G
Guest8MsaDc
Guest
Hello all,
I'm sure this has been addressed before but I could not seem to find any threads answering my specific question(s). MJ preaches that successful businesses need to improve upon what is already available in the eyes of the consumer, thus delivering more value. For example, if I want to start a company that manufactures watches, my watches need to address notable complaints that other company's watches receive. Somewhere, somehow, value needs to be skewed, putting my hypothetical watch company ahead of the competition.
My overarching question is: Is this always true?
All around me, I see companies that seem to sell products delivering marginal value when compared to one another. Nobody seems to be doing anything outside of the box or unique, yet they still manage to be successful. Mind you, they are still selling quality products with good branding. Why is this? Under what circumstances is it okay to just say screw it and create something valuable that people want without trying to be overly novel?
The first examples that come to mind are small, eCommerce-based clothing brands but instances like this can be found in just about any industry. Do you have to skew value and create a unique value proposition, or come up with something game-changing for your industry? Or can you just open up a store with good products that people want/need, good customer service, etc. and get to work promoting it?
Also, assuming a value skew is a must, how many competitors are you trying "out-value" before you can compete? It seems that in most of the instances I see in which people find a way to skew the value of a product, they are basing their skew off of specific products they have seen from competitors and not necessarily every variation of that product ever brought to market.
It just seems like there has been so much emphasis put on the process of shopping around for unique solutions to problems or products which can be improved to further address problems right from the get go, resulting in substantial "analysis paralysis" (at least for me). But for many businesses it almost seems as though the value skew is happening on the back end, or at least to a fairly small extent on the front end. I could be completely wrong about this but here's an example: A guy decides he wants to start a boot store because he thinks he can provide a better customer experience than the place where he buys his boots. So, he opens one up and then identifies other areas where his competition can improve to create more value for customers such as a money-back gaurantee or nicer materials. He doesn't start the company by asking himself "What problems do people have with boots and how can I invent a revolutionary new boot that will fix it?" You look around all day for problems like that and try to brainstorm viable solutions, and many people do it (Elon Musk, etc.) But it seems to me that many businesses are started just by people who get an idea for what sort of business they want to open, and then improve upon what their competitors are doing. Is this just me?
Maybe I'm missing something here and I need to do some re-reading. Maybe I'm just way overthinking this? I am still learning.
Thanks!
I'm sure this has been addressed before but I could not seem to find any threads answering my specific question(s). MJ preaches that successful businesses need to improve upon what is already available in the eyes of the consumer, thus delivering more value. For example, if I want to start a company that manufactures watches, my watches need to address notable complaints that other company's watches receive. Somewhere, somehow, value needs to be skewed, putting my hypothetical watch company ahead of the competition.
My overarching question is: Is this always true?
All around me, I see companies that seem to sell products delivering marginal value when compared to one another. Nobody seems to be doing anything outside of the box or unique, yet they still manage to be successful. Mind you, they are still selling quality products with good branding. Why is this? Under what circumstances is it okay to just say screw it and create something valuable that people want without trying to be overly novel?
The first examples that come to mind are small, eCommerce-based clothing brands but instances like this can be found in just about any industry. Do you have to skew value and create a unique value proposition, or come up with something game-changing for your industry? Or can you just open up a store with good products that people want/need, good customer service, etc. and get to work promoting it?
Also, assuming a value skew is a must, how many competitors are you trying "out-value" before you can compete? It seems that in most of the instances I see in which people find a way to skew the value of a product, they are basing their skew off of specific products they have seen from competitors and not necessarily every variation of that product ever brought to market.
It just seems like there has been so much emphasis put on the process of shopping around for unique solutions to problems or products which can be improved to further address problems right from the get go, resulting in substantial "analysis paralysis" (at least for me). But for many businesses it almost seems as though the value skew is happening on the back end, or at least to a fairly small extent on the front end. I could be completely wrong about this but here's an example: A guy decides he wants to start a boot store because he thinks he can provide a better customer experience than the place where he buys his boots. So, he opens one up and then identifies other areas where his competition can improve to create more value for customers such as a money-back gaurantee or nicer materials. He doesn't start the company by asking himself "What problems do people have with boots and how can I invent a revolutionary new boot that will fix it?" You look around all day for problems like that and try to brainstorm viable solutions, and many people do it (Elon Musk, etc.) But it seems to me that many businesses are started just by people who get an idea for what sort of business they want to open, and then improve upon what their competitors are doing. Is this just me?
Maybe I'm missing something here and I need to do some re-reading. Maybe I'm just way overthinking this? I am still learning.
Thanks!
Dislike ads? Become a Fastlane member:
Subscribe today and surround yourself with winners and millionaire mentors, not those broke friends who only want to drink beer and play video games. :-)
Last edited by a moderator:
Membership Required: Upgrade to Expose Nearly 1,000,000 Posts
Ready to Unleash the Millionaire Entrepreneur in You?
Become a member of the Fastlane Forum, the private community founded by best-selling author and multi-millionaire entrepreneur MJ DeMarco. Since 2007, MJ DeMarco has poured his heart and soul into the Fastlane Forum, helping entrepreneurs reclaim their time, win their financial freedom, and live their best life.
With more than 39,000 posts packed with insights, strategies, and advice, you’re not just a member—you’re stepping into MJ’s inner-circle, a place where you’ll never be left alone.
Become a member and gain immediate access to...
- Active Community: Ever join a community only to find it DEAD? Not at Fastlane! As you can see from our home page, life-changing content is posted dozens of times daily.
- Exclusive Insights: Direct access to MJ DeMarco’s daily contributions and wisdom.
- Powerful Networking Opportunities: Connect with a diverse group of successful entrepreneurs who can offer mentorship, collaboration, and opportunities.
- Proven Strategies: Learn from the best in the business, with actionable advice and strategies that can accelerate your success.
"You are the average of the five people you surround yourself with the most..."
Who are you surrounding yourself with? Surround yourself with millionaire success. Join Fastlane today!
Join Today