Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Brazen careerist
Where ambitious young professionals connect and grow
Email
Print
I was worrying this morning because some of the things I'm working on now are not the first of it's kind and in social media, that can be bad. In the online world for the last year or so startups pop up every day touting the newest and best and after a while, you just assume that you must be first (or really close to first) to stay ahead of the game. For example, look at sites like Twitter or Facebook that rely on member numbers to stay on top and you can see why everyone's in a giant hurry to get people using their products. If you can come up with it (or steal it quickly), you're well on your way to success.
Look at websites like Skittles that do the online stunt first and get a ton of press/traffic/cool points for it.Who has done the Twitter feed stunt after Skittles? Lots of people. Can you name them? No.
Unless success isn't necessarily selling to Google or causing an online yap-fest.
What if success is looking at a particularly effective online initiative you've done and breaking out in a huge smile because it was great fun to come up with, achieved the goal, and it was well executed?
Then what?
Then maybe being first isn't what you want to be. I have found myself saying over and over the last few weeks the following statement: "You can do it fast or you can do it right." I don't know where I got this grandma-ism or why I've felt the need to repeat it about almost everything lately or if it's even true but I'm starting to believe it.
Maybe I just work really slow and need a good excuse.
This really worries me because businesses that make millions are generally first. Then I started thinking that it depends on the industry. Industries that have ideas and concepts at their core must be really good where inventions and tools must be first. Let's take a look:
Fashion - You must be really good. Sienna Miller wasn't the first to wear slouchy boots, she just wore them really well. And Kate Moss never really designs anything new now does she? The fashion forwards just come up with good concepts and total pictures regardless of whether or not they make them up.
Tech - first. If you build something new and exiting and people come and hang out there you win. Game over competition.
Marketing - You've got to be good. Bad marketing ideas fail to achieve the objective in a way that makes sense. Consistently good shops get the great clients and one hit wonder publicity stunt teams come and go.
I'm still not sure where I stand in the whole first or best feud yet but it's certainly an interesting concept to become re-aware of after spending time in a field that is blending tech and marketing so continuously that it's easy to see two camps emerging and how they are affecting business styles. Thoughts? First or best?
For more timely, relevant, and engaging articles,
subscribe to Brazen Careerist.
- The Anti-Stalker’s Guide for Converting Online Contact into Real World Collaboration
- Continuing Education: Extending Learning Beyond Your Campus Years
- How To Find a Writing Partner Who Can Help You Achieve Your Goals and Make More Money
- A New Kind of Business Mover and Shaker
- Why You Might Be Better Off Without a Job After College
Comments
07.07.09
I'm not sure about having to be first, but there definitely is a point of entry. Think of Google. It wasn't actually the first of its kind in any way. Yahoo, Excite, and other search engines were already around. But Google revolutionized the search engine, AND continued to build on that for all its side projects it has now. I don't think you could make a better search engine now and ever hope to achieve Google's success. Many have tried. Perhaps Microsoft's Bing has the best chance of regaining some of the market share, but even then it is just eating at Google's pie and probably can not hope to overtake Google in popularity, and has a distinct advantage in that it is a huge company with strong marketing capabilities and can include the Bing homepage with its operating system to lure new customers.
Similarly, the iPod was not the first mp3 player, the iPhone not the first smart phone, or foreign car companies didn't get their start in America until well after American car companies had an established customer base here. So yes you can compete, but you have to be offerig a product that is not just a little better but a LOT better, and depending on how easy your idea is to implement that means plenty of others have tried and still not overtaken the big players in the field.
07.07.09
I actually think its can be an advantage to not be first. Your competition defines the market for you, makes many of the mistakes you would have and validates the market. It can be pretty lonely being the first one to do something. Competition tells you and your market, not to mention investors, that others think your ideas is good too.
If you look at the Alexa.com top 20 highest traffic sites, pretty much only Twitter, Amazon, Youtube and Yahoo (debatable) were first movers. Google, Facebook, myspace, cnn and wordpress were all new companies coming into markets that others have already defined. I think you definitely right that its better to do something right than to do it quickly for the sake of being first.
07.07.09
Miles - Good point with Google and Bing, I feel like there's a certain critical mass of users that elevates a company to a point that competition doesn't really matter. Facebook has so many people that Myspace might as well just pack up and go home....
To your point, Facebook was just A LOT better.
Nathan - You're right, once the market is defined then we know it works, but then come the hordes of look-a-like start-ups all competing for the space. It would be lonely to be first-ish but I think the chances of success (sale) are still higher if you're in that first bunch.
07.07.09
I think you're right that you want to be in the first bunch, but I think the critical moment is being the first really successful one that makes the jump toward being mainstream.
07.07.09
Microsoft has proven you don't have to be first in the tech market to succeed. Think Excel over Lotus. Word over Wordperfect. Visual Basic over Turbo Pascal.
Same for Google, who came after Yahoo, AltaVista and a whole host of other search engines.
07.07.09
One of the best questions to ponder in a long time, and one businesses should be asking themselves in synergyzing their business plan/agenda in the market place.
For me unless your getting points for getting somewhere quick its usually about the quality...
As you noted every situation dictactes a different need...
Great question!
M
07.07.09
M - Thanks! Glad to hear other people are wondering as well.
Here's another thought I had today on this subject: If you're first and you're racing to be sold... how does this affect employment in those companies?
And what about the company on the receiving end of those start-ups that suddenly want quality over quickness from their new purchase?
Facebook has done a really nice job (minus disasters like Beacon) of adding quality points to its community.
Got Something To Say?
Got Something To Say?
Not a Member? Brazen Careerist is a career management tool for next-generation professionals. Set up a free account today to comment on this post and start sharing your ideas. Learn more.
Login to view your networks!
 |
|
|
|
|
