Part 2: More on Bad Competitors...Silicon Valley is full of them
By Tom Foremski - May 9, 2006
There is a strange phenomenon that I've encountered and it seems other people have had a similar experience [I was talking with veteran UK journalist David Tebbutt (Thinkerlog blog) last night about this].
I will sit down to write an article on a topic and I know what I'm going to write....yet I end up with something completely different. It's as if I'm "thinking" through my fingers. Until I sit down and start writing, I never know what is going to be the end product because the act of writing can change the article.
So, with the "Bad Competitor" post on Monday, I've been engaged in some online debate on this topic and I've realized a few things. I've realized that Silicon Valley is full to the brim with bad competitors.
By bad competitors I mean other companies trying to commoditize your business while defending their core business, thus everyone is vulnerable to a bad competitor, someone that can provide a product or service at a fraction of your costs.
So for the newspapers, an excellent service such as Craigslist, which monetizes less than one percent of its business, is a "bad competitor." There is no way newspapers can compete.
And there are thousands of startups in Silicon Valley that would absolutely love to be the "bad competitor" in their target market. In fact, that has to be the base line for any startup--that it can provide the product or service that is ten times as good for one-tenth of the price. Okay, this is just my rule of thumb, but you get the picture, the startup's solution has to be massively compelling to overcome adoption/switching costs.
Bad competitor startups will succeed because what they have is so much better than what is available, it is a no-brainer. And that is the way capitalism works--money finds the path of least expense--if it is allowed to.
And so the future leads to a form of capital entropy. Anything that has a cost structure high enough, that can be attacked, will be attacked. Any business that has high profit margins is extremely vulnerable to attack by a "bad competitor."
But bad competitors are only bad to the victim companies--the market loves them because the customers benefit. However, after many millions, billions of these challenges to accepted business models, at some point, we will reach a interesting point in the evolution of our global society. We will have come to a point of maximum efficiency--what happens then?
Let me put it another way. About 12 years ago or so, I remember the thrill of interviewing Dr. Eric Drexler, one of the pioneers of nanotechnology. And the interesting thing was that Dr. Drexler was not much interested in the mechanics or the science of nanotechnology.
He said that the way our industries are progressing: manufacturing, chip industry, chemical sciences, biological sciences etc, we would get our nanotechnology society sooner or later. At the time, he estimated about 15 years. Clearly, it might be another 15 years from now, but whatever--it is not a long period of time.
What struck me was this: he said, what happens when we can make anything ten times better for one hundredth the cost? How will that affect our society?
And that is exactly the path we are headed--what happens when we can make any product or offer any service for one hundredth of the cost and at least ten times the quality? What kind of society will we have?
Clearly, it will be a society that will be completely and utterly alien to ours. It will be a society where not everyone will have to work, in fact work will have to be redefined completely.
Will it be a golden age or a frightful age? I don't know, but that's where we are all headed and we will probably see it in our lifetime...
« Top Silicon Valley execs are Out for Blood! Charity fundraiser starts online May 8 | Main | Open copyright - use as much as you want of my work »
May 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comment | Category: FutureWatch | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Tech Awards For Benefiting Humanity
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- SNCR Research: Social Media IS Influencing Business Decisions
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
- MediaWatch Analysis Part II: Google Has More To Lose Than Murdoch
- MediaWatch Analysis: Murdoch Will Negotiate Payment For Access To Basket Of Content With GOOG et al
- WeekendWatcher: The Sheer Number Of Things Will Devalue Them
- ChipWatch - Where Will The Next Generation Of Engineers Come From?
- Public Healthcare Could Cut Startup Costs And Help Spur Innovation
- Is GOOG's $750m AdMob Buy Strategic Or Dumb? An alternate view...
Comments (7)
Your "bad" competitors succeed because they target "bad profits" of the incumbents. Fred Reichheld, an authority on measuring customer loyalty, has a great post on "good" and "bad" profits at
http://netpromoter.typepad.com/fred_reichheld/2005/11/welcome_and_int.html#more
Also, in terms of "nano" CK Prahalad at the recent Software 2006 conference had a thought provoking speech on making money at the "bottom of the pyramid" - with the dirt poor in India, for example. See here
http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal_architect/2006/04/nanoeconomics.html
As you say, the concept is alien to us...but can you imagine laser surgeries at $ 50, PCs at $ 10 etc...
Posted: May 9, 2006 5:15 AM
The only constant in a market is economic inefficiency.
Posted: May 9, 2006 7:43 AM
What will the future be like?
Manna
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Posted: May 9, 2006 8:13 AM
"It will be a society where not everyone will have to work"...
...will still be lots of work to do in the metaverse...
Probably will be a sizable population without much physical work to do in Real Life, specially in the developed parts of the planet. I guess we'll be figuring out how to make our lives and world a better place in Second Life. The developing world will still be toiling a few more decades in Real Life. Maybe brains will start to look like this :)...persistently connected to the metaverse and going about working in that realm. So then, back to work...!
Posted: May 9, 2006 12:10 PM
It was good to spend time with you last night. Not enough for all the subjects we wanted to talk about.
Kind of you to mention me in the blog. You're right about 'veteran' but it sounds a bit ageist. I guess I'll get used to it. :-)
I'd like to suggest a minor tweak to your words:
"Bad competitor startups will succeed because what they have is so much better than what is available, it is a no-brainer."
I'm not sure "because" is correct. I'm sure there are some lousy startups with indifferent products and services. It reads to me as if "bad competitor" automatically means "better".
I've noticed a similar tendency in the arguments about the blogosphere and journalism. (A subject close to your heart. And mine.) A lot of people try to assert that blogs are better than MSM just because they're blogs.
Posted: May 9, 2006 12:12 PM
Fair point David. I was using Bad Competitor as describing a company that had already attained such a status although only one in 20 startups will get to be a BC...
PS: I could have used "old fart" instead of veteran :-)
Anyway, I think most of my colleagues in the media are very veteran, with 15 to 25 plus years experience. And there aren't that many able to replace them, I could get excellent first mover advantage if I could persuade them to join me...unfortunately journalists are extremely risk averse. This is a pity because now is the dawning era of the technology-enabled journalist, the Media Engineer! The days when Geek gods ruled the world are over--we have plenty of technology and plenty of geek engineers from an alphabet soup of countries. I thank them all for all the wonderful technologies, the super smart and super easy development tools (that even a journalist can learn in a weekend or so...) and the almost free server and bandwidth infrastructure. For $40 per month I have the publishing power of a small country.
Now it is about publishing: to and fro, ... Internet 2.0 is a push-me-pull-me technology that magnifies the value of the Internet tremendously. And that's where media engineers prove their worth: they produce and technology-enable the content. And you need great, compelling, original content to win. And astute use of technology to distribute, present, and involve people, and also create the exclusive, smoking hot compelling content ---will be a defining competitive quality of the new media companies, imho.
Posted: May 9, 2006 7:43 PM
If one combines cheap and plentiful knowledge, creativity and social interaction, the ensuing broth is rich.
It offers and endless supply of nourishment. Nourishment for the commons.
Is this our real worry?
Posted: May 10, 2006 6:00 AM