Is it really all about *meeting* demand?

[memenode]

Something has been bothering me a little. Most of us seem to believe that to become successful in business we must think in terms of what the people want or need, or in other words, what the market demands.

But, while I continue to agree with that I'm beginning to think that it's not necessarily the only core thing to be concerned about. If it was really ALL about meeting demand then what about all of the innovations that happen which resolve problems which either weren't obvious to most people or weren't even problems in the first place, but the innovation simply made something more convenient, more fun or in any other way at least slightly better, and people actually adopted it.

If business people thought ONLY in terms of what the market demands TODAY, something tells me they wouldn't do a lot of what they're doing. We tend to brainstorm, be creative and come up with projects which are hard to classify in any particular category of demand, but we still believe they might have a chance.

Some would call it creating demand which doesn't actually yet exist. So maybe when talking about demand we should talk about both meeting demand and creating demand instead of only the former.

I understand that it's bad to think of only doing what you'd love to do regardless of whether it would actually serve anyone or not, like PhxMJ pointed out so I believe that we should think of BOTH what we want or are best at doing and of how will it serve others, but the "serving others" part apparently has two modes of operation. Serving an existing need or desire or discovering/creating a new one.

What do you think?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[djs13]

I don't think every successful business fills a dying need or demand. It's basic economics that when an economy is prospering the need for inferior goods decreases, thus bringing about brands like Lamborghini, Ferrari, etc.

I like Richard Branson's philosophy about just doing it better than the other guy. He started an airline in the UK because the biggest airline had a monopoly ran by a bunch of aristocrats. He put TV's in the heads of the seats and brought on an aggressive marketing campaign. He may have not solved a problem like alternative energy and rising gas prices which is a huge demand right now, but his philosophy obviously worked for him.

 

[Jill]

Not to over-simplify it, but I think that the sweet spot is where your gifts and interests intersect with that which the market wants/needs.

That's what you need to be doing.

 

[Russ H]

memenode-

Apple and Sony are famous for "creating a need, then filling it." Actually, Robert Kiyosaki did, as well.

Who ever said they wanted a graphical user interface, or a mouse-- before they'd ever seen one?

Who ever wanted a walkman-- or an i-pod before they'd experienced one?

RK created velcro surfer's wallets-- a big hit when they first came out.

So yes, you can create a need, then fill it. But you run a much greater risk of the masses not picking up on your "need".

Sony has failied-- spectacularly-- on a number of items in this category. Apple has, too (anyone remember the Newton?).

Finding a need then filling it is a much safer way of making money-- if you can do it faster/cheaper/better than the other guy, you can deliver a product to a large, established market.

According to RK, he wound up losing his company b/c he was not willing to make his product faster/better/cheaper. Others did, and took the market from him.

So RK created a need, but lost his market.

Something to think about.

If your focus is to do it better/faster/cheaper, then you can roll with the market and constantly improve your product, keeping up w/changes.

-Russ H.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[memenode]

Great posts, and I am especially honored by an advice of a former ebay manager.

I think the small startups with not much to lose are in the best shape to gamble with disruptive innovation, especially on the web. You start the site, invest some time, effort and money and if it doesn't work, sell and start over. No wonder most disruptive innovation comes "out of nowhere" and then grows to become a force to be reckoned with.

One of the latest and most obvious examples is Google. Though they too are slowly becoming an entrenched player and there are already attempts at revolutionizing search industry too.

I think I'll take both advices and both methods to heart as they both have their place, but somehow at this point, while I really would like a more "secure" start with something that fills an obvious demand, in all honesty I'm personally at odds with what would that be and more inclined to just come up with something and try it out.

That's mostly why I got to this question.. I can't seem to really identify a demand spot which I am really motivated to fill and when I think of business ideas I tend to go from myself and just brainstorm stuff. It's not that I don't want to come up with something that there's demand for, and I do tend to research whether there's a chance the idea would actually serve someone, but it's all relative.. you never know whether a particular need that doesn't exist right now wont exist once you start stimulating it with your product or service...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that embracing this disruptive innovation/creating demand thinking is not necessarily a rejection of PhxMJ's serving people's needs premise. It's a spectrum, not an either-or. The farther to the "create" demand end of the spectrum the more risk or potential, whichever it turns to be, and the farther in the opposite direction, towards "meeting" existing demand the less risk and more secure the business prospects desired, if executed right of course. So everybody's got to take their pick: greater risk but greater potential versus greater security but somewhat lesser potential (riding existing demands, existing paradigms etc.).

 

[AroundTheWorld]

I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember RK saying that it is important to always stand on the "edge" and look into the future.

Innovation, I imagine (I'm not much of an innovator) is similar.... aren't you looking into the future and projecting a future "need"?

On a more motherly note.... I'm back to my THINK theme. Is what you are about to say: Thoughtful? Helpful? Intelligent? Necessary? Kind?

Apple and Sony are famous for "creating a need, then filling it." Actually, Robert Kiyosaki did, as well.....

.....So yes, you can create a need, then fill it. But you run a much greater risk of the masses not picking up on your "need".......

.....Sony has failied-- spectacularly-- on a number of items in this category.....

.....Finding a need then filling it is a much safer way of making money--

Equals

- Be willing to ignore customer demand for incremental innovation in existing product lines;
- Be willing to fail spectacularly.

So no need for:

Actually, this isn't true.

Let's all please work on creating a spirit of cooperation and helfpulness here. Of course, we don't always agree with one another. But, we can be kind and tactful as we discuss our disagreements. And we don't always have to be right.

We are all teachers and we are all learners. Don't forget to play both roles.

 

[fanocks2003]

Of course it is all about meeting some kind of a demand. It could be covering a:

-Need (need of water, food, sex and other basic human needs. Survival stuff).
-Want (excessive stuff just to stand out or feel very comfortable).

And how do you know if something works? Market it and see what happens. "See what sticks". If someone buys, then probably there is a demand.

That is the basic stuff of commerce. I think a complex approach is unnecessary. If there is a demand, then there is a demand, Don't over-think it, is my advise.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[memenode]

Oh I agree AroundTheWorld. I think both approaches are good, depending on what you want I suppose or how you want to achieve something. It could also be that both are sometimes complementary.

For example, on the web, you could have multiple projects at once with one of them major and spent most time and effort on and being done to meet a need and another a bit more experimental and attempting to create a need or meet a future need.

But I am overthinking it and I can't seem to help it (I know, it's a lie, but I guess I don't know how yet). I have this idea, and I already got a domain for it, but checking google's keyword tool the main keyword for it isn't being searched more than 30 000 times which is way below the traffic goal I have for it, and so I'm thinking maybe it doesn't matter.. maybe if I do it right I will actually make people more interested in it, getting traffic elsewhere in the mean time.. I'm not sure.

I'm actually going back to the drawing board to see if I can incorporate something else into the idea or pick something else entirely..

Ironically, I'm at the same advocating experimentation and getting stuck in too much planning and analyzing... hmm