Well, the point I guess is that the people who use it are more and more the people who make the decision, b/c the channels of distribution have changed, even for biz software. http://web.hbr.org/email/archive/dailystat.php?date=092110
Hey - I think we disagree on the basic premise. I don't think most features are there because the clients "need them". The point of the post is that many are there because they think they need them, and thus, through a sales process they were "required". Of course, one size does NOT fit all... many specialized apps do require more features... but in general, you can kill features, especially if based on data that shows nobody really uses them.
"Killing" a feature before it's rolled out would be great, but it's hard to start talking a potential customer out of a feature request if there's a chance it will put them off your product. Doubly so if it's a salesperson talking to them who doesn't have detailed technical experience.
And killing features after is always a problem. If you've got lots of users then some of them are probably using every single feature, no matter how dumb it is.
Totally agree... but again, point of the post was that when you are selling bottom up, and your "customer" is the end user, you are less locked by a singular buyer who think that something is required. No doubt that this approach can cause some friction, and it is way easier before release... but it can be done...if the primary goal is user experience.
Totally agree about having to still sell and marketing. The point was that a great product, supported by web-based, social strategies for selling and marketing are more cost effective and more amenable to Canadians.
Hey - I agree, the circle jerk is not helpful. But also understand that many of these companies have been started by people who have indeed built scalable businesses, sold, and started again. Rypple, Dayforce, Swix and others, for example. I don't agree that the problems need "long-term thinking". They need more people to go out and kick ass. In particular, by learning how to SELL AND MARKET. The point of the post is to suggest that Canadian culture (and yes, it is a stereotype) was not particularly supportive of this capacity. Now, with a bottom-up sale over the web Canadians have a more natural route to sell and market.
Sorry if I read too much of my own bias into your blog post. I agree that selling is what's important. The web has definitely helped Canadians in that respect, as our startups can now compete on an equal level with American players. In fact, as you alluded to, the startup scenes up here are big in the major cities precisely for the reason the scene is big in places like San Francisco (e.g., close proximity to good educational institutions, the right culture, etc.).
Sean is absolutely right on. Too many people think a "fun" culture means Xboxes, free drinks and fooze-ball or a really "fun" cool market space. That's a mistake. I don't think that's the fun Sean is talking about. I think that for creative people - esp. developers and product people - it is intrinsically fun to simply build something awesome, even in a less than "fun" space. The main reward is real people loving your awesome creation because you've solved their problem. I've found that even talking about the money can be de-motivating because it makes the problem solving feel less pure, more instrumental, less meaningful. Nothing is more fun or sustaining in the tough times than a simple email from a user saying "I love your product, thanks!". When the team lives for that, you've got a great team.
thanks! As an aside, i notice that these types of observations quickly devolve into a reductio ad absurdum of "but money really counts" or "but you like money". The answer is: of course. People are complicated and have multiple motivations - team and individual motivation is not "either/or"... it's complicated!
