and big plans.