- Thread starter
- #30
Update as at Wednesday 5 September 2018:
--------------
Shout Outs
Before I start the substantive update, may I please give a shout out to the following gentlemen (in the truest sense of the word) who have either taken the time to follow/reply and indeed direct message me with motivation/advice and inspiration:
@FastNAwesome - your words got me through a tough couple of days and gave me hope; thank you
@SteveO - my original cheerleader on different topics both personal and professional
@Get Right - for taking the time to explain I should focus on Idea 1 & 2 rather than Ideas 3-6; consider your advice followed
@MTEE1985 - a supporter who makes me want to provide him with the success story at the end of all this
Now that I've stopped sounding like a gushing Oscar winner...
-----------------------
Update on Idea 1
1. Please expand on why CAD file/prototype is unnecessary. He said I need to determine interest (he was impressed with my market research so didn't question whether market existed and said my demonstration of the improved product (I have a very rough prototype that I'm cannibalising to demonstrate what I am trying to achieve) was very good. What particularly persuaded me not to produce CAD file is that he said it would be a waste of money if it turns out that the manufacturer (i.e. the company's manufacturer) can't use the CAD file to produce using existing machinery etc. Conclusion: no need for CAD file. I can do a rendering (virtual) to demo the product or provide sell-sheet as teaser for interest & demonstration of the effectiveness/improvement of the product.
2. Approaching companies: Here I felt I knew more than he did although I don't disagree with the standard approach for other types of industries. In the sector relevant to me, there are essentially 3 big conglomerates that are dominant market players. Think of them as a top co. with a stable of brands that consumers think are 'individual brands' when they are not. There is one conglomerate that basically owns about 30 brands in its stable. In the luxury/fashion example it would be LVMH which has Gucci, Dior, Marc Jacobs, Givenchy etc. all of which the average consumer would assume are 'independent' brands but are in fact all owned by LVMH. So the consultant's approach was: you can't just go to 3 companies; you should aim for 30. I explained that I had no problem with approaching 30 'companies' except they are all owned by 3 companies - just the brand is different!! So I will approach the development departments of 3 companies who can then assign the idea/product to the right brand/company that they see fit. I could not care less which they assign to as long as they pay me the money! I'm not emotionally attached to any of the brands or think the product should go to a particular brand. The one who pays me the most is the one who gets it.
3. Protecting IP/Filing PPA - He told me what I already knew: file in the UK/USA only. I asked him about worldwide protection and he said big companies rely on distribution (crush the competition by getting first to market with our wider distribution channel) rather than rely on worldwide patent. This makes sense to me and is in line with what I see with clients from my day job.
Next Steps:
1. Approach the companies I have in mind (unlikely to happen before Sunday as I'm back to back at work tomorrow and Friday so I will chase on Monday/Tuesday as I have time). I'm going to need to refine my pitch because one client could definitely introduce me to all the right people (she's basically in an adjacent but inter-connected sector and is very high up in all the industry bodies) but I've got to ask a colleague if he would be OK with me approaching her on a personal rather than professional basis.
2. Refine the design slightly more in terms of explaining the components - I knew more about my product than the licensing guy. I learned the components of the product and their technical names/nomenclature but felt I need to now re-translate it for a lay person to make my 'pitch' more efficient.
Idea 2 Update
My change in tack feels right on this front: look at reducing manufacturing costs rather than gaining expertise/working with experts to think about a material that we'd essentially have to invent or if it exists, to invent change in use both of which would be fine if I had all the R&D money/time in the world but I don't! Licensing guy focuses solely on licensing so can't help. Bearing in mind my paranoia about protecting IP - I want to be able to approach a maker of the product and say can we work together to identify reduction of costs and how to make it happen. But I have no idea how to go about that because at the moment only 'artisans' produce the product (partly explaining its high cost) so we'd need to find out how to reduce costs by scale but that is only one component. I need to think on this one further because I don't yet have next steps. I may approach the example I gave in an earlier post (different sector to mine but same principles could apply). They are very wealthy entrepreneurs and I could just do a cold approach to see if they'd be interested in working with me on this one as consultant/partner.
That's all for this week and realistically until next Wednesday given my diary/work commitments. I hope to have some tentative progress with companies to report next week
Your questions/thoughts/advice/"Stop! Don't do that's!" are appreciated as ever
--------------
Shout Outs
Before I start the substantive update, may I please give a shout out to the following gentlemen (in the truest sense of the word) who have either taken the time to follow/reply and indeed direct message me with motivation/advice and inspiration:
@FastNAwesome - your words got me through a tough couple of days and gave me hope; thank you
@SteveO - my original cheerleader on different topics both personal and professional
@Get Right - for taking the time to explain I should focus on Idea 1 & 2 rather than Ideas 3-6; consider your advice followed
@MTEE1985 - a supporter who makes me want to provide him with the success story at the end of all this
Now that I've stopped sounding like a gushing Oscar winner...
-----------------------
Update on Idea 1
- Second company provided a much more reasonable proposal for CAD file - circa $4000USD but this includes producing prototype rather than the original company who quoted circa $14-$16000USD to produce just the CAD file for someone else to then prototype manufacture!
- I had a useful initial meeting with the licensing consultant. I had drafted 3 specific questions to form the agenda of the meeting to maximise time. They were:
1. Please expand on why CAD file/prototype is unnecessary. He said I need to determine interest (he was impressed with my market research so didn't question whether market existed and said my demonstration of the improved product (I have a very rough prototype that I'm cannibalising to demonstrate what I am trying to achieve) was very good. What particularly persuaded me not to produce CAD file is that he said it would be a waste of money if it turns out that the manufacturer (i.e. the company's manufacturer) can't use the CAD file to produce using existing machinery etc. Conclusion: no need for CAD file. I can do a rendering (virtual) to demo the product or provide sell-sheet as teaser for interest & demonstration of the effectiveness/improvement of the product.
2. Approaching companies: Here I felt I knew more than he did although I don't disagree with the standard approach for other types of industries. In the sector relevant to me, there are essentially 3 big conglomerates that are dominant market players. Think of them as a top co. with a stable of brands that consumers think are 'individual brands' when they are not. There is one conglomerate that basically owns about 30 brands in its stable. In the luxury/fashion example it would be LVMH which has Gucci, Dior, Marc Jacobs, Givenchy etc. all of which the average consumer would assume are 'independent' brands but are in fact all owned by LVMH. So the consultant's approach was: you can't just go to 3 companies; you should aim for 30. I explained that I had no problem with approaching 30 'companies' except they are all owned by 3 companies - just the brand is different!! So I will approach the development departments of 3 companies who can then assign the idea/product to the right brand/company that they see fit. I could not care less which they assign to as long as they pay me the money! I'm not emotionally attached to any of the brands or think the product should go to a particular brand. The one who pays me the most is the one who gets it.
3. Protecting IP/Filing PPA - He told me what I already knew: file in the UK/USA only. I asked him about worldwide protection and he said big companies rely on distribution (crush the competition by getting first to market with our wider distribution channel) rather than rely on worldwide patent. This makes sense to me and is in line with what I see with clients from my day job.
Next Steps:
1. Approach the companies I have in mind (unlikely to happen before Sunday as I'm back to back at work tomorrow and Friday so I will chase on Monday/Tuesday as I have time). I'm going to need to refine my pitch because one client could definitely introduce me to all the right people (she's basically in an adjacent but inter-connected sector and is very high up in all the industry bodies) but I've got to ask a colleague if he would be OK with me approaching her on a personal rather than professional basis.
2. Refine the design slightly more in terms of explaining the components - I knew more about my product than the licensing guy. I learned the components of the product and their technical names/nomenclature but felt I need to now re-translate it for a lay person to make my 'pitch' more efficient.
Idea 2 Update
My change in tack feels right on this front: look at reducing manufacturing costs rather than gaining expertise/working with experts to think about a material that we'd essentially have to invent or if it exists, to invent change in use both of which would be fine if I had all the R&D money/time in the world but I don't! Licensing guy focuses solely on licensing so can't help. Bearing in mind my paranoia about protecting IP - I want to be able to approach a maker of the product and say can we work together to identify reduction of costs and how to make it happen. But I have no idea how to go about that because at the moment only 'artisans' produce the product (partly explaining its high cost) so we'd need to find out how to reduce costs by scale but that is only one component. I need to think on this one further because I don't yet have next steps. I may approach the example I gave in an earlier post (different sector to mine but same principles could apply). They are very wealthy entrepreneurs and I could just do a cold approach to see if they'd be interested in working with me on this one as consultant/partner.
That's all for this week and realistically until next Wednesday given my diary/work commitments. I hope to have some tentative progress with companies to report next week
Your questions/thoughts/advice/"Stop! Don't do that's!" are appreciated as ever