- Joined
- Jan 17, 2023
- Messages
- 244
Rep Bank
$1,275
$1,275
User Power: 189%
Hi all,
Brief background to my thought processes:
Instead of offering with my software e.g. project management solutions (should only serve as an example), I feel from a competitive point of view one approach is much more "suitable" to stand out from the crowd here:
1. project management software
2. project management software for lawyers
3. project management software for IP lawyers
4. project management software for IP attorneys in state XY
The 4th point could now theoretically be questioned in terms of its meaningfulness, but I think that my train of thought has emerged: the more in-depth I go, the easier it will be for me to offer incredible added value to precisely this target group. To offer sub-solutions that e.g. generic project management software does not offer. Also, the classic effect would occur that IP lawyers in state XY (4th option) will be much more likely to choose my solution, because it is tailor-made to their needs, than a generic solution (option 1 or 2). So far, so good. However, here comes my question now:
After I break down my niche further and further, the pool of possible, potential customers shrinks at the same time. Doesn't this strategy violate the Law of Effectiveness right from the start? In terms of scale, the answer is of course "yes". But I'm not so sure about magnitude, because I offer a lot more added value with my target-group-specific software than generic solutions do. I do see a price differentiation here, but I am not talking about multiple factors. By this I mean that if option 1 costs $10 per month, I may be able to double, triple or even quadruple that with option 4 and the increased added value, but I won't necessarily do "better" in an overall comparison between a large market with smaller prices and a small market with larger prices.
I see immediate scaling possibilities here, by making my solution available to other lawyer target groups (copyright, IT law, ...) in the future, but if we stay purely with my starting situation described above, where exactly only a micro-target group - if you will - is targeted, then I violate both variables of the Law of Effections to a certain extent, don't I? It might be different if, based on my solution, the said target group would pay me 20 times as much as I think. So, if I don't want to scale over more target groups, is my task to push the added value accordingly much higher, so that I can justify this factor and reach magnitude?
I look forward to your input.
Brief background to my thought processes:
Instead of offering with my software e.g. project management solutions (should only serve as an example), I feel from a competitive point of view one approach is much more "suitable" to stand out from the crowd here:
1. project management software
2. project management software for lawyers
3. project management software for IP lawyers
4. project management software for IP attorneys in state XY
The 4th point could now theoretically be questioned in terms of its meaningfulness, but I think that my train of thought has emerged: the more in-depth I go, the easier it will be for me to offer incredible added value to precisely this target group. To offer sub-solutions that e.g. generic project management software does not offer. Also, the classic effect would occur that IP lawyers in state XY (4th option) will be much more likely to choose my solution, because it is tailor-made to their needs, than a generic solution (option 1 or 2). So far, so good. However, here comes my question now:
After I break down my niche further and further, the pool of possible, potential customers shrinks at the same time. Doesn't this strategy violate the Law of Effectiveness right from the start? In terms of scale, the answer is of course "yes". But I'm not so sure about magnitude, because I offer a lot more added value with my target-group-specific software than generic solutions do. I do see a price differentiation here, but I am not talking about multiple factors. By this I mean that if option 1 costs $10 per month, I may be able to double, triple or even quadruple that with option 4 and the increased added value, but I won't necessarily do "better" in an overall comparison between a large market with smaller prices and a small market with larger prices.
I see immediate scaling possibilities here, by making my solution available to other lawyer target groups (copyright, IT law, ...) in the future, but if we stay purely with my starting situation described above, where exactly only a micro-target group - if you will - is targeted, then I violate both variables of the Law of Effections to a certain extent, don't I? It might be different if, based on my solution, the said target group would pay me 20 times as much as I think. So, if I don't want to scale over more target groups, is my task to push the added value accordingly much higher, so that I can justify this factor and reach magnitude?
I look forward to your input.
Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member:
Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)
Access Restricted: Unlock 1,000,000+ Posts
Stop Peeking Through the Keyhole.
Open the Door.
You hit a wall because the best advice isn't free—it's earned. Since 2007, MJ DeMarco has been active here daily (99.9% active rate), building a war room for entrepreneurs who refuse to settle for mediocrity.
- Active Daily: Life-changing content posted dozens of times every day. No dead threads.
- MJ's Inner Circle: Direct access to the author of The Millionaire Fastlane.
- Vetted Network: Connect with founders scaling to 7 and 8 figures.
- Proven Roadmaps: Strategy over motivation. Execution over "hustle porn."
"SCALED TO 6-FIGURE MONTHS"
"Tips and advice here saved me from huge mistakes, others allowed me to scale my business to 6-figure months."— User MitchC
"INSANE QUALITY OF PEOPLE"
"The number of high quality people I've met from this forum has been insane. All of it predicated on building real value."— User Richard Peck
"You are the average of the five people you surround yourself with."
Are you surrounding yourself with success?
