This has got me thinking. In the end, what’s success for a Web 2.0 company? I don’t think it’s just one thing, but a process; a rundown list, in steps. Some get to number 3, number 5, number 7, some hit number 8 (which is rare; YouTube is the most recent one I can think of), some don’t even reach step 2, if not, step 1.
Anyway, here’s the list:
- Getting noticed by bloggers
- Getting noticed by the media
- Getting used (frequently; regularly) by bloggers
- Getting used (frequently; regularly) by the media
- Getting noticed by mainstream consumers
- Getting used by mainstream consumers
- Getting mass usership
- The target: CRITICAL MASS
And I do think it’s as simple as that. If I wanted, I could provide many examples after each step on the list, but I’d rather not put any company down — because the list is still changing — today’s number 1 may be tomorrow’s number 8 (I know I would’ve listed YouTube on number 1 a few months ago; where as now it would be 8).
So here’s something to think about: how do you flip a company from number 1 to 8? Every company on 8, we all know for a fact was on 1 someday. That day might’ve been months ago or years, but it was there. I think every Web 2.0 company’s CEO should be thinking about this. To me it just involves a mix of things:
- An outstanding product.
- Word-of-mouth. Doesn’t matter how it happens (controversy, contacts), but it should.
- People to develop it (and the development SHOULD happen). Just like a product can move down the list, always bare in mind it can move up as well.
Any 2 of those things, and you’re there (all 3 and you’ve hit it). Isn’t this industry simple?
