Their continued success is more to do with
lack of competition rather than intrinsic awesomeness.
Not exact matches
They typically react (slowly at best) to three outside drivers: (a) their
competition brings a new offering to market, and they need a quick competitive response; (b) their customers see and begin to adopt new processes and solutions, and the customers demand that their products and services conform to the new ways
of doing business; or (c) they see a new tool, product, or service in the market offered by a new player and they quickly determine that this is a game - changer which they need to own (
rather than try to build themselves) because they
lack the internal capacity to do otherwise.
Here are a few common «
lack of focus» examples I see amongst founders all the time: — Doing shit that makes them look busy, but doesn't have significant impact — Trying to do too many things instead
of one thing really well — Getting things done themselves instead
of taking time to build the team — Fundraising when it's not time — Acquiring users when existing ones keep churning — Adding features instead
of fixing or removing the ones they have — Having multiple audiences,
rather than one very targeted — Paying attention to vanity metrics or too many metrics instead
of core KPIs — Following the
competition's every move — Obsessing with getting up on TechCrunch (or other press)-- Attending multiple networking events a week
Once there, his weight (nine pounds more than the next contestant),
lack of financial support, long - sightedness (which required him to wear glasses that frequently fogged during the
competition) and fear
of heights
rather affected his medal chances, and he finished last in both his events.
He believes a
lack of information about charters leads many in the traditional public school world to feel a sense
of competition rather than teamwork, despite the shared goal
of shaping children into the best, brightest, and most successful versions
of themselves.
Rather it's the
lack of transparency that creates more internal
competition.
Sandman argued that if law firms were ranked and assessed by their use
of technology
rather than just revenues and profits, we'd find ourselves in a virtuous
competition that could potentially redound to the benefit
of those who
lack access to legal services.