Marketers Create Products, Engineers Build Them
Andy Abramson has an excellent post on innovation and why some companies fail. I find that the number one problem with most technology start-ups is that they are started by engineers, not marketers. Engineers are wired differently and because of this they encounter many of the issues you describe above.
No offense to any engineers, but if you take a true look behind why “big” companies do a better job of marketing products, is because they follow a different process. For these larger companies, the marketing department, through r&d, and product development create the new products, not the engineering team. The engineering team is there to execute on the product the marketing team wants. They simply “build the product” to the exact specifications. It is then back to marketing for launch and then finally sales.
With most tech start-ups, there is a good idea, a product is built, and then it is dumped in the lap of a marketing person and agency, with a “go market and sell this.” The product is usually something that creator thought was great, but quite possibly is missing much in terms of the functionality and user experience. Something a marketer who is “in touch” with the intended user(s) would have pointed out and would have been corrected at larger firm.
Use Your Money to Build a Great Product Then Sell It Online
I disagree with Andy’s assessment of the internet as a poor distribution medium, especially for a start-up. Now much of this is dependant on the type of product or service, but one of the reason retail distribution is so expensive is that unlike online, there is a finite amount of shelf space. That shelf space has a hard cost, and brick and mortar retailers have to make sure that before opening up the shelf space to this new product, it has the potential to sell well enough to cover that cost and turn a profit. Because of this factor brick and mortars are extremely cautious as to what they add to their shelfs (just look at all of the people who have great products, but never get in Wal-Mart).
Online, once a basic website framework is constructed, the cost for me to add a page, or even replicate that site is nothing more then the cost of man hours. For a start-up that means more dollars to allocate to other channels (like making a good product great).
For Retail VoIp The Numbers Don’t Add-Up
As for retail VoIP, I have a bit of experience from the retail kiosk project that ran with Vonage here in Buffalo and I can tell you that there are some fundamental problems preventing the further growth of this channel.
- Consumers who are attracted by the “save money” pitch (which is the one that was/has been picked by VoIP providers) typically attracts consumers with low levels of both knowledge and experience of the internet. Sure, most of the people who actually use VoIP are college educated, and well paid, but that is because they can fully comprehend the technology. The vast majority of consumers you will encouter in a mall kiosk setting (or even at radio shack) just are not able to comprehend the technology. Not that it is that hard to comprehend, but from my own “market research” during the kiosk trial you wouldn’t believe how many people think AOL “is the internet.”
- Finding staffing that has the ability to effectively comprehend the technology and the ability to transfer that knowledge to a consumer, for say $8-$10 per hour plus a modest commission is difficult. Good luck finding enough individuals to make this happen on a large scale.
- Subscriber commissions. In the cell phone business, the average rate per user (arpu) is around $34-$40/month (and rising). Given that cellular companies force a one or two year contract, they can project “guaranteed” revenues of $400 - $500 per year from that new subscriber. There customer acquisition costs are based on this and retail partner commissions are calculated. These (from my friends still in that business) tend to range from $150 to $250 per subscriber, plus bonuses for other add-ons (like text, video, ringtones, etc).
For VoIP providers, the arpu has to be a tad below $24 per month, and given that none are currently requiring a one or two year contract, their customer acquistion costs need to be a bit more conservative and because the arpu is 30-40% less then that of cellular providers, they in turn are not able to offer the same sort of dollars for activation of new subscribers.
Why give shelf space to something that is harder to sell, harder to staff for, and is less profitable?