tag:,2008:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700- 2008-05-09T18:12:16Z Comments for Rethinking 'Crossing The Chasm' Movable Type 4.1 tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700 2007-08-07T05:19:08Z 2007-12-16T23:07:47Z Rethinking 'Crossing The Chasm' In 1991 Geoffrey A. Moore wrote a book that became widely read and quoted in the business community and turned into a theory - Crossing the Chasm. Moore argued that there is a gap that exists between the early adopters of any technology and the mass market. He explained that many technologies initially get... Alex Iskold http://www.adaptiveblue.com In 1991 Geoffrey A. Moore wrote a book that became widely read and quoted in the business community and turned into a theory - Crossing the Chasm. Moore argued that there is a gap that exists between the early adopters of any technology and the mass market. He explained that many technologies initially get pulled into the market by enthusiasts, but later fail to get wider adoption. So to create a company that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, entrepreneurs need to come up with strategies that will help them build a bridge across that gap.

The reason that the book got so popular, and was studied in MBA programs and talked about in top-tier VC firms, is because its analysis is right on the money. There is a big difference between people who are willing to try new technologies and the rest of population, which tends to be much more conservative.

]]> The reason that business people spend time trying to figure out how to bridge the gap is because the gap is what stands between them and a lot of money. Simply put, since early adopters represent a very small percentage of the population, the thinking is that you can't build a business just by selling to them. To build a real business you need to cross the chasm.

Today's fast changing world redefines how we do business. It also puts into question old business methods and theories. Is "Crossing the Chasm" thinking still meaningful today? Is it even possible anymore? In this post we put this business notion under the microscope and look for answers to those questions.

The Classic Chasm Crossing

Consider the iPod, which has become a cultural phenomenon by successfully crossing into the mainstream. When the iPod first hit the market only die-hard Apple fans bought it. Today, however, iPods are ubiquitous. How did Apple do it?

It took a combination of the well-oiled Apple marketing machine, a beautiful product and a passionate user base. Apple marketing made iPods into objects of desire, envy and fashion. Apple's engineering team iterated through many versions of the product, with each getting better and simpler, yet more powerful than the previous. But what really made iPod into such a phenomenon is that it spread virally. iPod owners love their iPods and talk about them all the time. The early adopters of this product became an army of evangelists.

Why VCs Care

Apple had a huge advantage - a well known brand. Startups do not have that and it is one of the reasons why venture capitalists worry about the chasm. VCs are really in the business of risk management. Of course, they try hard to pick the best companies in which to invest. In an ideal world many companies from a strong portfolio would succeed. In reality, though, a lot of companies fail for many different reasons. So venture capitalists need to build their portfolios with that in mind.

To compensate for all failures they need at least one really big winner (think Google). To get a really big winner, you have to have a mass market technology. It needs to be wide spread and scale for millions of users. To ensure a winner, you need to figure out how to cross the chasm. This is why traditional 70 page business plans devote as much as 20 pages to that very topic. Even five years ago a startup would not get funded by a top tier firm without proof that there is a clear way to take the technology into the mainstream.

Why Startups Don't Care

While VCs are trying to manage their risk, startups are trying get traction with early adopters. The startups view of the chasm is that it does not matter, at least for now. Before you cross the chasm you need to get to the chasm. And these days a lot of companies can't even do that. Tara Hunt lucidly illustrated this problem with her version of the chasm diagram:

The other difficulty lies in actually adopting technology to the mainstream users. Often, what works for early adopers does not work for the mainstream and the other way around. Early adopers are typically techies, they want power tools; they eat, sleep, and drink tech; they are spoiled. Mainstream users are techophobic; they need one button at most; they freak out when things change. For this reason if a startup aims at the mainstream right away, the chances are it won't even get to the chasm. Luckily, these days most startups get that and focus on early adopters. But the lucky ones that do get to the chasm today are going to face a big problem that did not exist just a few years ago.

The Real Problem

Crossing the chasm is all about getting a technology widely adopted. The most difficult step is to win over the so called early majority of the mass market. This can only happen with the help of early adopters, who are instrumental since they are used as both examples and evangelists.

The problem is that compared to a few years ago, the speed with which new technologies are coming to the market has increased dramatically. All these technologies are aimed at the early adopters. And they love it and they try it. But the question is what happens when your early adopters run off to play with a new great thing before you have a chance to take your technology mainstream?

For example, some people who used to blog regularly, blog less now because they discovered Twittering (microblogging). Or, early adopters who have discovered Second Life might not have as much time to spend on MySpace anymore. These are not even necessarily competitive technologies, they are complimentary, but the fact is that they all compete for peoples' time and attention.

Since today's new technologies are being brought into the market at an unprecedented pace, the early adopters are stretched. They love trying new things and there are so many of them that they can't keep up and adopt as many new applications and services. It might just be the case that a good technology does not make it because the early adopters abandon it to try something new.

The early adopters are the pillars needed to cross the chasm; without them the whole scheme falls apart. You can't make a leap and bring on board the masses if the very foundation you are standing on, the early adopters, leave to do other things.

Conclusion

According to Wikipedia in 2006, Tom Byers, Faculty Director of Stanford Technology Ventures Program, described "Crossing the Chasm" as "still the bible for entrepreneurial marketing 15 years later." It is certainly a powerful and proven theory, but it does need to be adjusted. The fact that so many things are thrown into the market changes things. Early adopters are enticed by new things much more often today than 15 years ago. Expanding on how to retain the early adopters would be good thing to do in the next edition.

What are your thoughts on taking technology to the mass market today? It would be great to hear the experiences of readers who have crossed - or are in the process of crossing - the chasm.

]]> tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21849 Comment from Edwin Khodabakchian on 2007-08-07 Edwin Khodabakchian http://www.devhd.com Hi Alex,
Thank you for writing this interesting post.

I think that for the chasm to apply you need a large potential market (for example, I think that the blogging market was limited from the get go by the fact that everyone is a potential blog reader but not a blog writer - 1% write, 10% comment, 100% read).

I think that the chasm phenomenon is mostly about the psychology of making decisions. Sometimes, technology savvy or not, you feel strongly about something and you are ready to make a decision that is not yet popular. Sometimes, you just want to follow what everybody else is doing because it feels save.

Another interesting book in this area is the "Art of Influence".

-Edwin

"The Art of Influence" is a good book with talks in detail about psychology and decision making pattern.

]]> 2007-08-07T08:18:09Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21850 Comment from nick on 2007-08-07 nick http://www.firetrust.com quite right - the amount of new stuff coming along is getting way too much to reasonably devote any time to. I find my attention getting shorter and shorter with so many things to try and when I do - it's pretty half hearted. A bit of a worry when launching new stuff as there is so much noise to get your attention.

]]> 2007-08-07T08:42:10Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21851 Comment from Stephen on 2007-08-07 Stephen http://trans4mbiz.blogspot.com Hi Alex

Refreshing piece on a time-tested but potentially worn strategy that could do with updating. Also, very interesting analogy of Apple's use of the strategy but I think it is missing some points and this impacts on your overall analysis.

Unlike its competitors who were in the market first with MP3 players (the likes of River, Rio, etc.), Apple had a compelling service that matched the product - iTunes.

The service was as compelling as the product (the emphasis of the analogy) and allowed an active user base to migrate to a legal platform from the then illegal Napster, at least those fearful of the RIAA's increasing threats and actions. As part of the service, Steve Jobs had managed to convince a hugely sceptical music industry to allow tracks to be sold digitally. Not that they had much choice in the face of ever increasing declines due to ever increasing piracy but a huge feat nonetheless.

The point is that Steve Jobs managed to tap into demand that already existed (MP3 players were already selling and digital downloads had already started, albeit illegally), very innovatively and very quickly and he threw all his might at it. He took advantage of an opportunity and according to research into Innovation success rates that I recently read about, this is the greatest determinant to Innovation success.

The key points of my very log winded comment (:-)) is that matching demand with innovation is a key ingredient for crossing the chasm, ingredients very often missing from many a start-ups portfolio in their quest to "cross the chasm". Of course as you pointed out, money and brand are important, but these points I've just mentioned are too. Hope this contributes to a worthy topic...

]]> 2007-08-07T08:48:38Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21852 Comment from Martin Ebner on 2007-08-07 Martin Ebner http://elearningblog.tugraz.at hi ..

i wrote an very similar research article ..
http://elearningblog.tugraz.at/archives/509
sorry, it is in german but the drawing is maybe understandable ..

if someone like to have the article (is in englisch) please send me an email

kindly

]]> 2007-08-07T09:36:56Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21853 Comment from Sumeet on 2007-08-07 Sumeet http://sumeetkapursblog.blogspot.com/ Hi Alex

Your's is an interesting take on a concept that I have had a lot of respect for as an entrepreneur.

While I see your point about an early focus on the innovators its important to appreciate the point Moore made in his book about the fact that this initial segment must have leverage to get to bigger segments of the market i.e. the early adopters. The case you cite about bloggers probably did not have this leverage.

On a tangent, recently I felt a similar (as when i read CTC) impact reading Blue Ocean Strategy by Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne of INSEAD.

While Moore argues that one should fairly narrowly focus on a market segment to establish a beachhead on landing, CK&RM argue that one should address a really large market and both make sense in their own way.

I think the essential learning (at least as I figure) is about the degree of separation from the present that one's business idea has. Whether your discontinuous innovation is truly blue ocean or not is probably the determinant.

]]> 2007-08-07T09:43:36Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21854 Comment from Ian Wilson on 2007-08-07 Ian Wilson http://www.zukool.com I think the diagram should be rotated so it stands vertically.

To me the concept is not so much crossing the chasm as "bubbling up" to the surface. Products and services need to rise through the media until they reach the mass market media. Being somewhat stratified layers this would give us a "chasm", perhaps the step between CNET news and The New York Times technology section.

In order for this to happen a product needs to persistently get in front of people, into their attention stream to build momentum to keep "rising". One time only, "Tech Crunch" effect, hits will not longer suffice.

As you mention attention is becoming a scarce commodity. I have found myself that I have visited many great services (from TechCrunch for example) that I would love to use but have never returned to, simply through lack of time and attention. They sink back into the abyss.

My "chasm" would look like this:

5. Morning TV (Late Majority)
4. The New York Times technology section (Early Majority)
3. CNET News (Early Adopters / Chasm)
2. TechCrunch (Early Adopters)
1. This Blog (Innovators)

Right now I am pushing a service out and am at stage 1 with a good deal of "bubbles" needed from here on, good job I am so full of hot air ;)

]]> 2007-08-07T09:59:16Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21855 Comment from Dj Bee on 2007-08-07 Dj Bee Neat article.

Part 1: What to do? - Equation Solved :)
Part 2: How to do? - Unsolved :(

I think when it comes to "part 2" it is very much case dependent. In other words you can not generalise it. Success strategy of iPod, Google, Amazon, MS et al are all different.

#6

Disagree with slot no. 1. I will put RWW, GigaOm and TC in slot no. 2.

]]> 2007-08-07T10:45:32Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21856 Comment from old school developer on 2007-08-07 old school developer Alex,

Geoffrey Moore's books from the early 90's (especially "Crossing the Chasm") were greatly simplified adaptations of the seminal research on innovation by Dr. Everett Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Rogers). Dr. Rogers coined the phrase "early adopter".

The classic book on innovation and innovation modeling is:

"Diffusions of Innovation", originally published in 1962, now in its 5th revised edition. I strongly suggest that any entrepreneur read Dr. Rogers work. Here's the ASIN: http://www.amazon.com/Diffusion-Innovations-5th-Everett-Rogers

Other important books on the intersection of innovation, economics, and human networks include the works of Manuel Castells: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Castells)

"The Rise of the Network Society"
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Network-Society-Manuel-Castells/dp/0631221409/

"The Power of Identity (The Information Age)"
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Identity-Information-Age

In my not-so-humble opinion, Geoffrey Moore's books are a complete waste of time. Mr. Moore borrows important, complex ideas, concepts and theories then reduces them to sound bites.

Another important point: Both Dr. Rogers and Dr. Castells are *much better* writers, however, Mr. Moore's books are probably better suited to the attention-deficit "web 2.0" generation.

]]> 2007-08-07T13:18:22Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21857 Comment from Fraser on 2007-08-07 Fraser http://www.disruptivethoughts.com Great post Alex!

I think there's an additional point, albeit subtle, that adds complexity to the issue. You sort of touch on it, but I wanted to explicitly point it out.

The very things that a start-up needs to do to achieve (2) in Tara's diagram are generally the things that will keep it from moving to (3). The challenge is that the things needed at (3) often times alienate users at (2), but as you rightfully point out:

"The early adopters are the pillars needed to cross the chasm; without them the whole scheme falls apart. You can't make a leap and bring on board the masses if the very foundation you are standing on, the early adopters, leave to do other things."

So the challenge is being valuable enough to entice the innovators/early-adopters, being able to maintain and grow their presence in the face of adapting the product/service for the early-majority crowd, and then crossing the chasm to that mainstream market. All within the environment that you described (high-speed of technology development, etc).

]]> 2007-08-07T13:40:51Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21858 Comment from Sam Lawrence on 2007-08-07 Sam Lawrence http://www.jivesoftware.com Often the problem is that companies and the media confuse the difference between the idea hype cycle and technology adoption. For technology to be adopted, it needs to be purchased/used (and hopefully loved). Folks in the edge of tech often consume a lot of ideas and think that the market is further along then it is when actual sales don't come close to matching that reality.

So, there is another chasm, the chasm between great ideas and real adoption/use.

]]> 2007-08-07T13:43:03Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21859 Comment from Avi Charkham on 2007-08-07 Avi Charkham http://www.avich.com VCs may ask you to prove in your business plan how you’re going to cross the chasm but in reality (like Moore shows) they are responsible for the fact that many startups fade into the depths of the chasm.

Let me try to explain why I think VCs are a big part of the problem.

If you ever tried to slide down a quarter pipe with your rollers you know that there is a second where you look down the ramp and there is no way your mind is going to let you take this action. Going down the ramp is completely against how your brain’s programmed. The only way to go down that ramp is to manually switch off your brain and then slide down.

Well how is this connected… VCs are composed from a group of genetically inclined hunters and hunters find it really hard to stop when they smell the blood.

So this is how it works... the startup gets the attention of guys like Richard from RWW... the hype is on and they get some impressive numbers of early adopters, everything looks promising and the VC start to smell the blood of the kill.

This is the exact point, where according to Moore, most companies have to stop, take a deep breath, and dive into this chasm. If they did everything right, if they are really market oriented and not sails oriented, than they have a chance of crossing the chasm.

But there is no magic, crossing the chasm involves going through a dark tunnel, normally with a drop of sails and a general feeling of ‚Äúhow the hell are we going to do this‚Ä? and it is at this point where the VCs freak out and you start seeing them replacing key functions in the company (normally the VP marketing will go first) and the company start the death cycle finding itself buried deep in the chasm.

The VCs are programmed to kill and as the startup starts speeding its way up on the adoption graph the VCs smell the blood, stopping at this point is totally against the way a hunter‚Äôs brain is programmed to act. It is only by will of power, just like going down the ramp with your rollers, that the VCs can switch off the automatic ‚Äúgo for the kill‚Ä? mode and take the deep breath needed in order to go through the chasm with their partners.

VCs like to hear how you're going to cross the chasm but the rarely have the patients to be with you during the crossing.

]]> 2007-08-07T13:50:03Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21860 Comment from Peter Cranstone on 2007-08-07 Peter Cranstone http://www.5o9inc.com We crossed the chasm in 90 days back in 2000. The product that did it was mod_gzip. Overnight it enabled any Apache web server to send compressed (accelerated) content to a web browser. Since 2000 it has never had a bug report against it, is used around the globe in virtually every enterprise and every ISP.

How we crossed... we solved a problem AND we didn't require any behavioral changes by our users. Admins simply added a module to their Apache server and rebooted. Users never had to do anything to receive the compressed content... the browser took care of everything.

To date there are millions of servers using the technology including the one serving this page. Hows that for adoption. Everyone who is reading this article is benefiting from something two guys in a basement invented.

Thats real adoption for you.

Cheers,

Peter

]]> 2007-08-07T13:51:41Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21861 Comment from Eran on 2007-08-07 Eran http://www.walyou.com Hello Alex, wonderful post. I believe that companies must focus on a combination of added value and simplicity, not either or.

I think that inherent value must be immediately presented. With that, additional features presented should grant potential additional value. For example, if the iPod was marketing itself having a compass installed in it, it is an additional feature but does it actually answer the need of the user? It does not. Another mention, on some social networks, a lot of information is asked, without granting reasoning behind it. The early adopters must have a reason to use it. This reason must have backing, why will this help, assist, or make life better. It goes back to the statement of "What's In It For Me?".

Furthermore, innovation should be for simplicity, not for the fact of innovation. So for the reasoning behind the early adopters: The innovators are techies and are able to use the new products, but for the early adopters they must also be able to use it. As mentioned in your post, the iPod provided that, and it is also a reason behind its success.

-Eran

]]> 2007-08-07T13:55:13Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21862 Comment from 10668844 on 2007-08-07 10668844 http://www.horizonplastics.ca Hi,

I feel we've touched on the real topic of this post, but no one has really addressed it.

The time difference between then and now. When Moore wrote his book, the enthusiasm of early adopters was at an all time high, the cool kids, the mavens and the rest all had their interest piqued. Additionally, even the late adopters had an easier level of interest threshold to cross.

Now we're into a time period where even the early adopters, the mavericks, whatever you want to call them are more careful about what they devote their time to, why? Because there is just so much stuff out there.

The Tipping Point is another great book, one that applies to this thread, but not because it deals with communication, but because it deals with a topic that needs modification with the most recent web explosion.

So how are we going to overcome this? This is the conversation I would like to delve more into, if there is anyone who would like to do the same, please.

]]> 2007-08-07T14:31:52Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21863 Comment from Alex Iskold on 2007-08-07 Alex Iskold http://www.adaptiveblue.com @13 Right on!

Alex

]]> 2007-08-07T14:47:10Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21864 Comment from Meir on 2007-08-07 Meir http://www.walyou.com Hi Alex,

Great post on a very interesting subject.
I once heard of a theory about the diffusion process in a lecture by Professor Eyal Maoz.
He stated that, in some cases, laggards can be turned into innovators or even early adopters.
For this we have to analyze the reasons for being laggards.
One of them is conservatism and the other one is attachment to previous technology.
This may seem the same, but the distinction is important.
While the first group (conservatism) will just ignore your messages, the second will one passionately oppose them.
For example Tony Hawks' opposition to the inclusion of roller blading to the X-Games.
By targeting your effort towards understanding this group's opposition to your product you may discover what is needed to cross the chasm.

]]> 2007-08-07T14:50:43Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21865 Comment from Brian Solis on 2007-08-07 Brian Solis http://www.briansolis.com Alex, this should be included in the next printing of the book.

]]> 2007-08-07T15:10:14Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21866 Comment from 10668844 on 2007-08-07 10668844 http://www.horizonplastics.ca @14 or Alex:

So how do we begin this conversation. I have to admit, my thoughts are probably not as well developed as yours are at present, given that you just wrote the post.

Something that I would like to point out regarding the iPod and iTunes. That, to me, was one of the greatest examples of a classic tipping point.

Apple created a great MP3 organizer, it looked cool as well. Initially it was only for Mac, but they quickly made it cross platform, an impressive jump for Apple at the time. Because iTunes looked and is cool, all the 'cool kids' wanted it and could have it, if they hadn't made it cross platform, that wouldn't have been possible. Then all of a sudden iTunes was being used by everyone, and then it hit, the only way to get your iTunes library from computer to MP3 player was to use an iPod.

So the moral of the story is, for all you Apple fanboys, if it hadn't been for us Windows users liking iTunes and using it, Apple would not have had its resurgence and would still be struggling to figure out what to do next.

]]> 2007-08-07T15:23:37Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21867 Comment from Simon Edhouse on 2007-08-07 Simon Edhouse http://edgepolitics.blogspot.com Firstly, if you look at the actual adoption curve for the iPod, (and I carefully plotted it back in Dec 04) the hockey stick curve took off when Apple released iTunes for Windows and started selling iPods at Wallmart. However, I have always held that what really drove iPod sales was that The iPod + iTunes was simply the best way to convert, sort and listen to digital music, but music from where?

The music purchased from the ITMS always represented only a fraction of the songs on the average iPod. Some of that vast collective iPod hard disk space was being filled by copying personal CDs, but this actually represented a massive freeing of music from the CD format taking it one small step away from broad dissemination on the internet.

It is fairly clear (to me) that one of the main reasons that the iPod has been so successful is that it has tapped into the most controversial and pervasive internet phenomenon of recent times, music file-sharing. (and I believe this was a factor in Steve's strategy from the beginning)

]]> 2007-08-07T15:33:35Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21868 Comment from 10668844 on 2007-08-07 10668844 http://www.horizonplastics.ca @18

I agree with you that the iPod and its success is related to taping into the "the most controversial and pervasive internet phenomenon of recent times, music file-sharing." But I do not agree that this was part of Steve's plan.

I had my first MP3 player back in 1999, an LG that was flash memory based, I wish i still had it. I was using Winamp back then for media sorting.

So it wasn't Steve and Apple taping into a market that didn't already have players involved.

When Apple launched the iPod and iTunes back in 2001, there was little notice of the event, and it took 3 years for anything substantial to happen. I don't see that as being part of a plan.

I'm open to the idea that the success of the iPod and iTunes as a well managed and executed event, but right now I believe it was one of the greatest pieces of accidental luck that we've ever seen.

]]> 2007-08-07T15:52:01Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21869 Comment from Cliff Allen on 2007-08-07 Cliff Allen http://blog.allen.com Two changes in business lead to the creation of the chasm, both of which are still having an effect on introducing innovative products.

When the technology adoption lifecycle was first introduced in 1957 it took longer for companies to sell to the entire Innovator segment of risk takers. Innovators need time to test and evaluate new products before they start telling the Early Adopters their success stories, which the Early Adopter personality needs to hear before they make a purchase.

The other thing Early Adopters need is to see is a strong marketing campaign that includes third-party endorsements (e.g., reviews, testimonials, new product announcements, and, of course, advertising). This tells them that the company has a real product and plans to be around.

Online communications has sped up the ability for an industry to sell to every Innovator. And, venture capital has allowed startups to market to every Early Adopter much more quickly.

What hasn't changed is the slow, deliberate purchase process of the Early Majority and Late Majority -- which creates the near zero revenue that an industry experiences when it's in the chasm.

It's unlikely that anyone will find a way to change the human nature of these two Majority segments to eliminate the chasm. So, companies that introduce truly innovative products need to have the capital lined up to outlast the competition while the market decides who will be the market leader.

]]> 2007-08-07T16:06:25Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21870 Comment from bernard lunn on 2007-08-07 bernard lunn http://bernardlunn.wordpress.com/wp-admin/ Alex, very interesting. I have been thinking about this recently as Crossing The Chasm has been part of my mental model for so long yet the world is now different. The much, much lower "friction" (because of Internet) makes adoption so much easier. I also think there is now far less of a gap between the early adopters (the attention problem you reference) and the visionaries who know that the impact of new technology can be massive and fast (positive or negative) and so they use it seriously more quickly. The gap to Main Street is also smaller as the Net Generation adopt stuff so fast. I am not sure the whole model is out of date but the speed of adoption is so much faster it almost looks that way. Also we have a demographic divide between adoption by Net Gen (very fast) and by Digital Immigrants (slightly faster).
As they say, The Internet Changes Everthing!
Bernard

]]> 2007-08-07T16:51:09Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21871 Comment from Trevor Speirs on 2007-08-07 Trevor Speirs http://speirsfamily.blogspot.com Alex, great post on one my favorite topics!
I agree that the model could use a refresher, but I think it is still very relevant to business today.
I have to disagree on a subtle point. Your comment:

"Crossing the chasm is all about getting a technology widely adopted. The most difficult step is to win over the so called early majority of the mass market. This can only happen with the help of early adopters, who are instrumental since they are used as both examples and evangelists."

I believe Moore's point was that the reason a chasm exists is because the Early Majority do not listen or respect the opinion of early adopters. Each group wants significantly different paybacks from the technology. Early Adopters want a strategic advantage, while Early Majority want a reliable standard. The reason the chasm exists is because you can't use Early Adopters as references (or evangelists) to sell the Early Majority.

The Early Adopters are great because they often help you generate revenue and help you improve your product while you find a way to get your product to a level to cross the chasm. Once at the chasm, Early Adopters can be your worst enemy because they are asking for very specific customizations that the Early Majority would never want. This can become a huge drain of resources that would be better spent simplifying and standardizing the product for a niche beachhead into the Early Majority.

Therefore, if you get to the chasm (and I agree it is not easy), it would not be the worst thing in the world to have the early adopters lose interest. The key is to not focus on regaining their interest, but to focus on how to modify your improved product to make that Early Majority beachhead.

Again great post! I think it is generating an important discussion.

]]> 2007-08-07T17:43:42Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21872 Comment from 10668844 on 2007-08-07 10668844 http://www.horizonplastics.ca The last couple of posts seem to stating that the adoption curve amongst innovators and early adopters. I believe, that logic is simply the tail end of what has been the norm since about 1995, but this is changing.

I consider myself to be one an innovator/early adopter. I'm only an early adopter when I didn't get to innovate. But I am becoming more complacent in my need to adopt. After years of having to be the first to test it out, I'm realizing that no longer brings me the same sense of satisfaction that it once did, and the reason for that is over saturation. There are so many things for me to test now, and even if it is free, I'm beginning to have to manage my time just to explore.

I was given a Pownce account when it first came out, it's supposed to be the new thing - from the one the only Kevin Rose aka DIGG. Guess what, I've spent 10 minutes on three different occasions playing around with it and I'm in no rush to go back.

5 years ago I'd be jumping up and down about getting to test out the newest thing and telling all my friends about it. I'd be community building, preaching etc.

I would very much like to do a study of innovators and early adopters to find out if my feeling to echo the overall sentiment.

]]> 2007-08-07T18:42:21Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21873 Comment from Dan on 2007-08-07 Dan Wikipedia is NOT a source. Repeat this.

]]> 2007-08-07T18:47:17Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21874 Comment from old school developer on 2007-08-07 old school developer @25

Dan,

I agree that Wikipedia can be grossly inaccurate, which is why I don't link to Wikipedia articles unless I've verifiedthe contents of an article with at least two other trusted sources.

In the case of Everette Rogers and Manual Castells, I checked the Wikipedia articles against the biographies given for each author in copies of several of their books, and against CV's included with workshops each author has given over the years (I've attended several).

The concepts discussed by both Dr. Rogers and Dr. Castells have such impact on my work that I keep copies of their books at *both* my home and business offices.

]]> 2007-08-07T20:14:03Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21875 Comment from Ann Civic on 2007-08-07 Ann Civic
"Crossing the Chasm" was relevant during the Internet boom when every company was getting investment just because it had an extension .com.

VC's who invest after the idea has generated a million users is not a VC, he is just an investor. A true VC goes by the merit of the idea, and *makes* it happen. Those who cannot stand the pressure should go into Fixed Income Bonds. Investing after a startup is 300M in revenues is for the investment bankers.

]]> 2007-08-07T20:51:10Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21876 Comment from Simon Edhouse on 2007-08-07 Simon Edhouse http://edgepolitics.blogspot.com 10668844...

"not part of Steve's plan."??

You said:

So it wasn't Steve and Apple taping into a market that didn't already have players involved.

No, he didn't have the first mp3 player, but he created the best one. However, the key difference was that Jobs folded iTunes into the equation, and it was iTunes that formed a bridge between a user's PC, their computer based music collection and their iPod. This combination was the fertile ground onto which those >1 billion songs per month downloaded on file-sharing networks found ears.

You say: "When Apple launched the iPod and iTunes back in 2001, there was little notice of the event, and it took 3 years for anything substantial to happen. I don't see that as being part of a plan."

Actually... back in 2000, a year before the iPod's release, Napster was in full flight, growing from "one million users to over 50 million users in about 7 months time" (see Don Dodge's blog http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2007/03/how_napster_cha.html)

The iPod/iTunes phenomenon was not: "one of the greatest pieces of accidental luck that we've ever seen"... it resulted from a confluence of many things, not the least of which is that both iTunes and the iPod benefited enormously from the Mp3 file-sharing revolution.

]]> 2007-08-08T00:59:48Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21877 Comment from Ian Wilson on 2007-08-07 Ian Wilson http://www.zukool.com A point to bear in mind, perhaps obvious, and highlighted today on Bubblegeneration:

http://www.bubblegeneration.com/2007/08/research-note-death-of-1.cfm

The groups mentioned above (early adopters etc) are fluid, they are *your* early adopters *now*. These groups are different people for different products.

As Bubblegen puts it :

"...almost everyone is a prosumer of something."

Which means my mother is an early adopter, the key is when and for what.

]]> 2007-08-08T01:28:43Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21878 Comment from Simon Edhouse on 2007-08-07 Simon Edhouse http://edgepolitics.blogspot.com Ian, I think Umair's point was that trying to define a percentage of 'prosumers' against 'consumers' is misleading in that it obliges us to judge when something produced qualifies one as a prosumer, when in fact such distinctions are pointless. The Web facilitates prosumerism, that is the take-out message. However, I don't read Umair as equating being a prosumer with being an early adopter. They are different concepts.

]]> 2007-08-08T01:53:37Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21879 Comment from Ian Wilson on 2007-08-07 Ian Wilson http://www.zukool.com Simon, Umair's points were a little tangential to mine, but the concepts are analogous I think. That being that users/consumers are a fluid group and one products laggard may be another products early adopter.

]]> 2007-08-08T06:43:26Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21880 Comment from Simon Edhouse on 2007-08-08 Simon Edhouse http://edgepolitics.blogspot.com That's way too blurry for me. A "laggard" is by definition never going to adopt something 'early'... They are the very slow adopters who follow the late majority. Like the very old people who are starting to have their own mobile phones,(with big buttons) Umair (bubblegeneration) was talking about Prosumers, so I think it would be more correct to say that your points were tangential to his.

To get back on track of the article above. I think that 'crossing the chasm' is still the key issue with new products and services, the complication with the web's 'attention-economy' is that we are spoiled for choice, and its a buyer's rather than a seller's market.

However, its a buyer's market in which so much stuff is free. So creating sustainable business models are a real challenge. This challenge is now even more complicated by the reach and power of Gobble (Google) with their horizontal reward scheme, (adsense/adwords) which to many sites negates the need for another kind of revenue model. These kind of phenomena were never considered by Geoffrey Moore when he wrote Crossing the Chasm.

]]> 2007-08-08T08:45:28Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21881 Comment from Chris (Amateur Traveler podcast) on 2007-08-08 Chris (Amateur Traveler podcast) http://AmateurTraveler.com I was employee number 7 at a company called Momenta that was used in the book as an example of a company that died in the chasm. Momenta made a pen based computer. Momenta went under in 1992. I think some of the argument from the book centers around new products that have to convince someone they need this in their lives. I don't think the model necessarily works as well when you describe the second or 3rd generation companies. So the chasm would be better at describing Visicalc than Excel market share, better at describing MySpace than Facebook or Twitter. Once you have convinced people the have a need to a product or a kind of product other competitors can still come and take your customers away if you fail to innovate.

]]> 2007-08-08T15:05:14Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21882 Comment from Anonymous on 2007-08-08 Anonymous Personally, I hate this book. We have a number of early adopters who request unnecessary and sometimes contradictory changes, which we must implement because our boss keeps quoting that no company ever crossed the chasm without the support of early adopters. After years, our product is technologically the best one in the market, but it is so complex that few ever care about using it. And yet we must still continue to add changes to keep the early adopters. I would rethink the whole concept of early adopting: You use the early adopters to polish the product, but don't base your product on them, and once they have done enough testing, you release it.

If you are working in a company that is trying to fit the product to early adopters, I have just one suggestion: never delete code, always factorize it to keep both codes running, with a hidden setting to choose one. I have never seen someone contradict himself so often as a so called early adopter... maybe only a boss following the guidance of an early adopter.

]]> 2007-08-08T17:28:54Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21883 Comment from Trevor Speirs on 2007-08-08 Trevor Speirs http://speirsfamily.blogspot.com @#34
I can't see how you hate this book, when it completely agrees with your issues. Your boss is half right: Early Adopters are necessary to help a product "TO" the chasm. They help bring it to a mature level.

But the book also highlights that there is a point where you need to stop customizing your product to every wish of the Early Adopters and start considering the important features that the Early Majority need.

Once your product is mature, you really do not need the Early Adopters. Their reference will rarely convince the Early Majority to buy the product (only other Early Majority references will do this). At this point only a concentrated marketing effort will get the product over the chasm.

To use the iPod example. What apple did was take the mature technology of MP3 players and asked what does the Early Majority want? Then, they created a easy to use iPod software interface and a simple method to sinc with the home computer. The iTunes store was an extra offering, but I don't think it was crucial to helping the MP3 player cross the chasm. These simple improvements made the MP3 player "chasm crossable"! The fact it took the other players so long to replicate this (and at this time only Sansa has come close) has been a contributing factor to the iPod's dominance.

]]> 2007-08-08T21:10:15Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21884 Comment from Michael Kreppein on 2007-08-09 Michael Kreppein http://inquisix.com/blog Hi Alex,
Very good read, I enjoyed this article greatly. As I worked at Sybase in the mid-90‚Äôs, the Geoffrey Moore book was required reading for all in management - after all, we were one of his prime examples of success. (to be changed later once Sybase could not cross the chasm). As a co-founder of a startup building product, talking to customers and soliciting VC investment, I particularly found the ‚ÄúCurrently Frustrating Chasm‚Ä? poignant. We still use Moore‚Äôs bowling pin analogy to show VCs who our innovators are & early adapters will be.

- Michael

]]> 2007-08-09T13:59:15Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21885 Comment from Antiventurecapital on 2007-08-09 Antiventurecapital http://www.antiventurecapital.com Kevin Hogan has a number of excellent books out on the art pf persuasion for marketers.

]]> 2007-08-10T03:14:43Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21886 Comment from PaulSweeney on 2007-08-12 PaulSweeney http://voicesage.blogspot.com Just wanted to say I think this is a very welcome discussion. Ian Wilson makes many of the points I wanted to make and their source is probably the same (i.e. bubblegen). Perhaps the context of the application under discussion needs to be put into the model? i.e. the "net" has its dynamics, but applications that are enterprise, or retail products with a "real world" object (such as ipod) have a different dynamic. An online early adopter for a new service may go to a "hip bar" and influence "fashionista" who adopt and spread through more traditional word of mouth/ place based influence cycles. One of the "signals" that I saw with ipod, and picked up in their advertising, is the white line of the cords. That's prime time, on the street, social signalling. If you look at online/offline buying patterns, the search, evaluation and purchase cycles are very interesting and may inform some of the ongoing conversation here....

]]> 2007-08-12T10:55:45Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21887 Comment from betaBonnie on 2007-08-12 betaBonnie Peter Cranstone said it all.

1. Solve a user's problem.
2. Make it easy to use.


Branding 101.

]]> 2007-08-12T20:51:36Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21888 Comment from Jeff Osborne on 2007-08-15 Jeff Osborne http://newimproved.planresonate.com I enjoy Moore's work and more power to him even if he adapted every idea he ever wrote. All of this type of knowledge is cyclical anyhow. Consider Tom Peters, "Thriving on Chaos", 1987. To test (highly scientific, I'll admit) I flipped randomly to a page in the book and checked to see if anything was relevant to this discussion. Sure enough. See page 245 if you're interested, I'm not going to quote or paraphrase. The title of the chapter is "invest in small starts". I'm confident it wouldn't take too much work to trace the ideas back much further still. The more the market changes the more it stays the same.

]]> 2007-08-15T07:28:34Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21889 Comment from Geoffrey Moore on 2007-08-24 Geoffrey Moore Alex (and friends)

As the old Laurel and Hardy line goes, "Now look what a fine mess you've got us into, Stanley!" I have to say I am totally inspired by this thread.

A few months ago my colleague Tom Kosnik and I agreed to write a sequel to the original book, the working title being "Crossing the Chasm 2.0," precisely because so much has changed in the tech and tech-enabled sectors of the economy since 1990 . What we have now is tons of questions.

What parts of the model still hold? What parts have to be changed? Is it still viable at all? How do you adapt it to globalization? to consumerization? to expansion of tech into regulated industries like energy and life sciences? to adoption life cycles that do not start in the US? to markets that begin in consumer and work back into the enterprise? to service businesses? to efforts that are being incubated inside established enterprises (what we call "crossing the chasm inside the belly of a whale")? To what extent are we all just being swept up in one gigantic adoption life cycle called the Internet?

These are the kinds of issues Tom and I plan to tackle with the help of a whole raft of his students who are doing "caselets" on various success stories and failures to give us lots of grist for our mill. Based on this thread you may be sure there will a full discussion of the iPod story. That said, we would be interested in other case examples that we should address (along with any insights about how you think we should address them).

Right now the only blog I have is focused on my last book, "Dealing with Darwin," so until we set up a CTC 2.0 site, we'll just check back here for any thoughts you all care to share. And thanks in advance for any efforts you make on our behalf.

Geoff

]]> 2007-08-24T15:30:02Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.2700-comment:21890 Comment from Alex Iskold on 2007-08-24 Alex Iskold http://www.adaptiveblue.com Geoff,

It is very flattering to have you comment on this post - thanks for doing that. We are thrilled to hear that the issues raised are real, interesting and that you are working on a new book.

Feel free to contact us, we would be happy to help and share our experiences. I can be reached at alex [dot] iskold [at] gmail [dot] com.

We look forward to your new book!

Alex

]]> 2007-08-24T16:15:56Z