The First To Launch Is Irrelevant

Peter Drucker has an interesting viewpoint on business launches. He notes, “Astute business competitors actually can succeed by electing not to be first in the market, but in allowing someone else to do the groundwork and make mistakes first.”

I first saw the reference in the William Cohen book, The Art of the Strategist. (If you are even mildly into strategy, it is a great read)

This poses an interesting dilemma. Is it safe to be the second to launch?

So many people ask the question, “Why hasn’t it been done before,” when they should be asking, “How are you going to make it better.”

This is a difficult question to answer for a lot of entrepreneurs. There are so many big players in the marketplace. How can a basement startup trump a Google?

I think the question has to do with branding. There is always the first launch. The first one to the marketplace. I am not sure what the first MySpace-like site was, but they obviously luanched badly. How do I know that? Look at the reference I used… Better yet, you knew what I was talking about.

Or Google. Google didn’t invent search, but I don’t here anyone asking me if I msn’ed myself recently!

The internet comprises an amazing list of opportunities for someone like you and I. Cost of entry is so low. Developers are young and ambitious. Ideas are flowing. But is it worthwhile to launch first?

My answer is no.

In order to succeed, you have to be the first company to truly add value for a customer, client, whoever. You have to answer a problem they have. Your service needs to fill some vacant need that a user has, whether they know they have the need or not.

The first to launch is irrelevant. Be the second company to launch, but the first to identify a need.

No related posts.