Evan Williams on evaluating new product ideas:

The key question for evaluating an idea [on the topic of obviousness] is number one: Is it obvious why people should use it? In most cases, obviousness in this regard is inversely proportional to tractability. The cost of [xxx] and [xxx2]’s high tractability was the fact that they were defining a new type of behavior. The number one response to [xxx2], still, is Why would anyone do that? Once people try it, they tend to like it. But communicating its benefits is difficult. We’re heartened by the fact that Why would anyone do that? was the default response by the mainstream to blogging for years, as well, and eventually tens of millions of people came around. *

While we all understand that changing behavior is a tough proposition for any new product, establishing a new behavior is an entirely different beast with a different response mechanism and value proposition. Taking somebody from 0 to 1 (no to yes, or free to spending $1) is much different than taking someone from 1 to 2 (yes to a little more, or spending $1 to $2), since the decisions being made are fundamentally different.

Usually we can fall back on the “better, faster, cheaper” framework to evaluate an idea, but sometimes we can hit on idea that captures none of the three because the range of true substitute behaviors is so limited.

Therefore there is value in testing ideas in the marketplace. Not every idea needs to have a “proven business model” before it is launched or funded; for many industries and products this simply isn’t possible. The key is for the entrepreneur and the investor to understand the situation and structure their decisions appropriately.

There might be a lot of froth in the early-stage startup world right now: technologies masquerading as businesses, features mistaken as products, adoption and growth misunderstood as fanboy testing. But as long as the entrepreneur and the investor understand this, and stage their expectations, decisions and funding appropriately, what is wrong with testing?

Let the ideas and the intellect hit the marketplace: learn, test, refine, redirect, stop, redeploy. Let the creative cycle of creation and destruction flow…

* [xxx] and [xxx2] are Blogger and Twitter, respectively, both of which were started by Evan Williams. I removed the company names so that we could focus on the idea and not the products. Fact is we still don’t know the “right” business model for these products…

[Post to Twitter] Share on Twitter  [Post to Delicious] Share on Delicious 

Comments to “Why is it important to test ideas in the marketplace?”

  1. Ethan Bauley Says:

    I'm starting to think that there's two kinds of people: ones that understand this and ones that don't.

    Are there enough people who agree that we can ignore the rest? The opportunity cost to spending time persuading people might be too much to bear when the returns to collaborating with people who “get it” are so high and fast.

    ;-)

  2. Taylor Davidson Says:

    Ah, but giving up on people because “they don't get it” usually means you haven't found a way to communicate with them a language they understand.

    All depends on who you have to convince. If you need them, as customers, users, investors, employees, partners, then obviously ignoring is not an option. And if you don't need them for any of that… then you don't need to convince them in the first place :)

  3. Ethan Bauley Says:

    right, well i was imagining a situation [e.g. a startup] in which all the
    investors and employees [esp management] are starting from the same mindset
    and looking for measurement/opportunities/marketing through the lens that
    you and i might.

    still have to deal w/ customers, etc, but i also think that if you just “do
    your thing” and make something great no one needs to be convinced of
    anything.

    in particular i think the aardvark guys are pretty much in this situation…

    i'm really hungover so hopefully this makes sense ;-)

  4. Taylor Davidson Says:

    Agreed, agreed.

    In my mind it's a real option: by making small investments in hashing out ideas we're creating real options for larger investments.

    Thinking of time / resources / intellect / $$ as a staged, option-type set of decisions, it just makes too much sense not to test ideas with high option values.

Leave a Reply