Post by account_disabled on Dec 8, 2023 22:41:36 GMT -7
The Innovator's Dilemma." It's a bit dry, but if you're interested in business theory and technology, it's an absolute no-brainer: you should read it. It describes two innovations hitting mature markets. So-called continuous innovation makes existing processes faster, cheaper or better. They can be very high-profile, but Professor Christensen's research shows that they almost always end up benefiting existing players in the market. The opposite of sustainable innovation is disruptive innovation, that is, innovation that solves a problem in a completely different way.
They are often less effective than existing solutions and may only solve part of the C Level Contact List problem, but the cost is structurally different. So they are cheaper but worse. Cheaper but worse doesn't sound very convincing, does it? This is what those in power think. They may identify a potential opportunity and may even pay lip service to the fact that they should pursue it, but ultimately, their financial incentives favor maintaining the status quo. Herein lies the dilemma. There is usually a small segment of the market that thinks a new service is good enough.
It may not be gold-plated, but it solves their urgent need and they can afford it. As they invest, it gets better and better, capturing more and more market opportunities, until it meets while still being structurally cheaper. Money cascades to new entrants, leaving established companies in trouble. Let's get back to cheaper but worse innovations. To me, this sounds a lot like the idea of building a brand online. Let’s take a look at the details: The established way to build a brand for a generation is through mass-market TV advertising and other classic online spend. Spending upwards of $100 million is not uncommon.
They are often less effective than existing solutions and may only solve part of the C Level Contact List problem, but the cost is structurally different. So they are cheaper but worse. Cheaper but worse doesn't sound very convincing, does it? This is what those in power think. They may identify a potential opportunity and may even pay lip service to the fact that they should pursue it, but ultimately, their financial incentives favor maintaining the status quo. Herein lies the dilemma. There is usually a small segment of the market that thinks a new service is good enough.
It may not be gold-plated, but it solves their urgent need and they can afford it. As they invest, it gets better and better, capturing more and more market opportunities, until it meets while still being structurally cheaper. Money cascades to new entrants, leaving established companies in trouble. Let's get back to cheaper but worse innovations. To me, this sounds a lot like the idea of building a brand online. Let’s take a look at the details: The established way to build a brand for a generation is through mass-market TV advertising and other classic online spend. Spending upwards of $100 million is not uncommon.