Who Makes More Money ... THE ME TOO's or THE INNOVATORS

23 replies
Question?

Do you have to be the first in to make serious money in IM?

I am moving into this niche (already work in a bunch of none related niches).

So my question is about scope ... do you have to be a product pioneer to make it or can you create and make similar offers (not just talking about recycling crapola).

Would be interested to get peoples views.

John
#innovators #makes #money
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Murphy
    The "ideal" situation would be to be an innovator, but that brings about 2 problems:

    1) Your innovation won't be proven so it will be a tougher sell (best hone your copywriting chops"
    2) It's tougher to innovate than it is to replicate

    I don't say duplicate because that's lame but look at all the WSO's and Guru launches. It's all been done before and not much is innovative.

    The things is that better versions of things come along.

    As long as your stuff is better, you're in good shape.
    Signature
    Guitar PLR - New MONSTER Guitar Video PLR Pack![LIMITED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588253].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author George Wright
    The recyclers make the most. There is nothing new under the sun.

    We are breathing the same air and drinking the same water that the first animal used. It's all just freshened up a bit.

    George Wright
    Signature
    "The first chapter sells the book; the last chapter sells the next book." Mickey Spillane
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mclauchlan
    John,

    There are many people that try to be a pioneer and a trail blazer, but blazing your own trail is high risk, and I don't have the time to waste risking failure.

    While a certain amount of trail blazing is required, I prefer to venture along proven paths making things better than before and succeeding.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588334].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarah Russell
    I think that, realistically, about 1 in 1,000 (probably more) of the innovators wind up successful. There are very few new ideas, and most of those posing as new ideas are really just those that other people have tried and not succeeded with.

    In comparison, the number of duplicators that succeed is much higher, but the payoff is likely going to be lower for the 1 in 1,000 who succeeds with a new idea.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588383].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rapidscc
    Honestly, I think both as long as they keep on keeping on...

    Remember Microsoft was once a me tooo and Apple was an innovator..

    Both are rich these days right?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MichaelHiles
    There are two kinds of innovators: those who invent solutions to problems that don't necessarily exist in the minds of a buyer, and those who create solutions for people who are actively looking to solve a problem.

    The ones who solve a problem and then try to find people with that problem are the ones who have a tougher time.

    I am friends with a lot of engineers who spend time solving huge engineering problems - genuine issues from an engineering perspective. But these advances are usually so great that it takes a very long time for enough potential customers to recognize their need to build a viable company around the solution. These are the stereotypical, broke inventor types. I currently know where there are at least 700 core technologies sitting on the shelf at a university, all being interesting and neat sciences, but none of which have actually been successfully commercialized.

    There aren't quite as many engineers who actually go to the market first, and then address the active concerns of the potential customer base. The ones that do are called... wealthy.

    One guy I know spent time talking to a heart surgeon at a party. The surgeon described a problem that he had with some surgical procedure. The engineer thought he might have a solution, so he built a prototype and went back to the surgeon. They got together with a group of doctors to discuss the solution, and after a couple rounds of adjustments, the engineer not only had a viable product, but built in customers who also became investors in his company. The firm grew to about $25 million a year in sales and was sold to a giant medical device manufacturer for close to $100 million, netting the founder about $40 million in cash and stock.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588482].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jonathan Denney
      Originally Posted by MichaelHiles View Post

      There are two kinds of innovators: those who invent solutions to problems that don't necessarily exist in the minds of a buyer, and those who create solutions for people who are actively looking to solve a problem.

      The ones who solve a problem and then try to find people with that problem are the ones who have a tougher time.

      I am friends with a lot of engineers who spend time solving huge engineering problems - genuine issues from an engineering perspective. But these advances are usually so great that it takes a very long time for enough potential customers to recognize their need to build a viable company around the solution. These are the stereotypical, broke inventor types. I currently know where there are at least 700 core technologies sitting on the shelf at a university, all being interesting and neat sciences, but none of which have actually been successfully commercialized.

      There aren't quite as many engineers who actually go to the market first, and then address the active concerns of the potential customer base. The ones that do are called... wealthy.

      One guy I know spent time talking to a heart surgeon at a party. The surgeon described a problem that he had with some surgical procedure. The engineer thought he might have a solution, so he built a prototype and went back to the surgeon. They got together with a group of doctors to discuss the solution, and after a couple rounds of adjustments, the engineer not only had a viable product, but built in customers who also became investors in his company. The firm grew to about $25 million a year in sales and was sold to a giant medical device manufacturer for close to $100 million, netting the founder about $40 million in cash and stock.
      That's a great example of how to be an innovator.
      It's really these 4 main steps -

      1. Notice a problem that people face.
      2. Determine where those people would go to solve that problem.
      3. Create a solution.
      4. Offer that solution where those people go to solve their problem.

      I hear Eben Pagan talk about this all the time.

      Apparently, successful innovators are the ones who knew of the problem before they created their solution.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588568].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
        This is what I do and it has always worked for me.

        I look to see what's already out there and what people want and then I try
        to think of a way to improve on it or put my own little twist on it.

        I honestly don't think I've ever "invented" anything in my life as far as "make
        money" products, but I do believe I've put my own unique spin on them
        which is why they have been successful.

        On the other hand, I came out with a totally unique product in the "occult"
        niche that, for all practical purposes, has bombed. I've made maybe half
        a dozen sales.

        Why?

        Because people weren't ready for it. And believe me, I marketed the hell
        out of this thing. In fact, I did more marketing for this product than for
        any other product that I've ever created by leaps and bounds.

        Will I ever try to "invent" something again?

        Not in a million years. The risks are too great. And unless you are into
        the technical niches like the one Michael talked about with the heart stuff,
        it's unlikely that there is a problem out there that there already isn't a
        solution for.

        Certainly there are more ways to "make money" than you can shake a
        stick at.

        So I prefer to follow trends, see what others are doing and then see how
        I can do something just a little bit better, or maybe do the same but sell
        at a lower price point.

        Something to differentiate myself from the other "me too" folks.

        That's all it takes...just something a little different.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588601].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HorseStall
    Its an interesting question WinZip was a Me Too while PK Zip was an innovator, today WinZip is the market leader. It takes more than innovation...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588487].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mangozoom
      Originally Posted by HorseStall View Post

      Its an interesting question WinZip was a Me Too while PK Zip was an innovator, today WinZip is the market leader. It takes more than innovation...
      Good example ... maybe some innovators don't know how to market well. Which means if someone else who does comes in to the market who can package and sell a product will do better.

      John
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588503].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jonathan Denney
    Replicators have to compete, innovators only really have to create. It depends on what you're good at. If creating is your thing, create. If competing is your thing, compete. Simple enough.

    A good example is Apple, with their Ipod products.

    They created the Iphone, then Verizon and Sprint immediately started working on their versions of it. Verizon came out with their "Android" phone and Sprint came out with their "Evo" phone.

    I often see Verizon's and Sprint's commercials on tv and a lot of other advertisements. But what's interesting is that I've noticed that Apple doesn't promote their phone as much as Verizon and Sprint do, but far more people have Iphones than Droids and Evos combined.

    This is due to the simple fact that Apple was the first to create this type of phone, therefore they are the innovators and the market leaders. Since Verizon and Sprint "replicated" Apple's Iphone, they spend a lot more time competing, while Apple simply works on something new so they can again, lead the market.

    And here's a good quote about this subject - "They can copy where I've been, but they can't copy where I'm going."
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588536].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mangozoom
    So in summary Steve you are an Innovative - Me Too!

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588615].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stephen Bray
    Well I think the question is ill formed. It's possible to make money by being a 'Me To' or an Innovator but those who make most money are undoubtedly both.

    Rich Schefren for example had a training in accountancy, business experience within a consultancy and as a proprietor. He eschewed the 'me too' of becoming another accountant or generic consultant and instead honed down into a place where he identified a number of individuals making good money. They were Internet marketers and he said 'Me Too!'


    His genius however was in leveraging his core skills in business consultancy and applying them to a niche market, (high level IMers).


    Jason Fladlien, a popular member of this forum, has done something similar. His core skill is writing and he just markets the hell out of it. Rightly so, I think, because his copywriting skills are outstanding given that he is apparently self-taught.


    Notice both of these examples differ from the ways in which most IMers attempt to make their fortunes. I am referring, of course, to affiliate marketing. In this sense both are innovating, they provide strong and helpful information that is often at odds with mainstream opinion.


    This attests not just to business acumen, but also an attitude which sees life 'as it is', beyond the range of the hypnotic hype and trances that cause so many would be IMers to fail.


    Stephen

    P.S. I know that Schefren and Fladlien are effective affiliate marketers, my point is that their ability to market their own, and the products of others, is due to both their ability to say 'Me Too' and also to innovate whilst doing so.
    Signature
    Send me a DM, or visit my support desk to contact me: http://support.stephenbray.com
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588653].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      There's a third option besides Innovation and Replication - Evolution.

      Take something invented for one application and adapt it to a new application.

      Often, the true innovators are more focused on innovating for the sake of it than they are on cashing in. So they come up with amazing things.

      Take GPS, for example. At its heart, GPS is nothing more than the same type of celestial navigation used for centuries - the difference being mainly in using satellites for reference points rather than stars. Sophisticated radio receivers and electronic calculators and databases rather than paper charts, sextants and rulers.

      The evolutionaries have adapted that technology to everything from finding fish to crossing town to finding lost children and stolen cars. And they are making, collectively, billions.

      Look at marketing, a practice as old as the caves. Marketers took what the old time masters learned about direct marketing and evolved it for the Internet. Currently, some are evolving coupons and advertising and applying what they've learned to cell phones.

      When you are a pure copycat, many times you end up as a commodity competing with other copycats, and your main competitive point of attack is often price. Seems like there's always someone willing to race you to the bottom...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588806].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rts2271
        In 1987 myself and 2 other programmers created a product that powered 95% of the BBS communication software. We made a moderate amount of money, nothing fancy. In came a company called AOL who purchased the software and rights and we made a small chunk of change. It went on to power their entire AOL communications protocol for 12 years. We innovated, they manipulated with some slight innovation and turned it on it's ear and banked. We were dumb techs with no marketing skills, they had marketing teams and brilliant engineers who took our work to the next level.
        Riches from innovation only come if you understand the problem for the end user you are trying to solve and can show the end user that it actually solves the problem.

        The biggest issue now is not innovation, it's attention span.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588914].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kevin AKA Hubcap
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        There's a third option besides Innovation and Replication - Evolution.

        Take something invented for one application and adapt it to a new application.

        The evolutionaries have adapted that technology to everything from finding fish to crossing town to finding lost children and stolen cars. And they are making, collectively, billions.
        Great point. Another point is when you do this generally the base technology has mature enough. It's inexpensive to license and the major kinks are worked out.

        There's not much difference between an automobile, aviation, and marine GPS (really just programming).

        There's no reason one unit couldn't switch between these functions but its more profitable to segment and specialize.

        You can stand alone or you can stand on the shoulders of others. Which makes you taller?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588917].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Benjamin
      Originally Posted by Stephen Bray View Post

      Well I think the question is ill formed. It's possible to make money by being a 'Me To' or an Innovator but those who make most money are undoubtedly both.

      Rich Schefren for example had a training in accountancy, business experience within a consultancy and as a proprietor. He eschewed the 'me too' of becoming another accountant or generic consultant and instead honed down into a place where he identified a number of individuals making good money. They were Internet marketers and he said 'Me Too!'


      His genius however was in leveraging his core skills in business consultancy and applying them to a niche market, (high level IMers).


      Jason Fladlien, a popular member of this forum, has done something similar. His core skill is writing and he just markets the hell out of it. Rightly so, I think, because his copywriting skills are outstanding given that he is apparently self-taught.


      Notice both of these examples differ from the ways in which most IMers attempt to make their fortunes. I am referring, of course, to affiliate marketing. In this sense both are innovating, they provide strong and helpful information that is often at odds with mainstream opinion.


      This attests not just to business acumen, but also an attitude which sees life 'as it is', beyond the range of the hypnotic hype and trances that cause so many would be IMers to fail.


      Stephen

      P.S. I know that Schefren and Fladlien are effective affiliate marketers, my point is that their ability to market their own, and the products of others, is due to both their ability to say 'Me Too' and also to innovate whilst doing so.
      I could have saved me the trouble of writing my response
      by simply giving you a nod of approval, lol. This is what I
      was trying to get across.
      Signature
      **How I FLIPPED $80 into $690 Pure Profit With ONE EASY Method...2 to 3x Per Week...Only 30 Minutes Per Day (and how YOU can COPY my RESULTS, too!) **CLICK HERE FOR VERIFIED VIDEO PROOF**
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2589366].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mangozoom
    Hi John

    I think your comments about being a pure copycat sum up my concerns nicely. It sounds too me like it is possible to take an existing concept, add value and make money in the IM market.

    John
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588916].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author youssefedwardsaber
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2588960].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Stephen Bray
      Originally Posted by youssefedwardsaber View Post

      you have not to make the prodcut, you can just promote a product to make money online. it is called internet marketing
      Yes you can promote a product to make money on-line, but first you need to have a relationship with a loyal following if you really are going to cash-in.

      It's possible, of course, to re-brand an existing product as Bill Gates did with DOS, selling it to IBM which effectively made it the operating system most used for many years. That's marketing too.

      rts2271 writes a similar story earlier in this thread.

      But I think there is a distinction between techies and innovators. Whilst techies may be inventors innovators are, in my book, those who see an opportunity to provide what people are really asking for in new ways.

      They're not revolutionaries, but as JohnMcCabe writes 'evolutionaries'. Any new paradigm always starts with the previous way of doing things. The computer uses a typewriter keyboard layout, despite people predicting its demise for over ten years. The video sales letter owes more direct response than it does to Powerpoint, or TV commercials.

      The idea of promoting products to the iPhone, and similar devices is exciting, but it is also simply the logical extension of marketing on-line.

      Turning a mobile phone into a camera, and a computer though . . . . that was something else.

      Stephen

      Signature
      Send me a DM, or visit my support desk to contact me: http://support.stephenbray.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2589060].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Benjamin
    Originally Posted by Mangozoom View Post

    Question?

    Do you have to be the first in to make serious money in IM?

    I am moving into this niche (already work in a bunch of none related niches).

    So my question is about scope ... do you have to be a product pioneer to make it or can you create and make similar offers (not just talking about recycling crapola).

    Would be interested to get peoples views.

    John
    Good question.

    Personally, inovation is risky. There is no blueprint to turn
    a profit. However, I would imagine it's more satisfying then
    copying someone elses success.

    On the flip side, when you have good success using a proven
    formula, it gives you more opportunities to be "innovative" --
    if you CHOOSE.

    In other words, it's best to have the resources to be innovative
    than it is to RELY on innovation to make you money when your
    down on your last buck or before rent is due.

    If that makes sense...

    some argue it's better if you have nothing and be innovative
    than to have resources and innovate, but when you look at
    APPLE computers...did they REALLY need to come out with the
    Ipad or Iphone?

    Did they not have a lot of money to follow a proven formula?

    The fact is, their capital gave them the ability to "think outside
    the box" and to be MORE innovative with fewer restrictions and
    limitations.

    So, in a nutshell, you don't have to be the first in to make money.

    I'm proof of that (following systems and re-doing the way I do
    business online and offline)
    Signature
    **How I FLIPPED $80 into $690 Pure Profit With ONE EASY Method...2 to 3x Per Week...Only 30 Minutes Per Day (and how YOU can COPY my RESULTS, too!) **CLICK HERE FOR VERIFIED VIDEO PROOF**
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2589360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author richgrad
    The answer? Look at the most successful websites on the web now...

    Google
    Facebook
    Youtube

    They are Me Too's that innovated (if you get what I mean)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2591104].message }}

Trending Topics