Service Oriented Startups

Last week a very interesting free e-book called “Software Paradox” was trending on Hacker News. The premise of the Service Oriented Startupsbook is, that the value of software as a product is diminishing, but the value of software as an enableris rising. Pure play software companies such as Microsoft and Oracle are fading in comparison to rising stars such as Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and newer ones like Uber, Dropbox, GitHub, AirBnB and others. None of the new age companies sell “software”. They all sell a service (or devices, in case of Apple).

The book goes on to argue that companies even prefer giving away their software innovations as open source so that they can get the respect of the developer community that they desperately want to attract. Apple’s operating systems are based on an open source flavour of Unix, GitHub has built a social layer on git, a version control system created by Linus Torvalds and Facebook is a leader in new age open source web development tools. So there is a clear trend of companies collaborating on an infrastructure and tool level and yet being able to create a lot of value in the services they provide.

They book suggests what pure-play software product companies should do in order to survive this next wave. There are a lot of great options described which range from moving to a subscription model to becoming a full-stack startup (doing very deep vertical integration in the markets they operate). In the context of pure play software product companies, where do we in India stand?

A defining moment in the first episode of the new YouTube drama TVF Pitchers, an Indian take on the popular and brilliant series from HBO, “Silicon Valley”, is when the protagonist is about to dump his entrepreneurial dream and continue with an overseas posting. On his way to the airport, he sees large advertisements of Housing.com and Snapdeal and decides that his calling is a startup. On a side note, it is interesting to observe that the innovation described in TVF Pitchers is a “B-plan”, whereas the innovation on which HBO Silicon Valley is based, is a hypothetical “algorithm”.

My conclusion is that India has already leapfrogged to “Service-Oriented Startups”. The number of new startups and deals in the e-commerce and classified marketplaces domains greatly out numbers startups that have a technological innovation at the heart of the business. The aspiration of the entrepreneur who starts up today is to build the next Flipkart, not the next Google.

This is something we all will have to learn to accept. Like so many modern innovations we love using today are ones we did not invent, software is something we will rather use. Innovating on technology requires an intellectual rigour and ecosystem support that will probably never reach a critical mass in India. But amidst all this gloom, I still have hope that at least a few of the 3 million software developers out there will prove me wrong.

Platform Thinking: How To Get Startup Ideas

How does one find new startup ideas?

Every business is built around solving a customer pain. Solving a customer pain creates value which in turn, if successfully harnessed, can be monetized. Platforms, in particular, connect demand and supply to solve customer pain on both sides.

Platform Thinking And Startup Ideas

One of the patterns for new startup ideas, that I often see in platforms, is the following:

Match an unmonetized/unvalued surplus with an unsatisfied scarcity. 

This requires a unique combination of two factors:

1) Unmonetized/unvalued surplus: This implies that there is some form of surplus which cannot be monetized at the moment. However, given the opportunity, the owners would want to monetize it. A similar dynamic exists for surplus that isn’t currently valued by an audience/market (e.g. a person’s creativity).

2) Unsatisfied scarcity: The second important factor is scarcity. More specifically, scarcity that isn’t currently optimally satisfied. There might be solutions to the scarcity but none of them are optimal enough.

startup-ideasA good balance of both factors is required. If the scarcity is already being addressed, there may not be any need for a new solution. If the surplus is already monetized, it may be difficult for the producer to engage with more means of monetizing the surplus.

Hence, both aspects are equally important for the platform to exist. Also, depending on which of the two aspects is stronger, the seeding of the platform may start either with tapping the demand or with harnessing the surplus.

At the very outset, let me clarify that this is one of many different patterns for finding new startup ideas. Even among platforms, many different form of patterns exist.

Understanding Surplus And Scarcity

Surplus may exist in various forms. It may be a surplus of time, attention, money, physical commodities. Let’s look at a few examples below:

AirBnB

A surplus of accommodation in a particular location during a certain time period

MEETS

A scarcity of accommodation in that same location during the same time period.

Amazon Mechanical Turk, TaskRabbit

A surplus of time to perform certain tasks

MEETS

A scarcity of time to perform those same tasks.

KickStarter, IndieGoGo

A surplus of investable capital

MEETS

A scarcity of capital

SkillShare

A surplus of niche skills and talents

MEETS

A scarcity of niche skills

Quora

A surplus of knowledge on a niche topic

MEETS

A scarcity of knowledge on the same topic

Zilok, Rentoid, Neighborrow:

A surplus of physical items

MEETS

A scarcity of those same physical items

YouTube

A surplus of niche creativity

MEETS

A scarcity of niche entertainment

This model isn’t limited to online networks alone. Offline spaces also allow this model if you can achieve concentration of supply within a limited physical space. Coworking spaces like The Hub are an example of such a model, matching a surplus of office space with those in need of one.

A Final Note On Platform Ideas

For a given idea,

1. Identify the commodity that’s being traded, a target segment where a surplus exists and a segment with a scarcity

Again, surplus and scarcity that are currently not being utilized or satisfied are likely to come on board much faster.

2. Determine degree of overlap between the two target segments to allow the transfer to occur

Since scarcity and surplus need to be matched, there should be a high level of overlap between the two sides. Hence, it often helps to start by targeting a micro-market which provides a good concentration of demand and supply.

3. Determine factors based on which the two sides will be matched

The matching needs to be determined based on certain factors to ensure that the scarcity and surplus successfully satisfy each other. Quora determines matches through an “Ask To Answer” feature which surfaces the users most likely to have an answer to a certain question based on their history of answers on that topic. AirBnB matches accommodation surplus with scarcity based on time (exact dates) and location (exact place).

In summary,

Match an unmonetized surplus with an unsatisfied scarcity. 

This article was first featured on Sangeet’s blog, Platform Thinking (http://platformed.info). Platform Thinking has been ranked among the top blogs for startups, globally, by the Harvard Business School Centre for Entrepreneurship

Piggybacking Mechanics: Whatsapp, Instagram And Network Effect Marketing

Welcome to the age of the zero-dollar marketing startup. WhatsApp, and earlier Instagram, have officially become a permanent part of startup lore for having built multi-billion dollar businesses without (reportedly) spending a dime on marketing.

Meanwhile, Airbnb has grown from a hipster community of mattress-renters to the world’s largest provider of accommodations without spending even a fraction of what traditional hotel chains spend in marketing.

Marketing is dead! Or that’s what many would have you believe. A great product sells itself, of course! Fire the marketing team!

Well… not quite!

The fastest growing networks on the internet – Airbnb, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat – may not have spent much on marketing, but they all have one thing in common: Each of these networks piggybacked on top of another pre-existing network.

Facebook and Bebo grew on top of the network embedded in our email. Many networks, including Instagram, grew on top of Facebook itself. For a while, Airbnb grew on top of Craigslist, while Snapchat and WhatsApp have leveraged the mobile phone’s organic network, the phone book, to create networks native to mobile,

If you’re building a social network, marketplace or platform and you haven’t considered piggybacking on a network, you need to think again.

Much so-called ‘growth hacking’ relies on testing of cause-and-effect and optimization of funnel conversions. But in the early days of a network or a marketplace, startups are faced with a radically different problem. Why will users come on board when there’s no one else there? Why will producers set up shop in a marketplace that is not yet frequented by consumers and vice versa?

The classic chicken and egg problem cannot be solved by pulling in users and optimizing conversions. Before network effects set in, users will neither get activated nor will they get engaged.

Set a network to catch a network

To grow a network, you need to think like a network. To get enough users on board to create network effects, you need to piggyback upon another network. Piggybacking on a thriving network works wonderfully as long as your platform is complementary to that network and delivers additional value to the users there.

As far as growth strategies go, there are few strategies that are more scalable and sustainable as engines of growth.

Paypal got almost all its traction by piggybacking on eBay and offering a much superior payment method than the painful check-over-mail. It solved the pain points around payment on eBay providing instant payments without the hassle of credit cards and assuming much of the risk of online fraud.

Soon enough, Paypal was the predominant mode of payments on eBay and rode its growth to become synonymous with online payments.

But not all piggybacking stories end happily ever after. Apps that have leveraged Facebook to grow aggressively, have found their business jeopardized with a change in Facebook’s news feed algorithm. Startups that tried to emulate Airbnb and siphon users away from Craigslist were sent cease and desist letters. Even Paypal was banned on eBay for a while before the marketplace had to accede to the wishes of the users.

So what does it take to successfully piggyback a network?

The Biology of Piggybacking

Successfully piggybacking a network is more complex than simply choosing a network and executing an API integration. A startup looking to piggyback on an underlying network needs to understand the nature of its relationship with that network.

Borrowing analogies from biological systems, there are three types of relationships between your startup (the Guest) and the underlying network (the Host).

The Happy Clownfish

In certain cases, a partnership model may be initiated by the Host i.e. the underlying network.

Much like how colorful clownfish (Guest) inhabit sea anemones (Hosts) whereby each party gains protection from their respective predators, both networks benefit from each other.

For example, Facebook’s partnership with Spotify, following its launch of frictionless sharing, is designed in a way that both Facebook and Spotify benefit.

Facebook needed greater engagement among users and Spotify needed listeners, even though the implementation of frictionless sharing has much that can be improved. Earlier, Zynga, Slide and RockYou benefited from a similar relationship with Facebook, piggybacking on Facebook for growth by providing value to Facebook users, while improving user engagement and retention on Facebook.

The Hitchhiking Remora

Not all networks may initiate partnerships the way Facebook did. In fact, most don’t.

In such cases, it is the prerogative of the guest (your startup) to be backward compatible with the host, much like a remora attaching itself onto a shark and feeding off it, you need to figure out a way to embed your functionality in the host network.

YouTube gained early traction by piggybacking on MySpace. Engagement on MySpace was built around musicians who needed a way to showcase their talent. At the time, online video was broken. YouTube fixed that with its flash-based one-click video experience and MySpace users finally had an answer to their problems.

Flickr solved the pain of sharing pictures in the blogosphere. Every blogger putting up a picture on his blog helped showcase the service to others. Flickr rapidly grew to become the fifth most visited website on the internet by the time Yahoo lapped it up.

As these examples demonstrate, these relationships start without an explicit partnership. The Guest makes a conscious decision to make its functionality and content embeddable in the Host network. If such embedding solves a key user pain point, the users start embedding Guest functionality into the Host network, driving adoption. The chicken and egg problem is solved as more users on the Host get exposed to this functionality and migrate to start using the Guest’s functionality.

The Bloodsucking Parasite

Finally, some networks may actively discourage any form of guest-host relationship. In these cases, the startup needs to reverse-engineer an integration with the host. Such piggybacking is generally non-consensual.

Airbnb reverse-engineered a de facto ‘integration’ with Craigslist and offered users on Craigslist, an alternate, more convenient and safer destination for their interactions. Airbnb stole the network interactions away from Craigslist and was promptly blocked by the Host as soon as it realized what was afoot.

Skype, Viber and WhatsApp have similar relationships with carriers where they piggyback the connections created by the carriers (via the user’s phone book) to provide an alternate communication channel.

Viber rode this success to a $900M acquisition recently,and WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook for $19 billion in cash and stock.

Sidenote: It is interesting to note Skype, Viber, and WhatsApp are able to arbitrage users because of a lack of effective carrier data discrimination. That is to say, carriers are well aware of WhatsApp allowing users an end-around onerous SMS fees, but feel powerless – at this point in time – to raise network data rates to make it unprofitable for WhatsApp, forcing users back to SMS.

How To Succeed With Piggybacking

While piggybacking may seem attractive, startups need to be aware of the relationship they have with the host network and pursue strategies accordingly.

More importantly, not all piggybacking is successful. The stories above suffer from survivorship bias and are useful only when understood in the context of the factors that dictated their success and spelt failure for other startups that tried similar strategies.

In general, everyone wins in The Happy Clownfish scenario.

But in most Hitchhiking Remora relationships, the Host controls the relationship with the piggybacking Guest. This is specifically the case whenever the Host launches an open-access API upon which startups build off that to access the Host’s network. While remora may add value by plucking parasites, fickle sharks have been known to bait-and-switch and devour orbiting remoras.

The Bloodsucking Parasite relationship is a lot easier to anticipate and is always antagonistic. In most cases, it triggers an instant immune system response, which, translating to business, amounts to legal action.

The only long-term sustainable network-piggybacking, then, is the Happy Clownfish. Both the clownfish and the sea anemone need each other. Their respective physiologies are a clue. A clownfish will never grow poisonous tentacles to sting potential predators and a sea anemone will never grow fins to swim.

To be a clownfish in a sea anemone, your network needs to provide high-contrast, high-value-add differentiation with significant barriers to entry, otherwise you risk coming across like one of thousands of commoditized remoras. Facebook doesn’t want to build its own music library and Spotify isn’t interested in connecting the world outside of music.

There are three factors that determine success with piggybacking:

1. If the host explicitly calls for piggybackers, be the first to the party

When Facebook opened its platform to external developers, Zynga jumped on board and gained rapid adoption. Many startups that followed failed to get such adoption because users had become more sophisticated to the viral invites by that time and Facebook, as well, started dampening the spread of these invites subsequently.

Being the first to the party helps to get users deeply engaged before they get sophisticated and start ignoring messages from other services that follow.

Be the first clownfish to get to your sea anemone.

2. If you can build for backward compatibility, ensure you add value to the underlying platform

YouTube solved a problem for MySpace bands. Flickr solved a problem for bloggers. Paypal solved multiple pain points for buyers and sellers on eBay. Be the useful remora that eats the little parasites on the shark.

3. Be the first to reverse-engineer before the host wises up

When stealing traction parasitically, it pays to be the first to discover the chink in the armor of host network. Airbnb gained traction before Craigslist wisened up. But every startup that has tried that strategy subsequently has failed to replicate the same success and has instead been caught in a legal quagmire.

Being first to piggyback a host network is the most important determiner of success. There is typically a time window while these strategies work. And almost always, first-to-the-party wins. When the host wants you to piggyback, there’s a window while it will be effective. When the host doesn’t want it, there’s a window before which the host wises up. In either case, being first helps.

The story of many of today’s large social networks and marketplaces follows similar trajectories. Bringing in users through linear funnel hacking tactics often prove counter-productive. Finding a new network and piggybacking it helps gain traction among enough users simultaneously and build network effects.

So the next time you hear about a startup boasting a zero dollar marketing budget and putting it all on building a great product, think again! Piggybacking is the new marketing for the age of the network effect.

Note: This article  first appeared on TheNextWeb. This article was co-authored with Patrick Vlaskovits, the NY Times BestSelling Author of The Lean Entrepreneur.

Users or Customers?

If you’ve been around the internet startup world for long enough, you’ve probably engaged in the user-customer debate at least once. Who’s the user? Who’s the customer? Who should we be focusing on?

I’m going to start off a series of posts talking about the basic elements of Platform Thinking and this being the first, I’d like to talk about the User-Customer debate since that lies at the very heart of how we think about the design of internet businesses.

If we put on the Platform Thinking lens, we essentially do away with the user-customer debate and replace it with a more fundamental view of how your business functions. Here’s how:

Most internet businesses can be viewed as a platform on which value is created and consumed. E.g. YouTube.com is a platform on which video up loaders create value and viewers consumer value. With that in mind, let’s move on…

Who’s the user? 

Quite simply, the user is anyone who uses the product. Now that doesn’t help us too much, so let’s break that down a little.

A user may perform one of two roles:

Producer: Someone who creates supply or responds to demand. If you think of YouTube, whenever a user adds a video, he’s acting in a Producer role, creating supply. A person answering a question on Quora is a producer, responding to demand. 

Consumer: Someone who creates demand or consumes supply. A video viewer is a consumer on Youtube. A question asked on Quora (as well as others viewing the question and answers) is playing a consumer role. 

Note that these are roles, not user segments. If you think of eBay, the sellers are the producers and the buyers are the consumers so we have two distinct segments. But on Twitter, every time you tweet, you are in a producer role, and if you start reading your tweet stream the next second, you’ve moved to consumer mode. 

Splitting the term ‘user’ into these two roles helps us understand the exact motivations and actions for the user while using the product.Understanding the motivations and actions helps us design tools that enable the users to perform these actions instead of loading the product with features. 

Most products have more than one producer or consumer role. E.g. On LinkedIn, professionals using LinkedIn are producers and consumers of interactions and status updates, thought leaders are privileged producers and recruiters are producers of job listings and consumers of relevant user profiles. 

This brings us to the third party in the debate… 

Who’s the customer? 

As in the offline world, the customer is someone who pays. The customer may not be part of the central demand-supply equation. The sole defining criterion for a customer is that the customer pays money to the business. 

The customer may be:

  1. The producer: e.g. Vimeo. Video up loaders can pay for premium features.
  2. The consumer: e.g. New York Times. Readers pay to access news
  3. Someone else: e.g. Facebook. The advertiser is the customer 

Again, multiple parties may be customers. On LinkedIn, we have users (who play both consumer and producer roles) as customers as well as advertisers and recruiters. 

To summarize:

  1. Every internet business has three distinct types of roles: Producer, Consumer and Customer
  2. There may be multiple roles of each type on every business
  3. Producers create supply or respond to demand
  4. Consumers create demand or consume supply
  5. Customers pay  

A few quick examples:  

Zappos.com

Producer: Zappos.com itself is the producer; sourcing shoes and creating supply.

Consumer: Users browsing and buying on the storefront.

Customer: The segment of consumers actually buying shoes.

AirBnB

Producer: Hosts, Review Writers

Consumer: Travelers, Review Readers

Customer: Technically, the hosts are the customers since they forgo a cut of the transaction and share it with AirBnB 

Yelp

Producer: Yelp (creates listings), Review Writers

Consumer: Consumers in the city, Review Readers

Customer: Merchants that advertise 

The New York Times

Producer: The New York Times

Consumer: Readers

Customer: Readers, Advertisers 

I’d love to hear your thoughts. This is the first in a series of posts where I intend to share the essential tenets of Platform Thinking and how to use it to design internet businesses. Feel free to leave your thoughts below.

Note: This article was first featured on Sangeet’s blog, Platform Thinking (http://platformed.info). Platform Thinking has been ranked among the top blogs for startups, globally, by the Harvard Business School Centre for Entrepreneurship.