Your business is built on solving a problem or exploiting an idea?

C G

9 years ago

Wasn't the second group also solving a problem until someone found a better way to solve it?

Cheers,

C.G.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-------------------------------------------------------------

I Will Send $500 To Your Paypal Account If You Don't Make Money With This. Guaranteed!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868782].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus 9 years ago

Originally Posted by C G

Wasn't the second group also solving a problem until someone found a better way to solve it? Cheers, C.G.

Hey C.G.. Interesting question. The answer is : yes and no

Let's go with the 'Yes' part.

Social groups, fan clubs and others were created - a long time ago - to bring together people who shared the same interest. Some still exist outside the web. Internet made it easier to find people abroad to do so but the need to relate to others and stay in touch with them is very present. What changed is the "how" we do it, and tools available to do it. MySpace business was first built of providing such "social platform" to music artists to reach out for their fans, and the other way around too. When it started to push ads and all other things that made it harder to stay in touch with your fav artists and friends, it stopped answering a need / solving a problem. Facebook somehow took MySpace's idea, applied it to undergrads or graduates at first. Now, it's seems to be on the same path as MySpace: pushing for ads, people you're not aware, etc.. The need to stay in touch is not dead, it evolves. The answer/solution companies like MySpace and Facebook provided at first has a hard time keeping up with the evolution of the need.

Now, the "No" part.

Blockbuster wasn't the only "movie rental" company. It was one among many actually. Many small and large shops opened their doors before Blockbusters did (in the 80s). They somehow stepped on the bandwagon of 'movie rentals' and differentiated themselves from their competition with a set of features: larger inventory of copies of a single movie available, broader selection of movie genres, etc.. They didn't do a thing about the "when I'll watch the movie and I'm available to give it back". On the contrary, they increased - at some point - the penalties for a late return, and even the cost for a "New release" versus "Not new/Old one". When the VHS technology declined, they took on DVDs. When DVD declined and torrent downloading, mail 'rental' services (like Netflix and others) began to sprout... Blockbuster's shares of the market continued to decline. The need to "entertain yourself" didn't change. The "how" did. Doing it at home, on your own terms (of time spent, for instance) was the change. So when the need evolved, the 'how' changed, and Blockbuster didn't follow. Because it stuck to its idea of "physical store with broad inventory of physical movie supports, attached to a fixed period of rental time" well, you know what happened The same with Kodak with its 'traditional celluloid films'. They were the 1st to provide such but it was a product-based, an idea-based company in many ways. Not a need-based company. The need, in that case being, to "frame in time part of our stories / keeping a memory of what happened". The same happened with many others. Small or big companies.

Out of curiosity, what is your business built on C.G.?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9869771].message }}

Alex Frei

9 years ago

An idea can solve a problem.
I'm sure Google and Facebook will disappear eventually. As will Apple.

What exactly did you mean by "exploiting"?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868960].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Frei

An idea can solve a problem.
I'm sure Google and Facebook will disappear eventually. As will Apple. What exactly did you mean by "exploiting"?

About "exploiting" an idea. Have you ever came across a street corner or square where there are 2, 3 or maybe even 4 "lifestyle" coffee shops? Are they all aiming at solving a specific problem, or just trying to grab each other's traffic, exploiting the idea of selling coffee in a lifestyle environment? The same with shoe stores, lawyers firm, ad agencies, etc.. What happens when trends fade or pass?

When you start a company or try to keep one going, you can either have an idea and try to find its clientele - and the need that need to be answered (e.g. problem that need to be solved) or go the other way around. Find a problem to be solved - with its clientele - and brainstorm for the best solution possible; that being an idea. The former strategy tend to cost more and "die" faster over time than the latter. Adding features - to differentiate yourself from your competition is not necessarily the best option. It will only add costs to a company's or entrepreneur's bottom line. Which means reduce your potential profit margin.

Finding a problem to solve is like finding your "niche". Is it better to have our own or "live" (e.g. do business) in an overcrowded one?

As for Apple, Google and Facebook dying? They might. The day they'll stop answering the problem they built their business on, and adapt themselves to its evolution. Google's most important problem in the near future: ensuring the anonymity of the person "googling" for anything. DuckDuckGo has built its business on it. Tsu, a new social network (invitation only, for now) is building his on content ownership and revenue sharing. A growing problem Facebook hasn't address yet.

If you're in business Alex, what are your products or services based on? Solving a problem or exploiting an idea?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9869686].message }}

Alex Frei

9 years ago

Originally Posted by patrick@sparkshaus

If you're in business Alex, what are your products or services based on? Solving a problem or exploiting an idea?

I'd like to answer your question, but I still don't get the distinction between exploiting an idea and solving a problem.

I sell products online. Let's say in weight loss. A product is solving a problem: person is being overweight and wants to slim down. So, my product helps person do it. However, there are other products that solve the same problem, in different ways.

So... Am I solving a problem or am I exploiting an idea that people want to be slim?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9874879].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Frei

I'd like to answer your question, but I still don't get the distinction between exploiting an idea and solving a problem. I sell products online. Let's say in weight loss. A product is solving a problem: person is being overweight and wants to slim down. So, my product helps person do it. However, there are other products that solve the same problem, in different ways. So... Am I solving a problem or am I exploiting an idea that people want to be slim?

Alex, you're asking a key question. I would even rephrase my initial question based on it.

The difference between building a business on wanting to solve a problem or exploiting an idea is the initial motivation, intention.

Let's take the weight loss products example you use. For the fun of it, let's also assume that you really started a business selling that kind of products. Now, let's define the "problem" vs the "idea". Any health problem caused by being overweight is a "problem", obviously. On the other hand, simply selling weight loss products to overweight people is an "idea". In your example, did you start the business because you saw a problem that needed help to be fixed; type 2 diabetes caused by being overweight? Or simply a good idea; selling weight loss products to overweight people. Like Weight Watchers and so many other "fast weight loss" companies do so?

Asked the other way around, why are you in the weight loss business? Assuming you did start a company in that field

When you pay a close look, you can actually understand what an entrepreneur or company is in for, their intention or motivation. A key indicator is how they treat their customers, and the promotion they do. You might have already distinguished by doing business with different companies, in different markets - phone companies, coffee shops, airlines, grocery stores, shoe stores, business consultants, etc..

Hope my explanations clear out the "fog" between solving a problem and exploiting an idea

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9875262].message }}

Alex Frei

9 years ago

Originally Posted by patrick@sparkshaus

Alex, you're asking a key question. I would even rephrase my initial question based on it.

The difference between building a business on wanting to solve a problem or exploiting an idea is the initial motivation, intention.

Let's take the weight loss products example you use. For the fun of it, let's also assume that you really started a business selling that kind of products. Now, let's define the "problem" vs the "idea". Any health problem caused by being overweight is a "problem", obviously. On the other hand, simply selling weight loss products to overweight people is an "idea". In your example, did you start the business because you saw a problem that needed help to be fixed; type 2 diabetes caused by being overweight? Or simply a good idea; selling weight loss products to overweight people. Like Weight Watchers and so many other "fast weight loss" companies do so?

Asked the other way around, why are you in the weight loss business? Assuming you did start a company in that field

When you pay a close look, you can actually understand what an entrepreneur or company is in for, their intention or motivation. A key indicator is how they treat their customers, and the promotion they do. You might have already distinguished by doing business with different companies, in different markets - phone companies, coffee shops, airlines, grocery stores, shoe stores, business consultants, etc..

Hope my explanations clear out the "fog" between solving a problem and exploiting an idea

Ok. Now I see the distinction.

It seems that the main difference is the attitude, not the actual business practices.

By the way, Weightwatchers started as a club that helped people lose weight. So, I'd say it was started to solve a problem.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9876985].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus 9 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Frei

Ok. Now I see the distinction. It seems that the main difference is the attitude, not the actual business practices.

Alex,
Sure the attitude is important in the equation. More importantly it's the motivation behind that attitude that is key (e.g. the reason, the purpose you're in business). Usually, the attitude is the expression of a motivation.

As for Weight Watchers, I simply used it as an example, a brand name everyone have heard of.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9877732].message }}

RealCasher

9 years ago

Solving a problem >> Authority business.
Exploiting ideas >> Short term business.
Both are good.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Get Weekly Payouts Stream -Using- My Autopilot Money Machine

Discover & Jump into the 2015's Hottest Income Opportunity -- (Viral Stuff.)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9868963].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus 9 years ago

Originally Posted by RealCasher

Solving a problem >> Authority business.
Exploiting ideas >> Short term business.
Both are good.

Yes, both are good. Just depends how long you want to be in business.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9869576].message }}

TheWriteOne

9 years ago

Originally Posted by patrick@sparkshaus

Yes, both are good. Just depends how long you want to be in business.

Originally Posted by RealCasher

Solving a problem >> Authority business.
Exploiting ideas >> Short term business.
Both are good.

I think exploiting ideas are not short term businesses if you could continually find ideas to exploit. In innovation there are disruptive and creative innovations. It would be more of how you place yourself on the field. You could even transition from being a disruptor to a complete authority.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9869643].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TheWriteOne

I think exploiting ideas are not short term businesses if you could continually find ideas to exploit. In innovation there are disruptive and creative innovations. It would be more of how you place yourself on the field. You could even transition from being a disruptor to a complete authority.

If your company is built on exploiting an idea, to constantly change the idea you exploit somehow means to constantly change the reason you're in business. No? Doing so somehow also puts you at risk many times - considering all the costs related to change, transition, building a new clientele, generating new revenues growth too.

As for innovation, I'm not sure to understand your point. You have any example to illustrate it?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9870037].message }}

TheWriteOne

9 years ago

Originally Posted by patrick@sparkshaus

If your company is built on exploiting an idea, to constantly change the idea you exploit somehow means to constantly change the reason you're in business. No? Doing so somehow also puts you at risk many times - considering all the costs related to change, transition, building a new clientele, generating new revenues growth too.

As for innovation, I'm not sure to understand your point. You have any example to illustrate it?

I don't have a specific example but let me put an idea to it. You know big name televisions like Samsung, Sony and many others. And then there are those China made ones which are a lot cheaper. China is a disruptive innovator, and big names are the other side of the coin. Although from before you could say that China made ones are easy to breakdown and sent to repairs. Well that is not the case so much anymore and some of the China brand are now making a name for themselves in the world market.

Risks are always to be taken to takedown big companies. You can't just follow them, if you do you will never get ahead of them.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9875186].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TheWriteOne

I don't have a specific example but let me put an idea to it. You know big name televisions like Samsung, Sony and many others. And then there are those China made ones which are a lot cheaper. (...) Risks are always to be taken to takedown big companies. You can't just follow them, if you do you will never get ahead of them.

Hey TheWriteOne,. First off, I’m not sure to understand your two points; disruptive innovation and taking down big companies. I’ll try to do my best in giving you more perspective on my initial question, and the answer of mine you quoted

My initial question or any of my answers to you guys were had anything to do with “taking down big companies”. I used some big names to provide some examples of companies that are built on “solving a problem” versus some who were on “exploiting an idea”.

To be disruptive is not necessarily to be an innovator. Sometimes they go along, sometimes not. Disruptive implies “to break” something, like an “established order” or the ways things are usually done. On the other hand, to innovate means “to introduce something new”. In many ways China is a disruptor by its manufacturing capacity. A capacity that sometimes exceeds those of others countries. Adding more factories for a specific product – let’s say tv sets, to use your example – might increase the number of sets available in the market but it’s not an innovation in itself. It only disrupts the “offer”. On the other hand, replacing the traditional glass tube with the plasma technology in a tv set (like it was done in the 90s), that is an innovation. As it brought something new to that market. Think of creating vs acting as a copycat. Whether for tv sets or any other product or service.

(Clayton Christensen wrote a great book about disruptive innovators in 1997: The Innovators Dilemma)

Now, for taking down the big companies. In terms of resources available, the “Big guys” (BG) usually tend to have more at their disposal than the smaller player in a given market. Doesn’t mean the little one can’t “beat” the big one, if that’s what you’re looking for. History shows though that to outsmart the BG, you better come with something they don’t have at all or, even better, offer a solution that offers more than what is available. Meaning “faster”, “easier to use”, etc.. If you don’t, it might just increase the risks your company will have to deal with, and cost you more than you think (if not more than you can). The key word and idea here is "outsmart".

In the end, it’s up to you to decide

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9875442].message }}

ajanadawa

Banned 9 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9869846].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus 9 years ago

Originally Posted by ajanadawa

do you think facebook is better than warrior forum?

Ajanadawa, I think it comes down to a personal appreciation. As what does Facebook or Warrior Forum offer (the purpose they serve) versus what are your needs? You could add LinkedIn to the equation too, and it would still come down to you, your needs vs what is offered out there.

If you feel that, overall, one place suits or answers your need better that the other, go with it.

People interested in IM or making a living as an entrepreneur don't all hang out on the same website. If so, us and the millions of entrepreneurs would be there, right now
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9870098].message }}

tobyjensen

9 years ago

Originally Posted by patrick@sparkshaus

While listening to a few entrepreneurs I came across lately, an interesting question popped up: Is your business built on solving a problem or exploiting an idea? Not the same thing.

I'm curious to know what's your answer/opinion guys.

Google wanted to make web search results more relevant. As search engines like Alta Vista, Excite and Yahoo were often times sending users to unrelated pages or even dead websites. Apple wanted to bring computer technologies to the average person. Where computers and their power were only available to corporations. Richard Branson launched Virgin Airline because he wanted to improve the whole flying experience on airplanes. At the time - and even today - many airline companies were considering customers only as cash cows and giving crappy service.

Kodak lost its business when it decided to stick to manufacturing celluloid films. MySpace closed after its management started to give more attention to its advertisers than its users. Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy when it stopped trying to adapt to an evolving demand in home entertainment (e.g. rental movies + tv series).

The first group bet on solving a problem. The second, on exploiting an idea (a product or service). All started small and made it big. Only a few survived.

If you were given the choice or have already made it, which would it be? Build a business based on solving a problem or exploiting an idea?

I would go with exploiting an idea over solving a problem. If exploiting were to mean developing in a positive way to maximize returns. Developing strengths is much more effective than the healing and development needed to solve a problem.

Strengths before weaknesses if possible.

A strengths approach works best because it has easier faster results for people. It also starts things off on a positive note. You get to say things like, "Any strength over extended may become a weakness. Let's focus and develop our strengths better. Then we can see if any weaknesses even need to be addressed. You aren't broken or bad."

Of course just saying this is one thing. Being able to live from this perspective so that it comes out automatically and naturally for a client is another. It has meaning, depth, and power behind it when we live it fully. This builds trust and opens up communication during a session which allows the real work to begin to come out. Only then can we truly begin to see if a weakness even needs to be addressed. After the client has had a chance to come out, grow and develop, and become stronger. Hopefully strong enough to begin to deal with weaknesses if needed.

Another way to put it is to learn skills first. This is just filling in a gap for them. They aren't broken - just uneducated or untrained. Most people don't see this as a weakness, flaw, or road block problem. They see it as a gap. It can even be about adding to their existing training (to add to their strengths). Skills produce income and love faster - more than healing will.

Dealing with weakness is about healing. Healing doesn't usually produce any direct increase in income or love. It only allows you to learn skills to increase your income or love. Or the capacity to receive it is increased. This makes healing incredibly expensive and the long road to success. So why do it? Because if you can't learn the skills or have blocks in your way (a skills gap is different) then you simply can't achieve success until you heal your own false beliefs not a gap. Your core false beliefs are standing directly in the way of you achieving success. False beliefs are blocks. You simply can't achieve success without healing first if it is needed. Plus a huge additional problem with false beliefs is that they almost always lead us a long way down the wrong road in a weird direction! What a mess. Completely lost.

It always amazes me how people have different strengths. We can't all be good at all things at the same time. For business the three legs to start with are best product, best marketing, and best money management. These are the three things we need to run a successful business. Of course more is helpful but these are the three starting points. And what is fascinating is nobody in the world, nobody, has mastered all three. Masters master only master one. Then they team up with others in business to build a highly successful company. Ever heard of an incredible marketing genius who also is inspiring in research and development and can balance their checkbook? Nope. Never happens.

We deal with weakness when they are a bigger than our over extended or lack of strengths. Sometimes this is right up front with a client. When right off the bat they show up with their weaknesses destroying their lives then we have to deal with false beliefs first. And we also get to dealing with weakness after getting good at some skills. We start to grow stronger as a result and want to expand ourselves. As we do if our "self" has some false beliefs that come out then it is time to deal with weaknesses.

Dealing with strengths and weaknesses go hand in hand but it is only the advanced person that needs to worry about this. The rest of us only need to get a decent set of skills down first. It is too easy to get lost down the path of healing rabbit holes that go around and around. Get some skills too please. Get outside yourself and look around.

By dealing with false beliefs and continuing to learn skills we become the strongest healthiest possible. Fully realized individuals. Just do strengths first, if you can.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Toby Jensen - Invest in what works this time

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9876154].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by tobyjensen

I would go with exploiting an idea over solving a problem. If exploiting were to mean developing in a positive way to maximize returns. Developing strengths is much more effective than the healing and development needed to solve a problem. Strengths before weaknesses if possible. (...) By dealing with false beliefs and continuing to learn skills we become the strongest healthiest possible. Fully realized individuals. Just do strengths first, if you can.

Hi Tobyjensen. Although I must acknowledge the effort you've put in writing what you did above, I'm not sure it is related to my initial post and its topic. Which simply put is: what are you in business for? Not "on what is based your team managerial approach: developing people strengths or exploiting their weaknesses?", as you seem to have understood it.

Maybe your point of view - on managerial styles - could actually be the topic of another forum post.

What do you think?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9876691].message }}

Tarti Medikal

9 years ago

The wide nature of the product, the customer structure that has brought wide. Our company is running a customer-oriented and customer the best quality service to customers quickly request the creation of sunmaktadır.ür the portfolio is important to keep the desires and opinions.

Tarti Medikal

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9877777].message }}

patrick@sparkshaus

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Tarti Medikal

The wide nature of the product, the customer structure that has brought wide. Our company is running a customer-oriented and customer the best quality service to customers quickly request the creation of sunmaktadır.ür the portfolio is important to keep the desires and opinions.

Tarti Medikal

Tarti? I'm not sure to understand why you're in business or what it is built on. Your website doesn't help neither - it sends back to an empty, generic page. Care to explain?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9880087].message }}

Your business is built on solving a problem or exploiting an idea?

Trending Topics

Should i Index Author pages?

best high quality crypto traffic.

Some interesting stats about brand comms

Fixing a massive traffic drop after rebranding

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?