berkus_ventures_300ppi copy


Do you really want to be the first to market?

Over the years, as I managed my several computer companies as CEO or executive chairman, I made the decision to go to market with a brand new product that had never before been exposed to my customer’s marketplace. In each case, after overwhelming publicity, certainly noticed by a great number of potential decision makers, and after record-breaking sessions at industry trade shows to introduce these to the potential buyers, the products failed in the marketplace.

I recall the introduction of artificial intelligence into the hotel reservation process, a “one-up” on the airline method of yield managing the price of airplane seats. With the cover story in the industry trade journal, record-breaking overflow education sessions at the international trade show, and even glowing reports from the first hotel user’s management, the product failed to attract more than two customers and had to be withdrawn from the market, even though it was an unqualified success for the first users.   As a side note, we returned to market with the application as a software-only product without artificial intelligence and without some features, reduced the price from $150,000 to $8,000, and had a subsequent hit on our hands.

[Email readers, continue here…]  In another instance, we introduced the first kiosks for hotel lobby check-in. They were large, a bit clumsy looking, and gathered cobwebs in the lobbies of some great hotels.

Cover story for industry magazine.  Best possible press: too early to market.

Cover story for industry magazine. Best possible press: too early to market.

These and other efforts to be first over the years have led me to ask my current crop of CEOs as I serve on various boards, “Do you have the resources to evangelize the market, educate your potential customers, AND sell your product?” The answer is invariably ‘no,’ because the cost of evangelizing a new product is completely unknown. A marketing professional or the marketing department certainly can work to obtain good press, appealing to curious journalists and early adapters. Early meetings with potential customers will yield enthusiasm for a “free test” of the new product. But if it is a radical departure from the comfort zone, the cost of promoting and marketing the new product will be beyond the capability of most small or medium sized companies.

Even Apple rarely attempts this, with all its resources. Apple is well known for building upon the work of early adapters. After failing with its early Newton tablet, Apple waited for fifteen years before reinventing and repositioning the tablet as a much friendlier consumer device. The same occurred with the iPod. Apple was not first or second. They just added the infrastructure needed to seamlessly purchase and download content to their offering, and produced a friendly way to use a product that previously required early adapters to manually download songs to their devices.

I will readily admit that the half million I spent on the artificial intelligence system that failed generated the greatest positive press we ever had. As a corporate promotion, it was a hit. As a product marketing effort, it was a failure.

If you are going to be first in a market, plan on a very long time from introduction to acceptance. Triple the time you estimate for the effort, and add four times the cost you estimated for marketing.

Does anyone know how much Toshiba lost with its HD DVD format marketing effort? First to market over blue ray with what some say was a better product, Toshiba dropped over a billion dollars into that one and lost it all. There are numerous examples like that one.

You might be an exception. Chances are that you’d do much better by inventing a better mouse trap, and marketing it for its advantages over a product that the consumer already understands. But there is always a winner at a table with the odds stacked against the player. It just doesn’t happen often enough to expect success.


  • Beverly McCabe

    Love this one Dave!

  • Dick Reeves

    Dave, I love to receive columns like today’s “First to market” piece. I think we have much greater impact on readers when we eat a little crow and dissect our own failures in the light of retrospect. Thanks!

  • Dave, thank you very much for this very informative and helpful article. It certainly hits home to us in many ways.

    Your article has certainly solidified my thinking that has plagued several of our clients. You will save them a lot of $$$ and aggravation, as well as lost manpower that could have been used more productively in other areas. Your loses have been turned into our gains.

    Please keep these missives coming. They are so very helpful.

  • Bruce Lewolt

    Thanks for another insightful blog. My response to your blogs is always – I wish I knew this 10 years ago.

  • My company is currently in the process of developing an entirely new class of hospitality technology. In this case we will not be the first to market. As it happens I was one of the founders of the first attempt that failed back in 2006.
    At the time we received a warm welcome from the industry and had some success but in the end we were 6 or 7 years too soon with an on premise point of service solution delivered via SaaS.

    The other lesson learned was not to attempt too big of a bite in the early releases. In the case of GEMtech, our delivery of that “entirely new class of technology” won’t be realized until our third year of development. The first release will be a Minimum Viable Product that will serve known and established hotel functional requirements.

    The MVP won’t generate a lot of heat but it will get us to market and revenues. From there we will be able to build towards the big buzz release in the third year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sign up for
Dave's weekly emails

Most Recent Posts