In the technology sector it seems that first to market is something almost every tech company strives to be the best at, but it is just marketing fluff?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a marketing guy first and foremost, and there are benefits to being the “first to announce” some new fangled feature, capacity point, or even form factor. Analysts love it because it gives them some perspective on who is innovating faster, who is the “market leader,” who is the “technology leader” in a given sector. The media love it because it’s something new to talk about, and of course, the tech company’s love it because their “first to XYZ” is being talked about, tweeted, shared, liked, commented on, etc. But, to truly embrace the advantage of being the first to announce is to back it up with the evidence that it does indeed mean something besides being the first to issue a press release.
It’s great when you are the first to announce something, but do you know what is better? Being the first to actually ship something and see it get used and make a difference for both users. This seems to happen quite a lot in the tech space. A rat race to be the first to this, or the first to that. Do consumers and business users really care who is first? Or, do they care more about when they can get value from it? I would guess it’s the later.
Des Traynor wrote a great piece titled “Why Being First Doesn’t Matter” where he says, “more often than not, it’s the other way around. 47% of first-movers fail, compared with only 8% of fast followers…First-mover advantage isn’t automatically bestowed unto the first product in a category. It’s not even guaranteed to exist in your industry and, when it does, it is fought for and earned.”
So, being first is great and companies should continue to strive to being the first to announce something new and innovative that offers real advantage for users. BUT, maybe, just maybe, being first should not be the primary goal, because nothing is better than being the best.
Now that’s something to market.