Kawasaki on Why Your Startup is Dead if You Can’t Enchant(firstround.com)
firstround.com
Kawasaki on Why Your Startup is Dead if You Can’t Enchant
http://firstround.com/article/Kawasaki-on-Why-Your-Startup-is-Dead-if-You-Cant-Enchant
10 comments
I agree with what you are saying 100%. Exactly what I have done in the past.
But I think that this might be harder for some people to do than others. That is to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger to gather intel. In a sense it's really social engineering. And it takes practice. Luckily there are plenty of places to stop into and to gain experience at no cost. No amount of reading (or Guy Kawasaki ismns) will get you to the same place.
But I think that this might be harder for some people to do than others. That is to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger to gather intel. In a sense it's really social engineering. And it takes practice. Luckily there are plenty of places to stop into and to gain experience at no cost. No amount of reading (or Guy Kawasaki ismns) will get you to the same place.
Years ago it would have been terrifying for me. I had to change.
"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it." - Nelson Mandela
If a person doesn't think they can execute despite their fears, then being in business for themselves is not for them. Fear never goes away. At best it gets replaced by new fears.
"I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it." - Nelson Mandela
If a person doesn't think they can execute despite their fears, then being in business for themselves is not for them. Fear never goes away. At best it gets replaced by new fears.
Agree on whole comment and about the need to connect with customers, but there is a subtlety with this line I would ask you caveat:
> Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.
You're right, but unfortunately there are a lot of instances where the data initially shows otherwise. One naive way of looking at Google glass, for example, is that the early adopters did want wearable computing... and from that conclusion other electronics manufactures should make more types of wearables: watches, pedometers, shoes, etc. Surprise, surprise... many of the wearables have failed (looking at you Samsung) despite based heavily on the initial market research because they didn't actually do anything useful.
> Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.
You're right, but unfortunately there are a lot of instances where the data initially shows otherwise. One naive way of looking at Google glass, for example, is that the early adopters did want wearable computing... and from that conclusion other electronics manufactures should make more types of wearables: watches, pedometers, shoes, etc. Surprise, surprise... many of the wearables have failed (looking at you Samsung) despite based heavily on the initial market research because they didn't actually do anything useful.
Isn't that just failing to listen to the customers you talked to? As in, they got half of it right - they talked to customers. They just didn't get the listening part right.
In the case of wearable computing, customers didn't say they wanted to wear their phone on their arm or strap a phone to their heads. They wanted hands free, no fuss, error free access to information. Same market as stuff like Siri or Kinect. The problem is simply the implementation. Trying to tap on the little watch screen is god awful. Trying to get Siri to understand what you want as soon as you try to ask for something useful is almost impossible. The implementation falls down hard - hard enough to be unusable.
Same thing for mobile browsers. I remember really wanting a pocket version of internet explorer because of how useful it would be. Actually using it on the old Windows Mobile devices was basically impossible though because the implementation was terrible and unusable. Today however, I use my mobile phone's browser all the time because the implementation is good. There was nothing wrong with what I was asking for - quick pocket access to the web - but there was a lot wrong in what Microsoft thought I wanted - a handicapped version of their web browser that didn't work.
Talking is not listening or understanding. Wearable computing will definitely be a major hit once someone works out a good implementation.
In the case of wearable computing, customers didn't say they wanted to wear their phone on their arm or strap a phone to their heads. They wanted hands free, no fuss, error free access to information. Same market as stuff like Siri or Kinect. The problem is simply the implementation. Trying to tap on the little watch screen is god awful. Trying to get Siri to understand what you want as soon as you try to ask for something useful is almost impossible. The implementation falls down hard - hard enough to be unusable.
Same thing for mobile browsers. I remember really wanting a pocket version of internet explorer because of how useful it would be. Actually using it on the old Windows Mobile devices was basically impossible though because the implementation was terrible and unusable. Today however, I use my mobile phone's browser all the time because the implementation is good. There was nothing wrong with what I was asking for - quick pocket access to the web - but there was a lot wrong in what Microsoft thought I wanted - a handicapped version of their web browser that didn't work.
Talking is not listening or understanding. Wearable computing will definitely be a major hit once someone works out a good implementation.
I would upvote you, but alas new to posting here.
Yeah, agree that listening was the culprit. I guess what I'm saying is that many of the young people hear "I want a mobile version of my browser" and go off to build the windows CE version based on your literal desires. The fix to that doomed behavior isn't better listening, per se, because that connotes if you hear every word you understand what the customer really wants.
Most great products address an unarticulated need. In many ways, these unarticulated needs are NP Complete: They are hard to find solutions in polynomial time but are extremely easy to verify.
Yeah, agree that listening was the culprit. I guess what I'm saying is that many of the young people hear "I want a mobile version of my browser" and go off to build the windows CE version based on your literal desires. The fix to that doomed behavior isn't better listening, per se, because that connotes if you hear every word you understand what the customer really wants.
Most great products address an unarticulated need. In many ways, these unarticulated needs are NP Complete: They are hard to find solutions in polynomial time but are extremely easy to verify.
I'm not sure that's really any different. Google advertised Glass ahead of time with a very strong message: quicker and easier capturing of fleeting moments. You don't take out your phone, hit the power button, unlock the screen, find the camera app, wait for it to respond, focus, snap, tap the preview image, tap the share icon, scroll through the list of apps, tap the Facebook icon, tap "share". You say "take a picture". You say "share on Facebook". It's 100% "please, no, not more computing".
Glass' success is tied to delivering on that core premise. If Glass is currently not fulfilling it, then its popularity is strictly in being a status symbol, meaning it's ultimately a fad, a fashion statement (that's probably why you don't really see it on the east coast). Without fulfilling that promise, it's doomed in its own time as well.
Your examples absolutely will be failures and it is for this reason. Pedometers and wifi enabled shoes, the way I've seen them implemented, cause the user to have to do more work. The user can't just put them on and run and forget they are there and their running will improve. The user has to configure it with their system. Then they have to remember their login every time they want to look at their charts. Figure out how to make sense out of the chart. Should they be running farther, or would pushing faster be better? A graph of distance over time doesn't tell you that. The product creates distracting work for the user and THAT is why it fails.
Make that pedometer upload to a server and have a physical trainer email the user personalized instructions on how to improve their running every week and you have a pedometer that means something to users.
Glass' success is tied to delivering on that core premise. If Glass is currently not fulfilling it, then its popularity is strictly in being a status symbol, meaning it's ultimately a fad, a fashion statement (that's probably why you don't really see it on the east coast). Without fulfilling that promise, it's doomed in its own time as well.
Your examples absolutely will be failures and it is for this reason. Pedometers and wifi enabled shoes, the way I've seen them implemented, cause the user to have to do more work. The user can't just put them on and run and forget they are there and their running will improve. The user has to configure it with their system. Then they have to remember their login every time they want to look at their charts. Figure out how to make sense out of the chart. Should they be running farther, or would pushing faster be better? A graph of distance over time doesn't tell you that. The product creates distracting work for the user and THAT is why it fails.
Make that pedometer upload to a server and have a physical trainer email the user personalized instructions on how to improve their running every week and you have a pedometer that means something to users.
I agree with what you're saying, but 100% of my experience with small business owners is arrogance. They could care less about changing their way of doing things. This is the biggest challenge to get past. With the inability to see the root problem as the real problem, solutions are useless.
They ultimately do admit their problems or else POS wouldn't be a thing at all, we'd still be using hand-cranked cash registers.
There is a reason they are a small business owner and not an employee of a similar business across town. They love their work and they want to steer the ship. I don't think you can even lump in "they want to get rich", because most of the small business owners I know make a middling-to-low, middle-class income.
So yes, part of being that person who thinks they can be in charge is that they tend to be arrogant. They probably have reason to be. They probably got told by everyone around them that opening the town's 10th pizza shop was a stupid idea, they should just stick to law school like their father. And yet somehow a small town can support 10 pizza shops! When you get to disprove your detractors, it tends to make you feel like you know everything.
The trick is learning how to work that attitude. You don't approach such people with "buy my product, do more work, and we'll tell you what you're missing". You approach them with, "how would you like to spend more time at home?"
There is a reason they are a small business owner and not an employee of a similar business across town. They love their work and they want to steer the ship. I don't think you can even lump in "they want to get rich", because most of the small business owners I know make a middling-to-low, middle-class income.
So yes, part of being that person who thinks they can be in charge is that they tend to be arrogant. They probably have reason to be. They probably got told by everyone around them that opening the town's 10th pizza shop was a stupid idea, they should just stick to law school like their father. And yet somehow a small town can support 10 pizza shops! When you get to disprove your detractors, it tends to make you feel like you know everything.
The trick is learning how to work that attitude. You don't approach such people with "buy my product, do more work, and we'll tell you what you're missing". You approach them with, "how would you like to spend more time at home?"
[deleted]
Not directly related to this particular article, but these First Round Review posts are fantastic. No affiliation with First Round here, but I highly recommend subscribing to their newsletters if you're at a tech company. Whether you're a junior engineer or a senior business exec, there's something for everyone:
From board meetings (http://firstround.com/article/The-Secret-to-Making-Board-Mee...)
...to equity grants (http://firstround.com/article/The-Right-Way-to-Grant-Equity-...)
...to product thoughts (http://firstround.com/article/42-Rules-to-Lead-by-from-the-M...)
They're really nailing it.
From board meetings (http://firstround.com/article/The-Secret-to-Making-Board-Mee...)
...to equity grants (http://firstround.com/article/The-Right-Way-to-Grant-Equity-...)
...to product thoughts (http://firstround.com/article/42-Rules-to-Lead-by-from-the-M...)
They're really nailing it.
[deleted]
I was kinda iffy going into this article: I like Guy Kawasaki's stuff a lot, but it can tend to be a bit on the fluffy side, and "enchant" is one of those words that sends shivers down my back. Still, the actual meat and bones of his definition of 'enchanting' is solid and goes into a level of granularity significantly more actionable than "figure out a way to get your users to spend ridiculous amounts of time on your app, just like Twitter and Facebook did."
I think we've moved into the post-enchantment era, where non-enchanting, ping-anxiety is king. People are addicted to the social feedback.
Those are not the kind of customers you want, long term.
You only need them long enough milk a few billion dollars out of some other sucker.
I found it interesting that I agree a lot with the title and disagree a lot with all the rest of the article.
First: "There are studies funded to measure hand firmness and eye contact because they're indicators of authenticity and enthusiasm."
Really?? I understand the importance for the CEO to be likable, even if he is an asshole. Steve Jobs had that precisely because of his authenticity and enthusiasm. But why make such an effort on faking it if you can be it?? What a sad life to fake evey handshake. Authenticity must need a bit of practice, because we are kind of trained to "lie to please". But with some diligence, one can start to be a little more self-confident and authentic, caring less about others might think (see that this the exact opposite of faking handshakes?). And enthusiasm should be natural too. If you are not enthusiastic with the product you are creating, you shouldn't be creating it. Or at least you should expect and accept that it will no "enchant" anyone and work hard to be just profitable.
If I understood it correctly, the first part of the text tell to "dress to match your audience" and practice your handshakes in order to be more authentic. In other words, go through a great length of faking to be authentic. That was just a weird advice.
I will try to enchant, be authentic and enthusiastic by rejecting every advice Kawasaki gave here. I think it is the logical thing to do.
First: "There are studies funded to measure hand firmness and eye contact because they're indicators of authenticity and enthusiasm."
Really?? I understand the importance for the CEO to be likable, even if he is an asshole. Steve Jobs had that precisely because of his authenticity and enthusiasm. But why make such an effort on faking it if you can be it?? What a sad life to fake evey handshake. Authenticity must need a bit of practice, because we are kind of trained to "lie to please". But with some diligence, one can start to be a little more self-confident and authentic, caring less about others might think (see that this the exact opposite of faking handshakes?). And enthusiasm should be natural too. If you are not enthusiastic with the product you are creating, you shouldn't be creating it. Or at least you should expect and accept that it will no "enchant" anyone and work hard to be just profitable.
If I understood it correctly, the first part of the text tell to "dress to match your audience" and practice your handshakes in order to be more authentic. In other words, go through a great length of faking to be authentic. That was just a weird advice.
I will try to enchant, be authentic and enthusiastic by rejecting every advice Kawasaki gave here. I think it is the logical thing to do.
I agree. I'd say the real lesson to learn here is to be _observant_ of your handshakes and other social acclimates. All of those things will appear confident if you practice awareness and true fulfillment and backing of what you are doing. Deception and deceit, ulterior motives, are what _kill_ genuineness. So put your mind in the positive zone when meeting potential partners. They may want to take you for a ride but probably less so if they like you. And thus, perception without deflection, is a true rule of executive sportsmanship.
[deleted]
As head of SW Engineering for that video company offering the rev split, I just wanted to point out that the Eepybird video linked earlier in the article (Diet Coke and Mentos fountain), actually launched exclusively on Revver and financial reward was one of the big motivations for their decision to release it on Revver instead of Youtube. In fact, they filed numerous DMCA takedowns for all the unauthorized uploads to Youtube. There are numerous other examples of the same occurring with other creators.
While I do agree that financial motivations are usually less compelling than social and ego-driven motivators, there are times in an industry's evolution where they do matter, especially in trying to establish a new professional class. Would Lyft, Sidecar, and UberX drivers exist for fame and glory alone?
Revver was about a lot more than the just the rev-split - we were building an open network that rewarded video creators for their efforts and sought to let them to make a living performing the craft they loved.
While I do agree that financial motivations are usually less compelling than social and ego-driven motivators, there are times in an industry's evolution where they do matter, especially in trying to establish a new professional class. Would Lyft, Sidecar, and UberX drivers exist for fame and glory alone?
Revver was about a lot more than the just the rev-split - we were building an open network that rewarded video creators for their efforts and sought to let them to make a living performing the craft they loved.
I liked his practical comments on how to manage upwards. Execute for your boss, do quicker prototypes, and give bad news fast.
Yes, you don't often find articles directed at underlings on HN. That's old school Napoleon Hill.
Some of the best client service advice I was given was along this vein. "If you want the client to trust you, do everything they give you a little better and a little faster than they expect. They will trust you with more work, and eventually will trust your advice."
If you liked this article, you should also check out his hour-long talk at Stanford (March 2011) which touches on many of the same topics while going into a bit more depth:
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2669
http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2669
People still listen to Kawasaki after he became a human spam-bot on every social media outlet?
Much of this is great advice and I really like the idea of the pre-mortem.
The only issue I have with this article is the point about not going to the C suite. I think that can be true of many services, especially ones that are free or low cost so that the users are actually building the momentum and can adopt the product at their level.
Where it falls short is when you need a strategic partner or if you are looking for a big enterprise sale. The middle and lower levels provide the execs with the validation and market fit but don't have the authority to make those kinds of purchases, so you are largely wasting your time if the executives are not in the room.
The only issue I have with this article is the point about not going to the C suite. I think that can be true of many services, especially ones that are free or low cost so that the users are actually building the momentum and can adopt the product at their level.
Where it falls short is when you need a strategic partner or if you are looking for a big enterprise sale. The middle and lower levels provide the execs with the validation and market fit but don't have the authority to make those kinds of purchases, so you are largely wasting your time if the executives are not in the room.
Kind of interesting, considering that PageMaker got killed by QuarkXPress, and Aldus is no longer with us.
And the rest of the advise in here is just pat. People will be more likely to buy from you if they like you? You don't say! You should anticipate problems ahead of time? Well I'll be!
Why is your business failing? It's probably because you don't understand your customers. It's probably because you never talked to them in the first place. Here is an exercise that actually works: go outside. Go to the nearest local business you can find. Talk to a person who works there, bonus if it's the owner. Browse the store. Introduce yourself. Make up a story about being new to the neighborhood and needing a shower head or something if you have to. Get them talking about themselves. Ask them how long they have been there. Establish a repoir. Pay attention. People will tell you the problems they have. They are always looking for a solution. Just listen, and you will discover it. No, you can't do it from your desk. Get on your feet and go outside. In half an hour of talking to a real, potential customer, you'll have more good business ideas than from 6 months of sitting around with your partners brainstorming ideas.
Then do it again. Make this your Saturday morning habit. Go to every coffee shop or dog grooming business or what have you in your area and talk to anyone you can. Be "that" guy who talks to strangers in public places. It works.
I'll even save you a little time and tell you what people don't want: They don't want computers. Whatever they like doing, it's most likely not anything called "computing" and they just want more time to do that thing but find themselves too often distracted by "computing" to do it.