Posts Tagged ‘in-market’

Part 2 – What is the difference between “In-market buyers” and for “buyers with a problem that is yet to become a market”

February 8th, 2014

In-market – if your industry is half-way through its lifecycle, there may be a lot of buyers who don’t realize there is a category out there for their problem. Or, they don’t see the painful issues they are dealing with in their business as related to the industry. Or, they think they need to build their own homegrown solution to the problem. In short, they may have the problem, but the short-hand is not helping them connect to the industry/category, let alone to your approach to solving the problem. You need to be able to build a problem elevator that connects what they are experiencing to the solution you provide. Take to the basics, build bottom-up from the problem and their experience rather than category down through your feature differences.

Continue reading “Part 2 – What is the difference between “In-market buyers” and for “buyers with a problem that is yet to become a market”” »

Disrupt, Displace, Bleh. Semantics, right? WRONG

February 4th, 2014

I got interesting feedback from my post yesterday. I used very deliberate language to segment a disruptive technology versus a better displacement technology. It was interesting because the people who were in the midst of go-to-market planning immediately gravitated to the difference and the impact on their planning, but those who were involved, but not actively working on a market strategy didn’t see the theorectical difference. I thought I would explain why this was so critical and how it can change your adoption curve dramatically on both sides.

First, let’s clarify what disruption means versus displacement from a buyer’s point of view. Almost all technology companies seem to see this as the same from their perpective hence the go-to-market is the same. “We are going to disrupt the market and displace the leading competitor with our better technology.”

Yes, BUT…. that is from a vendor’s perspective. From a buyer’s perspective as it relates to their adoption, disrupt and displace has tremendous impact on whether they buy or not. Disrupt is perceived as disrupting our current operational processes. The more disruptive, the harder the adoption.

Continue reading “Disrupt, Displace, Bleh. Semantics, right? WRONG” »

5 Leading Questions for Disruptively Innovative Companies

December 15th, 2013

If you haven’t read my last post Innovators Dilemna http://www.socialgastronomy.com/?p=1939, this post is going to be a nice list of questions that are nice to think about in your spare time; between 9:02PM and 9:17pm on Sunday night after the kids go-to-bed and before your prep for the week.

If you have read that post, you will be coming to the conclusion that you need to fix buyer adoption NOW. Its not a nice to fix, but a must fix if we are going to monetize this amazing technology we created. You have come to the uncomfortable realization that nobody buys technology these days. They buy solutions to fix major problems that they cannot fix on their own. Must have purchases or die. You are NOT in the technology business, but in the MUST FIX OR DIE business. So, with that said, what are the 5 leading questions that you MUST FIX OR DIE for your Disruptively Innovative, but Complex business?

1. How do we find more opportunities? In-market would be nice if we ACTUALLY had a market yet, but we need a more effective way to scale finding more pre-market opportunities before our sales team runs out of people in their networks.

Continue reading “5 Leading Questions for Disruptively Innovative Companies” »