Last Friday morning, I had an opportunity to visit somewhere I normally wouldn’t go and met with a couple of cool people and had some very good conversations around Web 2.0.
We talked about many things, ranging from services like Twitter and FriendFeed to discussions such as naming all the ways that Web 2.0 properties can make money.
We also had an interesting discussion around Scoble’s conspiracy theory of a bi-polarized online world, led by Microsoft’s purchase of Facebook and Yahoo and keeping everything closed. In that unlikely (IMHO) scenario, it’s almost like half of the useful Internet is kept behind a hypothetical Microsoft walled garden, versus the other half, which is openly searchable, and mashable, led by Google and social networking aggregators such as FriendFeed.
Thankfully, neither of us actually thought or hoped that scenario would happen, and we agreed that a vast, free, and open web (like what we mostly have today) remains the best option for consumers in general.
However, that led to yet another interesting question that was posed to me: Because the open web is so vast and big and populated with so many other services and properties that do the same thing, how difficult is it for a new fledgling startup to compete with the rest of the open web for users and advertising dollars?
Well, my response was simple: In this day and age, any innovative and quality startup stands an excellent chance of being noticed. And once the right people notice your startup, the users and monetization will surely follow.
The reason is simple.
We have so many channels at our disposal today which makes it easy to get the word out and help others discover your content or service. Embarrassingly easy.
If I was a startup anywhere in the world, I am probably at most 2-4 degrees away from the “Great San Fransicso Echo Chamber” using tools like Twitter, FriendFeed, and even Facebook. And once you are in that echo chamber, your traffic should spike tenfold.
This is not even counting the dozens of niche channels you have at your disposal, such as specialty forums, blogs, content aggregators, or even sincere direct e-mail.
And the good thing is, not only are you desperately trying to get your word out, there is a cottage industry of social media evangelists who are desperately trying to discover new things as well. A match made in heaven indeed.
If you remember, the analogy in the year 2000 is that the Internet is like Yellowpages - in theory, everyone has a possibility of visiting your site, but only if they flip to the right page.
Eight years later, I would say that the Internet is like a Borders book store. If you are an author, you can easily get thousands of people to notice your book, but only if you know the right Borders staff who is arranging the display table next to the entrance.
And you know what? I bet things will only get easier in the future. I’m just waiting for behemoths like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, or even Facebook to start incubator programs where a startup will be (somehow) guaranteed a certain amount of traffic and publicity and other perks, in exchange for a percentage of their eventual revenues for a certain period of time. And they will make the sign up process as simple like AdWords, so that it’s going to be like one-click venture capital.
So if you are an aspiring startup today, your top priority should be focusing on making your startup “innovative” and “quality” before your public beta. Because if your service is crap, not only will people not promote you all the way to the echo chamber, but even if they do, you won’t be able to retain your early adopters.
Like in Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come. Just make sure you give them a reason to stay.
See Also:
- The Web 2.0 Startup Scale: from “Hatchlings” to “Borgs”
- No Firefox of Search? I’ll Settle for the iPod of Search Instead
- 3 Social Media Applications I Left Recently
Printer-Friendly Version
So agreed with you on the innovation and quality aspects. The innovation will kicks off the curiosity and sign-ups while the quality will help to create a stable and loyal user base.
However, Twitter defies the quality aspect. It’s not the most stable web services out there with many outages recently but that hasn’t turn many of it’s loyal users away. It has, for some reasons became a part of their social life online.
I believe Twitter has already bypassed the niche startup category and entered the lower end of the “alphadog” category of startups like Facebook did a couple years ago.
You know Twitter is at the “alphadog” level when, a) almost everyone you care about following online is using their service, and b) a cottage industry of services and applications sprung up around Twitter (Twhirl, TweetScan, TwitterFeed, etc.)
I guess when a startup is at that level, it can withstand an outage or two, provided that it shows that it is upfront with the community and that they are sincere about solving the problems. And to Twitter’s credit, that’s exactly what they are doing.
Thanks for the follow-up Jon.
True, all the more it is for startups to engage, listen and provide timely answers to it’s community. Open to communication. Launching a new service is only the beginning.
Hmmm… If the Old Media with loads of old cash is afraid of Google, then new startups should not wait too long to sell themselves or get a sugar daddy to stand behind them with a Heavy Machine Gun.
Basically grab the cash and start a new idea. Wait any longer beyond the critical mass or peak of everyone’s attention, the startup will be crushed ! The dotCom days are littered with dead companies.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-9946149-60.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Yeah, I agree… remember FuckedCompany.com?
But seriously, I respect the fact that a lot of startup founders are also idealists - they want to create something that makes a difference and see it grow to the end.
It will take a lot of convincing (and a lot of money) to get them to sell. And that’s how startups miss their exit windows.
I always wondered what would the social networking scene be like today if Friendster sold out to Google for $30 million in 2003. Would Facebook still be top dog today?
redherring too…
Red Herring evicted, looking for new home
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9949094-7.html
Friendster would need to radically revamp their system to beat facebook. But with Google, they may stand a chance…
If you notice Google has a lot of products/services but the rate of functional releases per product is rather slow compared to other Web 2.0 companies.
If the mega players are threaten by Google, don’t you think that smaller players will be crushed ? Accidentally or otherwise. Who can fight with FREE (they used to use it against Microsoft) but what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Everyone suffers.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_22/b4086085715448.htm
Google Stifles Innovation. All this largesse might be understandable if Google weren’t so nefariously bent on snuffing out progress. As Google hoards 70% of the lucrative U.S. search market, the company is using its heft and excess cash to promote free for free’s sake—a nihilist m.o. if there ever was one. We’re all the worse for it.
$0.02