Newsletter Subject

The Growth Newsletter #166

From

demandcurve.com

Email Address

neal@e.demandcurve.com

Sent On

Wed, Mar 27, 2024 11:45 AM

Email Preheader Text

The Innovator's Dilemma that kills companies ‌ ‌ ‌ The Growth Newsletter #16

The Innovator's Dilemma that kills companies  ‌ ‌ ‌ [Demand Curve]( [Read on demandcurve.com]( The Growth Newsletter #166 The Innovator's Dilemma that kills companies Today's newsletter is more strategy focused.  We'll discuss why massive companies fail and why startups are able to take them on.  Let's dive in 👘  – Neal Thanks to [Contrast]( for helping keep this newsletter free for everybody: Want to run better webinars and live events? - Easy to use. - On-brand. - Way more fun than other webinar tools. - Repurpose AI to turn each webinar into a week of content.  [Try Contrast free →]( Want to be featured in front of 97,040 founders and marketers? [Learn more here](. The Innovator's Dilemma that kills companies Insight from [Clay Christensen]( (Harvard Business Professor) and various sources.  52% of the Fortune 500 companies in 2000 went out of business by 2020. These are the world's largest companies with the biggest budgets.  And most of them died in just two decades.  Companies have two options to stay or become relevant: - Sustaining Innovation. You make iteratively better products that you can charge more money from your current customers/market. - Disruptive Innovation. You make products cheaper and more accessible for people outside your current market, which undercuts current products. Or you completely change the technology or form factor to make it way better.  Examples of this playing out - Toyota emerged and made gas cars cheaper (which actually helped reliability). Ford had to decide if they tried to compete (#2) or make even bigger trucks and SUVs (#1). Meanwhile, Tesla invested in electric, futuristic cars and became worth more than every other gas car company combined. - Kodak made film cameras and focused on improving them each year. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, and Sony invested heavily in creating digital cameras and killed Kodak. - Google focused on making more money from Search. Despite having more data to train AI than anybody else, a startup, OpenAI, creates ChatGPT and replaces the need for many Google searches because you can get nuanced responses. - Lockheed Martin and Boeing made insanely expensive rockets and satellites. SpaceX emerged and made them way cheaper and reusable. It has already launched more satellites than all other companies combined (which is also acting to disrupt traditional Internet Service Providers with Starlinq).  If a company doesn't do #2, someone else will and kill them over time.  Most companies focus on #1 for a simple reason:  They’re made up of individuals trying to accumulate short-term evidence of achievement to demonstrate an upward life trajectory. This means more money, promotions, and awards.  And avoid evidence of incompetency, such as demotions, less money, firings, or failure.  A company is a collection of individuals  Individuals within the company all focus on accumulating short-term evidence of achievement. And profit this quarter or this year is king.  Employees and executive staff are often compensated with annual bonuses. Companies don't retroactively take that money back if the company fails 10 years later.  To maximize profit (and bonuses), they focus on improving current products for current customers and charge more money. An example of this is the iPhone. The iPhone 4 cost $199 to $299. The iPhone 15 costs $899 to $1599. Consumers are happy paying that because the iPhone 15 is so much better.  However, many companies neglect to invest in long-term, risky bets that could make their products cheaper and more accessible or completely different.  Here's why startups have the advantage  Startups are initially less profit-focused. For them, short-term achievement is gaining any market share at all. And hungry, young founders are often driven by longer-term big payouts rather than short-term marginal gains.  Startups are run by ambitious founders. Massive corporations are run by committees.  Startups also typically can’t compete with incumbents on the best. But they can compete on different, so that's what they lean into.  If it ever happens, it’s unlikely Apple will ever choose to disrupt the iPhone. iPhone sales are 52% of Apple’s revenue. Disruption could kill the cash cow.   It will most likely be a startup that does unless Apple can maintain a culture of pushing disruptive innovation, even if it hurts in the short term. But I think that's unlikely now that a committee runs Apple.  Quick takeaway, you need both: - Sustaining Innovation to sustain or increase profit and keep customers happy. - Disruptive Innovation to stay or get ahead, and wow new or existing customers.  I recommend three videos and one article to dive deeper into these concepts: - [Clay Christensen's TEDx talk]( and [Harvard Business Review interview](, which inspired this newsletter. - George Hotz's take on Lex Fridman's podcast, where he discusses the difference between companies that are "alive" and can pivot (ex: Facebook pivoting to Meta) and innovate and companies that are "dead" and cannot (ex: Google being so focused on Search that it missed generative AI). [Here's the timestamp](. - Clay Christensen's theory narrowly focuses on innovative disruption in making things more accessible and undercutting the market. [Ben Thompson's 2013 critique of the theory]( says that's more true in B2B than B2C. Above, I discuss undercutting (Toyota and SpaceX) and drastic technological shifts (Tesla, digital cameras, OpenAI) as the two major forms of innovative disruption. What did you think of today's tactic? 😍 Loved it: Forward to a friend, or send a reply—a simple 😍 will do! If really helps. 🤷‍♀️ Meh: You can unsubscribe [here](), or manage your subscription [here](. 🤔 I'm new here: You can join the party [here](. Something fun  Sometimes seeing should not be believing.   How we can help you grow - Read our free [playbooks](, [blog articles](, and [teardowns](—we break down the strategies and tactics that fast-growing startups use to grow. - Enroll in the [Growth Program](, our marketing course that has helped 1,000+ founders get traction and scale revenue. - Become [UNIGNORABLE](. The April 22nd cohort of our audience building course is coming. The pre-sale sold out in 10 minutes. [Join the waitlist](. - Need help running ads? Work with our startup-friendly [ads agency](. - Get your product in front of startup founders by [sponsoring]( this newsletter. Thanks, everyone! We're back Friday with psychology-backed copywriting tips. [Neal]( [Neal O'Grady]( [Grace]( [Justin Setzer](   © 2024 Demand Curve, Inc. All rights reserved. 4460 Redwood Hwy, Suite 16-535, San Rafael, California, United States [Unsubscribe]() from all emails, including the newsletter, or [manage]( subscription preferences.

Marketing emails from demandcurve.com

View More
Sent On

30/05/2024

Sent On

28/05/2024

Sent On

23/05/2024

Sent On

21/05/2024

Sent On

16/05/2024

Sent On

09/05/2024

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2024 SimilarMail.