FOWA day two, then. Lots of learning for me, as many of the presentations had more of a developer angle. It’s stuff I’m interested in, but tend not to understand a lot of the time thanks to an arty-farty background. In general terms, I do not know my API from my elbow. I met and heard from a lot of people who do, though, and got filled in on the basics, fast.
One of the surprise hits of the day was Philip Wilkinson’s presentation ‘What Will Succeed and Fail in 2007?’ Surprising, not because Phil is normally rubbish, but because it was one of three short presentations voted onto the schedule by attendees after the ‘official’ speakers had all been booked. For those who don’t know, though, Wilkinson founded the comparison-shopping site Kelkoo (formerly ShopGenie) and has more recently launched a Web 2.0 style social shopping venture, Crowdstorm, and so you’d hope for some expertise on the subject matter. And why was it such a hit? Because he offered concise ideas and controversial examples. What follows is a paraphrase from my notes, and a couple of interjections where my opinion diverges from Phil’s.
Recognising the arrogance and nigh-impossibility of predicting sure-fire successes and doomed failures, it’s more reasonable to offer some criteria for what seems likely to bring success; a framework for a popular service, as it were. Note that in the list of hits and misses, these are examples of services failing under this particular criteria. A web app might fail on some of these and succeed on others.
1. Don’t roll out a clone of another product.
The second YouTube might be successful; but it’s not very likely to bring anyone $1.65bn of success. And if you are the seventh online calendar or the 22nd social bookmarking service, then you need to be offering something very much better than the leader to make an impact.
Hits: Netvibes, del.icio.us, flickr, photobucket.
[Counter-example: MySpace — definitely not the first social network, but maybe it launched at the right time to capture a wave of people who had broadband and a desire to use the Internet in this way?]
2. Simplicity is the key
Applications that try to do too much lose focus and fall between stools. Stellar successes do a single thing very well.
Hits: Twitter, flickr, StumbleUpon, YouTube
Misses: Odeo, hubpages, edgeio, 30boxes
[Counter-example: MySpace, again, doesn’t appear to be faltering despite its attempts to be all things to all users. Also, the Netvibes-style personalised homepage/RSS reader/search portal has dozens of functions and appears to me to be gaining ground.]
3. Don’t sell technology; sell user empowerment
Applications that are built for the readers of Techcrunch or for the development community might possibly get you the attention of a future employer, but won’t make your fortune. Don’t be a ‘technology tourist destination’.
Hits: meebo, spinvox, skype, eBay — all solve a proper, mainstream problem. They may have innovative technology, but that isn’t really the point.
Misses: Clipfire, Renkoo, wehanghere
4. Put the selfish individual before the social good.
Successful web-apps need to work for one user in order to get their buy-in and to start building a community. Network effects might add value, but they shouldn’t be the only value.
Hits: last.fm, del.icio.us, wesabe
Misses: 43 Places, Flixster, trustedplaces
[Counter-example: does last.fm belong on the ‘hit’ list here? My understanding is that it’s only through the presence of a community that the recommendation engine works? Also, my socialistic tendencies incline me towards the idea that people are naturally altruistic. The success of Yahoo! Answers would seem to confirm that — points and stars as your only reward.]
5. Don’t try a play if the big boys can copy you
The ‘big boys’ can presumably copy anything they like, but I guess that the point is that they can’t just take over your community. I’d guess that once you have a community then that becomes difficult to compete against. This would be why Google bought YouTube rather than just sticking with their own video offering, in my estimation.
Hits: digg, Facebook, YouTube
Misses: Metacafe, Kiko, wikio
6. Enter the Mainstream
Many, if not most, web applications appear to be built for the use and benefit of 20-something net-heads. Successful web apps will be able to ‘cross the chasm’ and get your parents using them.
Hits: Pandora, YouTube, Skype
Misses: last.fm, digg, del.icio.us
[Counter-example: the list here obviously courts controversy. Can any of those ‘misses’ really be counted as a failure? Also, I’d suggest that some of the people building vertical, Enterprise 2.0 applications will be failing all the way to the bank. However, I understand and appreciate Phil’s point.]
7. Ability to generate a large, loyal following
It stands to reason that some of the most successful Web 2.0 start-ups have enormously passionate followings. This sort of customer evangelism is clearly the best marketing that money can’t buy.
Hits: Threadless, last.fm, digg, flickr
Misses: Odeo, ecademy, flock
Share this post:
Wow, great write-up. There seems to be a lot of hits in one camp that are also misses in others. Some good considerations here, but as the hits and misses show (and as you point out) — it doesn’t really help other than providing more generalisations. Dead envious of your press pass.
I really enjoyed the event, met some cool people, learned loads and have lots and lots of posts for work stacked up. Can’t really complain at the price, Dave ;)
Great, see you at Mashup * and potentially Mix??
Mix? (nevermind, I’ll ask you tomorrow)
http://www.visitmix.com/
Well, if Microsoft’s PR team are listening, then perhaps. Otherwise, I’m stuffed!
Thanks for the write-up Ian. It was definitely fun to do and be controversial. It actually also goes to show how hard it is to really pin down a framework that works in every single case for every business — but at least its a start eh..
Ian,
These are great tips!
#4 “Put the selfish individual before the social good.” amd #6 “Enter the Mainstream.” I especially like because it shows that trying to please Techcrunch and the 20-something crowd and not the early majority and late adopters will limit your success.
Great write up, I enjoyed reading it. Im going to have to agree especially with “3. Don’t sell technology; sell user empowerment”. It seems that this is definitely crucial with spinvox and skype being great examples.
>The second YouTube might be successful;
>but it’s not very likely to bring
> anyone $1.65bn of success.
Not true. YouTube WAS the second YouTube. Or at least not the first. Google Video came before YouTube, and I’m sure some other video posting services did, too.
In fact your whole point #1 is mistaken.
Points 2 and 3 are great though.
Greate writeup!
[…] Your mainstream, my mainstream One of the things I love most about the blogosphere is that it’s an alternate reality with its own rules. Let’s say I ask your mama to tell me which of these two things is the more “proper, mainstream problem“: […]