In a recent article in strategy + business entitled “the Value of Being Second,” Oded Shenkar, author of “Copycats: How Smart Companies Use Imitation to Gain a Strategic Edge,” introduces an excerpt on the wisdom of entering markets after first movers from “The Art of Being Unreasonable: Lessons in Unconventional Thinking,” by Eli Broad.

The myth of a first-move advantage is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.  The tech industry is especially ripe with examples of innovation which was more successfully brought to market by second (or even third) entrants. In the excerpt quoted, Eli makes mention of how Netscape introduced the first Internet browser in 1994, but that it was Microsoft who ultimately capitalized on the innovation.  A few examples I think of: TIVO introduced the first plug-and-play DVRs system, but it was ultimately the telcos and cable operators whom successful brought these to market.  Apple didn’t invent (or even introduce) the first MP3 player, but it was the iPod that made the category.

I think there several reasons why the first movers don’t always have the advantage – especially in the tech sector. As Shenkar points out, imitators, “get a free ride, avoid dead ends, capitalize on the shortcomings of early offerings or tweak the originals to better fit shifting consumer tastes.” I think there are additional reasons why innovators lose out to second movers.

First, second movers are often incumbents.  So while they might have initially missed that their clients wanted a given innovation they don’t miss it for long.  Because of the existing (and at times extensive) relationship they have with their clients they are able to more readily deploy a new offering and capture the benefits of  a new innovation.  I think that has certainly been the case with DVRs.  Cable operators recognized the opportunity and seized it.  They deployed the technology successfully by including it as an option within their existing markets in a way that was consistent and familiar with what their clients knew. Innovators are often small relative to their incumbent counterparts. They don’t have the reach of incumbents and so incumbents are able to more quickly deploy a new technology or offering.

Secondly, second movers often bundle a new innovation with existing technology or offerings and in so doing offer the end-user a more seamless experience.  Sticking with the DVR example, cable operators were able to integrate the DVRs with the set-top box and IPGs familiar to their consumers.  They were able to offer the innovation without adding another piece (ie a set-top box) that needed to be integrated into the customer experience.  In other words, one of the key value-adds of second movers is that they take on (and hence remove) the burden of integration.

Third, when innovators bring forth a truly revolutionary idea they are often confronting existing thinking head-on.  This confrontation is often responded to by legal action. Because first movers are often smaller and have less capital, these legal responses can be extremely burdensome.  First movers might not have the expertise, bandwidth, corporate depth, or financial resources to successfully mitigate these legal responses.

There are first-movers out there still holding onto a lead within their respective markets. NetFlix helped define the OTT market and still has an influential position. Netflix ended the third quarter with 25.1 million U.S. streaming subscribers – roughly one-in-five U.S. households. Twitter is still dominate within their corner of social broadcasting.  Square created a solution to enable individual users and organizations in accepting physical credit cards payments. Time will tell if these and other first-movers can overcome the hurdles that lie before those how first define new markets.

 

Yesterday I was Los Angeles to participate in an event announcing several new additions to Entertainment Matters at CES which is entering it’s third year at CES.  In 2013, Entertainment matters will feature a variety of events and conference sessions, including: TweetHouse Presents, Innovations in Social Business, Digital Hollywood, Content in the Cloud, Variety‘s Entertainment Summit: Film & Technology and the 2013 IAWTV Awards Gala. CEA also announced it is expanding its content-focused tracks by introducing a new conference track, Content and Disruptive Technologies. This new track will included five sessions:

You can start by reading more here:

Holiday 2012: Part I
Holiday 2012: Part II
Holiday 2012: Part III
Holiday 2012: Part IV
Holiday 2012: Part V

Last week Time provided a quick overview – much of which I covered in depth in my previous posts.  The article relies heavily on the report from Booz & Co.

The retail labor picture remains murky. Applications have dropped sharply since last year.

Kmart and Sears expect sales to increase 3.3 percent during the holiday season – roughly inline with overall holiday projections. Kmart and Sears are eliminating layaway service fees, starting a layaway home-delivery service and are employing new in-store mobile applications.  Staff carrying tablets will be able to check inventory, access product information and assist with checkout.  The company expects the 2012 holiday season to be the busiest shopping season since 2007.

Google turned me on to some interesting insights culled from Google Trends (formerly Insights for Search).  Here is indexed search volume for iPhone 5:

 

You can see searches for “iPhone 5” relative to all other search activity ramp heading towards the launch, peak near the launch, and then trail down relatively quickly.

Conversely, here is similar data for the Samsung Galaxy S3.

 

As you can see, searches for “Samsung Galaxy S3” has continued to rise overtime.  What’s perhaps most interesting – searches have risen since the launch of the iPhone 5. Perhaps these help explain this phenomenon:

http://youtu.be/ZKh68YfQYkE

Recent research from Pew shines light on the digitization of the news:

  1. consuming the news digitally now surpasses physically reading the news.  In 2004, 24 percent of respondents got their news digitally while today 39 percent do the same. Fifty-five percent of respondents said they watched the news on TV yesterday which is still the highest of any form, but is down from 68 percent in 1991.
  2. Only a third of individuals under 29 years-old watch the news on TV – down from 49 percent in 2006.
  3. Today almost one-in-five get their news through social networks – up from one-in-ten just two years ago.
  4. As you can see below, today more than half of the readers of the New York Times do so digitally and the similar figure is high for other major newspapers.

Stats #2 and #3 above taken together paint the most interesting picture of the future.  Now it is certainly true that as individuals age, their preferences towards things like broadcast news might change.  But I believe the first digital decade will have a profound impact on how news is consumed in the second digital decade.

The future generation of news consumers want something different from their news.  Given the rise of connected devices, individuals no longer need to sit through linear news for information like local weather and sports.  News going forward will be significantly more compartmentalized.  We’ve seen some of this with the rise of specialized and focused news services.

The digitization of news is also impacted by geography. News that is hyper-local is best delivered online because broadcast news by definition has to serve a broader market.

Portable devices with integrated GPS can deliver hyper-local news when it is most relevant.  So the time function becomes an important component of news delivery in the second digital decade.

Finally, curation and relevancy will be an important element of news consumption.  Facebook is a curated service where the individual user establishes parameters which dictate which streams of information they receive.  Increasingly, individuals get to dictate which news items are most relevant to them.